Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19890725 (\J(U RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 25. 1989 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Richard Compton, Graeme Means, Bruce Kerr, Michael Herron, Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Roger: I would like to know the status of our outdoor pigeon holes. I stopped by Saturday and of course City Hall was closed so I couldn't get my packet until Monday. Tom: I will look into it. Welton welcomed Richard Compton to the Board. I would entertain a motion to have Planning Office prepare a resolution thanking Jim Colombo for his service to the P&Z. MOTION /' I Roger: I so move: Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. HIGH ALTITUDE CUISINE CONDITIONAL USE PUBLIC HEARING Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Catherine McMann, Representing the applicant: The purpose of the C-1 zone is to provide for the establishment of commercial use that are not primarily oriented to the tourist population. We feel very strongly that our proposal fits this purpose as well as any proposal possibly could. --,,,,...,.. They intend to be open the year around. They intend to have the moderately priced restaurant so that it is affordable to most of the local residents. They are going to be open for 3 meals a day and they have this bakery/cafe combination which they think also caters to the local residents. /'. PZM7.25.89 There is a concern that there will be an expansion beyond what we are presently proposing--that we will get conditional use approval and then we will expand it beyond our proposal. There is no intention to do this. We are willing to guarantee that there is no intention to do this. Gordon has a commi tment to the whole concept. He is not interested in operating a second high-priced high-end restaurant in the City of Aspen. He is committed to this concept as we have proposed it. And it is not any kind of an end run around another high end restaurant. Another concern was what may happen in the future. One of the powers that you have under the Land Use Code is to condition your approval of this to a duration of time. You could take care of this problem by conditioning the approval just for the time frame in which Gordon intends to own or lease and operate this particular proposal. We are willing to go along with that. Even though it might be more marketable to sell it with a conditional use, we will live with the restriction that will limit to the duration of our operation. As far as all the commitments that we are willing to make there has been some concern about enforcement. We are willing to subject ourselves to the imposition of fines for the purpose of enforcement. If you don't like what we do then fine us for violations of our commi tments. We don't think it will be necessary but we are willing to commit to that. Another thing that you should keep in mind is that a restaurant is a permitted use in one zone only that makes any sense economically. And that is in the commercial core. The problem with that is that it is cost prohibitive for an operation of this sort that is moderately priced and open the year around. So that leaves us only with the C-1 Zone within which to make this an economically viable operation. It is not going to help to put it way on the other end of town because the viability depends upon its central location to the local businesses for the walk-in traffic at lunch time etc. So the C-l is really the feasible location for a business of this sort. We have overwhelming support from the immediate neighbors. We have presented a petition of 50 signatures of people that are right within that block. They are all overwhelmingly in favor of it. They have been informed as to what our plans are and how we intend to mitigate whatever impacts there are. .'''''',-," 2 PZM7.25.89 I presented additional petitions of 13 immediate neighbors also. There is also presented additional support by letter from an 18 year resident and owner of the building right next door who overwhelmingly supports our proposal. We also have local support from non-immediate neighbors--just locals in the City of Aspen. There are 60 signatures of that alone plus an additional couple of pages of signatures. So there is 80 to 100 signatures of people within the area supporting this idea. (Petitions attached in record) We have only had objections from 2 neighbors--Martin Flug and Leslie Troyer. We met with them this morning to try to work out with them their concerns in how we could overcome them and make our proposal. They still don't approve of our proposal. We ask that you keep this minimal objection in proportion to what the overwhelming support is. Also I think we can address specifically some of their concerns. The main objections are to the trash, the congestion, the odor and the pollution in the area. We want to be a good neighbor and we want this thing to work. As far as the trash proposal--BFI estimates that we are going to generate 2 cubic yards of trash that can be accommodated by 1 additional 2 yard dumpster which we propose to enclose. 2 for the 4 proposals for the trash removal involve the use of a compactor. Leslie has objected to the use of any kind of compactor. The Planning Office itself doesn't like the idea of the large one. They feel it would be better to have the enclosed smaller trash center because they are in the alley anyway. So I think we are down to the 2 alternatives which involve the configuration of how this trash would be designed in an aesthetic and serviceable way. We are willing to make the approval of these plans contingent upon Leslie Troyer's approval of the architectural sketches provided that her approval is not unreasonably withheld. We will even go so far as to have her architect design these sheds at our expense and we are willing to do that. Neither of those 2 proposals involve the elimination of a parking space. The grease disposal container would also be housed in that shed. We are also willing to commit to snowmelt around the garbage area and continuing on down to the delivery area to mitigate the concern that the weather would cause a problem. That way snow would not be in the way of the door or of getting in and out. As far as the grease disposal is concerned we have presented a letter from the Grand Valley By-Products Company stating they 3 PZM7.25.89 pick up the steel container approximately every 3 to 4 weeks. This container is picked up and removed and replaced by another. There is very little odor involved in this method of disposal provided that it is properly used. We will make the commitment to police this area and make sure that the employees do not contaminate the container with other contaminants and also that if there is spillages it will be cleaned up. Again if for some reason that there are any complaints or an inspection would reveal that we were not doing this, we would like to subject ourselves to the imposition of a fine. We are committed to making this a clean area. We have windows back there. There is talk about putting tables outside. We are not interested in having people sit out in a smelly area or open the windows and have a smelly area. So it is as much in our interest to have the area kept clean and odor free as it is for any of the neighbors. with the parking: In addition to our payment-in-lieu, we do agree to reserve the 3rd space for the employee's unit that will be on the 3rd level. Although we are not taking credit for providing that unit and cannot do so under the requirements of the code. We can't deed restrict it for economic reasons because it is a luxury apartment. It is planned on being used by an employee of the operation. We have proposed to designate this delivery area--there is 1 parking space adjacent to the trash removal area for delivery only. We would have no parking at all between 6 and 9 and we would post signs to that effect in order to service the garbage trucks. The letter from BFI states they will be out of the alley before 8:30 in the morning. So there shouldn't be any additional impact by the garbage. Between 9:00 and 6:00pm it would be reserved for delivery use only and it is our estimation that every single one of our delivery vehicles can pull in to that space and be out of the way of the alleyway so that the traffic could proceed. There is 1 truck that is too large to fit in it. It will make a delivery 1 time a week, possibly 2. We are going to request that they make their deliveries between 6 and 8:00 in the morning. We will tell them that deliveries will not be accepted after 8:00 in the morning. We are willing to do that and to post signs to that effect. Gordon: That is when this particular truck wants to deliver. They want to deliver early so it is not a problem to enforce them to do this. That is their choice to deliver that early in the morning. 4 PZM7.25.89 Catherine: minutes per or twice a space. Gordon: Our intention in designing this is that there is going to be a walk-in and storage facilities out back that are quickly accessible to the alley. And consequently deliveries will be much quicker deliveries than in a regular restaurant or business because they just have to go from the alley down a stairs and they are in. This walk-in will be inset into the ground with a storage facility. It will not be visible from the street and will be covered by lattice work so will be attractive to us as well as the other people coming down the alley. At the most excluding Sundays we anticipate 11 to 14 day to be taken up by delivery time. And only once week it would not be accommodated by that delivery Catherine: Odor: It is our intention to install what we have been told is the state of the art of equipment with the approval of the Environmental Health Department. Either of the 2 systems we have proposed to put in should achieve 90 to 95% effectiveness in removing odor, smoke and particulate emissions from the air. Bob Johnson of Summit Mechanical Systems in Glenwood has told us that either one will achieve that same success with the proper maintenance. We have agreed to enter into a maintenance contract with Summit Mechanical to maintain whichever system we put in to insure that it does operate efficiently and at the optimum level at which it was designed. Gordon: The rent from the apartment and the bakery, the cafe's rent would run approximately $24 a square foot or less which is very reasonable in terms of a cafe in this town and that is why we have engaged in this building. Jasmine: Who owns the building? Catherine: The building is presently owned by Alan Shada. We signed a lease with an option to buy within 2 years. Gordon: There will be approximately 80 to 100 seats and that is for the restaurant and bakery both. We will be open from 8:00am to 11:00pm. Jasmine: On the drawings there was an area shown for expansion in the back. Gordon: That is the deck for tables out there in the summer time. That is why we are very concerned about this alley being attractive. There may be 3 outdoor tables there. 5 PZM7.25.89 Graeme: Part of your presentation is that this will be a locally oriented restaurant. It is difficult to put limitations on this? Gordon: since we are open 12 months a year. Most of the people who come to Gordon's are there only 8 months a year. We will be open 12 months a year for breakfast, lunch and dinner. It has to be affordable to the greatest majority of the population. Prices would not change from season to season. It would maintain exactly the same. Jasmine: Obviously you have used the formula of employee generation that you were given. I find it really difficult to think that you are going to run an 80 to 100 seat restaurant that is open from 8am to llpm with 8.8 employees. That just doesn't make sense. Gordon: There is one fact to keep in mind. One of the motivations in opening up the second place is because we often lose very good employees at Gordon's when we close in the off season. They need to work the year around. We are going to adopt a scheduling system where we can rotate employees over from Gordon's to this cafe so that there will be vacations for everybody. Mari: In the previous application the employee housing was go~ng t be in existence only as long as the restaurant. Is this go~ng to be permanent now regardless of whatever happens to the restaurant. Catherine: Yes. Gordon has a commitment to provide housing for employees and would like to deed restrict with the deed restriction that is required and recommended by the employee housing authority. Michael: To answer Graeme's question--the last time we considered this was the application for DUdley's Diner to open in the building under Loretta's. I think that we did, as a condition of approval, require that they agree to maintain a restaurant on a moderately priced basis. Catherine: That is our intention. That is our commitment. Welton: I heard you say in your presentation a lot of guarantees. That it will not expand beyond the proposal and you will agree to be fined if it doesn't meet the parameters that you have outlined in your proposal. That you will allow the condition of the property owner across the alley approving the trash enclosure. On a situation like this I am wondering if we can work in a 1 year come-back-and-see-us-please. Let's talk 6 PZM7.25.89 - about it in a year's time kind of agreement as part of the conditions. Now we can make all sorts of things conditions of approval. Sometimes they have a habit of slipping through the cracks. If an automatic expiration of the conditional use permit kicks in in a year's time and we can see that, yes, this system really does do what you said it was going to do and what the people who are trying to sell you the system said it was going to do. That you really have mitigated to the best degree possible the trash situation. That, yes, this really is a local's oriented restaurant and you are not just using the exemption or using the provision that allows for a local's oriented restaurant in the commercial 1 zone to get you in the front door. We are all disappointed that the building that was built where the Texaco station used to be isn't quite as local oriented as we were led to believe. Catherine: That was an operation that came in from New York. We are local. Welton: But we want to find out if that sort of condition would be acceptable to you. That in a year's time we come back and review it and if these representations were not lived up to then your conditional use permit expires and you are out a lot of money. catherine: I think that that is a perfectly legitimate request and one that we would welcome. Welton re-opened the public hearing. Adam Walton: I feel like I qualify as an expert witness as regards to living in the vicinity and in the same building as a restaurant. My office is located and has been for 10 years in the Flora Dora Building. It is not easy living in the same building as a restaurant. My home is located at Spring and Hopkins which is 4 doors down from the applicant's proposed restaurant. I disagree with this nice lady's premise that a C-l Zone is intended for restaurants. As I understand it the Master Plan of 1966--the City of Aspen decided at that time that the C-l Zone should be a buffer zone between the commercial core and what was considered the Office District. We have kind of gotten away from that in the development that went in where Palazzi's was. I disagree that a restaurant is a local's use. It is a high-end use. I don't think there is a restaurant in town that can be supported on local clients only. Maybe the Hickory House. 7 PZM7.25.89 They have employees that come and go. They really don't give a damn. They get in a hurry. They throw their trash out. The policy now of bag trash has been a big help. But it doesn't always work. All the promises you make as the owner the fines aren't big enough to solve the problems of trash. The dumpsters get overfull and then it is allover the alley. I pick up trash every day out of my yard and sidewalk. I have almost a complete set of stemware from Abetone' s. But living in the vicinity of a restaurant is no easy task. It is not only the smells. They say they are going to mitigate the smells. In the Charlemagne Restaurant in that operation the landlord there are extremely good restaurateurs. They are good tenants. But they lost extremely good long-term tenants who had their office just above the trash area in the Flora Dora because of the constant smell. Rick Head, representing Carol Anne Jacobson: We have no objection to the use and, to the contrary, are strongly in favor of the application. Martin Flug, partner of ownership of the building next door at 616 East Hyman: We have what is now an office building there and I would like to believe my office opens earliest in the morning of any in Aspen and stays open latest of any in Aspen. We are very seriously concerned about the impacts that have been discussed here. The other side of the coin--I have to tell you that this morning we had a meeting with the people from Gordon's. And it really was one of the most interesting and delightful meetings I have ever attended with neighbors attempting to accommodate each other. It was not your normal adversarial meeting with people getting mad at each other or with people failing to see other people's point of view. I think Gordon's has made an attempt to try to accommodate the neighborhood. My concern is not their good intentions because I sincerely believe that they have all the best intentions in the world. My concern is that in some of the areas that we are talking about. If you work on the alley, you see what happens with BFI. They don't always make their schedule. They are not always out of there by 8:30. It doesn't always just take them 2 minutes to get the dumpster up. In the winter time it is very, very difficult for them to get the dumpster back where it wants to be. So the rest of us have to take our jeeps and push it back in place. All of these things probably have a mechanical solution which may be enforceable but beyond that there are areas that I 8 PZM7.25.89 think none of us have a solution to. The major one is the odors and the air pollution. And this is a very serious problem. I used to run a company that dealt with air pollution. We used to manufacture scrubbers and the like for static precipitators. It is a very expensive technology--one that can work within limits if you deal with a very specific flow into them. In terms of maintenance it takes a high degree of maintenance. Depending on the sophistication of the system it almost takes daily maintenance. I was present at the meeting at which the Restaurant Association of Aspen made a presentation on this subject to the Environmental Protection group at the time when there was an attempt to require some kind of scrubbers or electrostatic precipitators on the part of all restaurants. The presentation made by the John Walla and John Hamwi was to the effect that they had discovered nothing that could work. It was very expensive. Maintenance was prohibitive and there was no way of enforcing it once you had it in there. Their argument was that you would make us spend a lot of money and at the end of that it wouldn't work and you couldn't enforce it anyway because you couldn't measure odor. You couldn't measure many of the particulates. It was very difficult to define. Howard Guenther who used to own the Flora Dora--in order to get his grille built was required to put in an electrostatic precipitator by the city. I asked Howard "How does it work"? He said "It doesn't". It is just that simple. It may well be that there is a new technology that I am not familiar with that will handle all of these problems. I would be delighted if that were so. Not just for the sake of the people who work in the building that I work in but also on behalf of the rest of the people in Aspen if there is a technology that could be expanded to other areas. The question is should we be the ones that bear the risk of that. If you were the landlords and you had Gordon's come to you as a tenant and you owned an office building and you were to say to Gordon's "You can lease this space in our building but if, in fact, regardless of everything you do and regardless of your good intentions you produce odors and you produce problems for us to operate as an office building we will regard that as grounds for cancellation of the lease". Would Gordon's sign that lease? I don't know. When we talked about just that subject they said "We can use our best efforts and no more". I think it is commendable that they are doing what they are doing and using their best efforts. But I question whether you as landlords are willing to ........r 9 PZM7.25.89 let a tenant in who could stay in forever. Maybe for 1 year they could do whatever is necessary to maintain it. But what happens the year after if it is not maintained? And how do the rest of the tenants in your building feel? I spend the bulk of my life in my office and I am very, very sensitive as are people in my building to this concern. with reference to the overwhelming support that Catherine indicated that Gordon's has I would if in fact it were enforceable, sign the petition that they circulated because it made the assumption that all of these problems would be taken care of. The question is can these problems be taken care of? How can we enforce it? And if we can I have to say I have to be in favor of it. I just don't think we can. John Knowski, employee of Gordon's: I don't know how often you get a chance to hear from employees. I just moved to this town about a year and a half ago and I would like to stay here. But as you all know to live in this town is real expensive and it is very hard for us during the off season to be able to pay the rent and car payments and buy food. I think it is a sincere effort on the part of Gordon's to move into this building and open a restaurant that is going to be open the year around. That is going to keep us all in our jobs for the whole year. We don't have to worry about the off season and what we are going to do. Percentage-wise we have 15 to 20% of the total staff at Gordon's here now. I think I can speak for almost everybody in that we are all sincerely behind this effort to be able to have year around jobs in this town and make a step forward so that we don't have a transient community like we used to. Mark Tye, employee of Gordon's: I am one of the few employees who have been with Gordon's since day one. I have also been in town for 15 years. My comment is that we are committed to excellence in everything that we do and we are very proud to say that. I think that whatever we do in this new endeavor we will do very well and it is for that reason that I am behind it. We employees are here not because we had to be here but because we wanted to be here because we believe in where we work and what we do. Leslie Troyer: I also want to thank Gordon's for their extensive efforts but my concern is the same as Marty's is. That is that the best efforts don't always come out in the results that we want. 10 PZM7.25.89 I also want it on record that in my 20 years of living in that alley, this is the first time that Adam Walton and I are in agreement. I am very concerned. I have been in the alley for a long time. I am the only little old lady left in the alley. Pat Ward is gone and Anne Chapman is gone and I walk at night. I have a great concern that this will cause too much impact and I would like to keep it that way it has been for the last 20 years. Terry Butler: I am a resident who lives exactly 1 and 1/2 blocks from here above the Walnut House. I have some windows that look out to the ute City Bank. My work is in the same building and on the same level that Gordon's is which is exactly 1 block from here. I am exactly behind the Wheeler Opera House on the alley. So you might say that I am really a downtown person. I have lived in this area and worked in this area now for 2 years. My windows open every night across the street from Andre's and so at 2:00 when they close I get a roar--not a scream but a roar of the people coming out of Andre's. I have the music and the smells of Andre's coming on me until they close the restaurant. Then between 6:30 and 7:30 depending on how early BFI got up, I have the clanging up and down the alley of metal on metal while they are emptying the trash. In addition this summer I have had the alley totally torn up by the gas company and the electric company. And so I have a constant film of dirt that comes in my window every day that they are working. In addition in the winter when we sand I get the dirt as well. So I think that I am very aware of what it means to live downtown. I sympathize with Leslie in what she is about to go through. I know what it is like to live on an alley and work in an alley. I know what Gordon is cooking every day because I get that where I work. I get it also from Sirus at his restaurant. I get it from Cache cache, Gordon's and from Bentley's. So what I am saying is I choose to live downtown. I live right in the heart of the City and I think that we have to realize here that there are certain impacts that we are going to have to deal with if we do choose to live downtown. I am also a small business. I am very concerned with the shoulder seasons. So when Gordon came up with this idea to have a lower cost restaurant that he could rotate his employees around for the off season, I quite frankly think that we are going to have to decide here what is more important. We need to support the small business person and understand their plight with their employees 11 PZM7.25.89 which is one that we all have. And we have to try to get over the "Not in my back yard". I have got everything in my back yard and yet I still what Gordon is trying to do to hold onto his employees. we really have to look at that carefully. support I think John Olson: I have lived here for 12 years. Terry is in myoId apartment. I employ about 30 people as a contractor. I think our biggest problem with keeping good people locally is our shoulder seasons. The lifts that employ people periodically I think is why we end up with so many people that can't afford year around good housing. Our main problem for our employees housing problems is that everything is so seasonal. If people could work a real job year around, they could buy a house in Carbondale, have 2 cars in the garage, a wife and 3 kids and have a real life. But they can't afford to do that because they are employed very periodically. I am pro year-around employment operation any time we can get it. It would create good people with real lives. Marsha Lashwan: I am in an office in the building right next door and, in fact, on the back side of the building on the alley. I don't object to the restaurant going in. In all the times that I have been on the back side I never have had a problem with the owners of Abetone's. Up until 4 months ago I was right next to Abetone's on that side. After talking to them and hearing an explanation regarding their odors--I never noticed the odors from Abetone's and I don't think I will object to the smells from this restaurant. So I am in favor of this. Lennie Oates, representing Marty Flug and Troyers: We submitted a letter and that covers our position. Our position has not changed based upon what they have said. We prefer not to see the restaurant there although I would like to indicate that we are appreciative of their continuing efforts to try and mitigate. Downtown is not the C-l district. I think that the drafters of the code--both the professional and volunteer people recognized that. That is why they created different code districts and that is why they made it a conditional use to have a restaurant in the C-l district. with respect to the issue of what type of operation is going to run there they have said that they are going to have a rental of $24 a square foot. They told us this morning that their rental on the entire space is $10,000 per month. We have calculated 12 PZM7.25.89 that at 3,OOOsqft would indicate a total rent of $69,000 a year. It works out more like if their rent is $23 per square foot on the restaurant space then the apartment is going to run some 4 to $5,000 per month. And that is going to be occupied by an employee of the restaurant. This restaurant is going to have to generate at that kind of rental $10,000 a month. That restaurant will have to generate a tremendous volume of business in order to be a success and that is going to impact and change the character of the neighborhood. And the burden will ultimately fall on the people of the neighborhood. Andy Hecht: I am assisting Catherine McMann in representing Gordon's. It seems to me that the threshold question is if it is a conditional use in the C-l Zone. Gordon is willing to do everything that is technologically possible to mitigate the impacts. Why isn't it a conditional use if it can't be had under those circumstances? It seems to me we are asking Gordon to pay for all the sins of C- 1 restaurants that did not meet their commitments. And if Mezzoluna bothers you, it is not an appropriate C-l restaurant. But that is not what Gordon intends. I would like you to focus more on not the comings and goings but that that is what C-l is intended for. It is for local use. It is for businesses that can generate as much volume as they possibly can. Focus on the fact that they are mitigating. They are doing everything that is known in the technology for restaurant uses and I would like you to support this. Sunny Vann, representing Leslie Troyer: I brought up some of the original concerns regarding the trash area, delivery times etc. at your last meetings. I believe some of the things these people have come up with represents a best effort and the use of techniques and so forth to address some of the concerns. The additional commitments which K.G. made here this afternoon I believe are also indicative of their awareness of the problems in this area. with that in mind I would encourage you to incorporate those representations as conditions of this approval. I would also endorse some type of periodic review on this date to insure that they are being addressed. The problem, of course, is that if it works everybody is happy. If it doesn't work then the adjacent property owners have to call the city and complain about things which are not consistent with the original approval. Rickie Little: year resident I am assistant manager at Gordon's. I am a 19 of Aspen. In my research to find what the 13 PZM7.25.89 requirements were I came up with that fact that there were no requirements. There were no requirements except to mitigate the impacts. We have found that the technology has advanced rapidly year by year. This system that we have found will be checked by Environmental Health and is the best system available. At the current time there isn't anything in town that maintains more than 50% control on emission. Charlemagne doesn't have one and the Grille doesn't have one that are operating. The electrostatic--whatever it is--doesn't work by itself. It needs to have this new technology with it. So I think you should not only by receptive to the fact that we are trying to bring in the latest technology but that our intentions are supported by our experience. We have worked hard in having a quality operation where we exist now. It is in our own best interest that our restaurant will have open windows that will let in odors and from which you could see garbage and is not attractive to our clients either. So that is a primary reason that our own restaurant not be insulted by these things that offend all of us. catherine McMann: I would just like to say that we have shown you evidence and you have heard a very small amount of the overwhelming support that we have. You have heard exactly 3 objections. One of them comes from a person who lives in the commercial area. No matter what we say about this zone, the name of it is c-l--commercial. As Terry Butler pointed out if someone chooses to live in that kind of a zone, there are going to be more impacts other than if they go into a single family zone. The second one came from someone who has developed the area with multi-million dollar townhomes. Again, if someone purchases that townhome in this zone they are going to have to put up with what the area is designed for. Marty Flug is the 3rd person who has objected. And he claims that one of the reasons he is so concerned is that he spends the majority of his life there. Well, this is a commercial zone. We have 3 people who have objected to it. support it. We have hundreds who Welton entered into the record letters from Robert Starodoj, G.T. Mortell, Pitkin County Title, The Ranch Home outfitters, Linda H. Niven, owner, Janet A. Roberts, Dianne Light, on behalf of Light, Culbertson, Ritchie and Associates, Aspen Activities Center, Aspen Pacific Group, Goodrich Taylor, Carol Ann Koff, Don and Jeannie Lemos, Sandi Nickel, Jane smith, and Chuck Besanty. There are a petitions in opposition and in support of the application. Some letters are stating concerns regarding this application rather than saying they are dead set against it. .,.".-' 14 PZM7.25.89 "_,..,c' others are in support of the application. petitions are attached in the record) Welton closed the public portion of the meeting. (All letters and Roger: I have a problem with that in the C-l Zone when it comes to restaurants. We are already of a density of restaurants in the C-l Zone--6 restaurants in 1 and 1/2 blocks. That approaches the density of the C-C Zone. One of the conditions for a conditional use is to prevent it from becoming a restaurant zone. That is one of the intentions of making it a conditional use. So somewhere in this whole thing you get to a point where one more is too much. I think we should identify when enough is enough and removing restaurants as a conditional use in the C-l Zone. We are at the point where it is too much. Regarding access to service activities: In this case for this type of restaurant I think it is perfectly adequate. I have no problem with a restaurant serving beer and wine. But I do have a problem with a restaurant setting up a regular spirits bar. That I would consider an expansion of conditional use. Gordon: We will have a small service bar with 3 stools. We are not intending to put a bar in there. We do not feel a bar would work in this space at all. It doesn't work with a cafe. It is not what we are trying to do. We will probably go for a full liquor license but we are not headed in the direction of a bar. It is designed as 2 and 1/2 to 3ft long. Roger: I consider a full spirit license an expansion of conditional us in the C-l Zone. Michael: I don't understand why there is a difference if somebody could eat dinner and glass of wine or get a hard drink. But I certainly understand that there is a difference between operating a bar like there is up in Gordon's where people come in and out all evening and the added traffic generation. If your concern is only the fact that they have that bar operation I am sure they would agree that we make that a review condition in a year. Mari: I think the atmosphere here will determine whether it is going to be a rowdy bar or not. Gordon: We are trying to create a feeling of a place in terms of it being a cafe. I don't think anyone would go in there to have 15 PZM7.25.89 a rowdy evening. That is our feeling if that helps in defining the liquor situation. Welton: You have reviewed these conditions of approval that were outlined by the Planning Office-- catherine: We are in total willingness to comply with all of the conditions. MOTION Bruce: I will move to approve the conditional use for one year to be reviewed by Planning & zoning commission at the end of one year for possible continued use of the project proposed, Rebecca's Breakfast cafe, subject to conditions 1 through 12 of the Planning Office memo dated July 25, 1989. (Attached in record) Also subject to all the representations and guarantees made by the applicant and applicant's representatives which are a part of the public record and subject to condition 13 that the bar space be no larger than shown on the drawings included as part of this packet. (Attached in record) Michael seconded the motion. I wish to re-state why. When I took a look at the application I also took a look at what is allowed by right in the C-l Zone. And when you take a look at hardware store and paint store and book store--all the other uses that we would allow there that would have tremendous impacts almost as great as this impact without doing any mitigation insofar as employee housing goes or parking or trash. They would come in as a matter of right. It seems to me that this applicant has come in under the code, has made an application, has been agreeable to do everything possible to mitigate any of the impacts and that our code was established in this purpose to allow this kind of use in the zone and that what we are getting here is employee housing. We are getting some parking. We are getting some improvements to the alley and I support them on that basis. Jasmine: I would like to see an employee audit added as one of the review criteria for informational purposes and also for the need perhaps for them to provide additional employee housing should the need arise as very similar with the bakery on Main street and the Ritz. I think we need this information both in general and for this particular operation. If, in fact, there are no impacts then they don't have to do anything about it. But if, in fact, they do come up with more 16 PZM7.25.89 than 1.9 additional employees then I believe they have to mitigate that impact. Graeme asked for a comment from the Environmental Health Department. Rick Bossingham: As far as addressing the air quality concerns, I think they can be addressed. They have not gotten to the point in plans where they are detailed enough in their plans that they can spec equipment to control the odors and particulates. control is not 100%. You generally say 90 to 95% control and the big key on that is maintenance. So I believe they can be addressed but it is not going to be no odors or no smoke. Roger: I would like a clarification of the service bar. Is that an over-the-counter bar for spirits or is that a service bar for coffee, food and things like that. Where are you going to be actually making up and dispensing the drinks? Is it at that service bar or is it going to be somewhere else. -, ,../ Gordon: Do you remember Gordon's before we built the small little bar that we have? It is that but smaller. And it won't be food at that place. There is going to be a counter downstairs. On that level it will be a smaller area with a bartender standing there which would be a little smaller than the one Gordon's had previously. We consider it to be a service bar. We do not consider it a public bar. When someone comes in and their table should not be available, it would be used for that. Bruce: That is also modified by the representations and guarantees made by the applicant that they are going to allow one of the opponents to have an architect design the whole thing to their satisfaction. Catherine: We still intend to accommodate the buildings on either side of us that have been accommodated by the one dumpster all along. What we are proposing to do is to put in an additional one along with the present one that is sitting out very visibly and ugly in the alley and put it in a more attractive enclosure. We will be in charge of maintaining it. So it should represent an improvement over the present situation. Martin: It is my dumpster you are talking about. I honestly think that if the 2 parties can get together, I would not be worried about our being able to come up with something in that area. I think that can be done. Catherine: We have agree that we will use Leslie's architect and have it subject to her approval so long as it wasn't unreasonable. 17 PZM7.25.89 Leslie: I would like to amend the language of recommendation #10. When we talked about the trash and utilities service area I originally said "Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy". I would like it to read "Prior to issuance of building permit" that the trash service area be resolved. Bruce: I amend my motion. Michael: I amend my second. Jasmine: Does your motion include an employee audit? Bruce: It does not. Nobody--the seconder did not agree. All voted in favor of the motion except Roger and Jasmine. AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY/ZONE DISTRICT PUBLIC HEARING There was discussion between Tom Baker of the Planning Department and the P&Z members regarding the zone district. -',-, Tom: What I would like now is some direction. Roger identified that we would identify what the worst case scenario would be. However, that would be adjusted based upon the annual guideline-- the annual targets that the Housing Authority sets up in their guidelines. Under dimensional requirements--we originally started out with on lots of 27,OOOsqft or less which is exactly what Ord.47 shows in terms of density that are required for unit size. The thing that we have inserted in there based upon our discussions with Perry and our realization about the Billings property that perhaps we need to, by special review, increase that. That would be at P&Z's and Council's discretion. We have tried to address concerns about side yards. We wanted to provide flexibility for the 0 lot line developments. The concern was how about on the perimeter where people have certain side yards based upon zone district that we maintain that side yard consistent in those perimeter areas. The open space--we have reduced the open space to 25%. The RMF zone district has a 35%. We have also included some language in there that says that open space can be used for parking and that would be a special review. What Alan is saying is that we ought to target a percentage. 50% of the open space or 25% of the open space. And of that we need 18 PZM7.25.89 to develop special review criteria--more intensive landscaping. Any open space that is remaining on the site has to be really usable. We want to have the residents--give them some usable open space. What I will do is write special review criteria that addresses the increase lot size for the higher density for the use of open space for parking as well. Michael: I would like to see the special review take in up to 100% of the open space. I think there are areas or parks in this County where it may be appropriate to turn around and say that we don't have any need at all to make somebody have open space. If it is somebody who is across from Wagner Park or something they don't have to be concerned about it. We need to be more concerned about parking. Jasmine: I agree. And we talk about usable open spaces as for passive recreation and to me that is really not as important as the attractiveness of the open space. My building has 8 units and a big parking lot in front. There is a little strip of green with a bunch of trees. Now nobody can use that for anything but it looks nice. And nobody seems to miss not having swings and a teeter totter in the area. I think in a lot of these instances even if you are not right next to Wagner Park, you do have other recreational opportunities. And if you try to squish everything into the open space you wind up with not enough to please anybody. I think that in a situation like this the open space should be attractive and eye relieving rather than passive recreational. This would give relief from paved surfaces or building surfaces. Tom: I heard the last time from Jasmine that if we are going to use the open space for parking then there ought to be some intensive landscaping around it. Graeme: I would be reluctant to waive beyond a certain degree of open space. I agree with Jasmine. Even if it is not really used it provides a setting for a building. It provides some landscaping, grass and everything else and the more hard surfacing you get, the noisier it is, the dirtier it is, the more runoff problems, the less oxygen--all these different things. Perry: You have got setbacks which do provide some relief. Welton: Setbacks can be used for parking. Tom: Setbacks can be used for parking and they can be used for open space. But they can't be used for both right now. 19 --" PZM7.25.89 Welton: A 5ft setback can't be used for fitting a car in but it can provide a 5ft space of landscaping--a softening of the building. Tom: How do you feel about percentage? Welton: good. I hate to come up with arbitrary numbers which sound Jasmine: I don't think we need one. site-by-site consideration I think you have to go Welton: By leaving it undefined in this regard maybe that one person that can make a case, can make a case. Perry: My concern in this is the maximum height of 25ft. That is the lowest height requirement in the city in any zone. What happens with 25ft is you get into a 3 story building and you have got a garden level. You have somebody living in basements. The LTR Zone is 28ft as it exists right now. I would like to recommend whether it is by special review or whatever up to 30ft. This gives you 310ft floors and you can get people out of the basement so that they are on grade. Tom: I hear what Perry is saying and I think he is right. We could do it by special review up to 30. I think the bottom line is that we want this affordable housing zone to mirror what is happening around it and not set a precedent. Roger: I am not sure if 30ft is a good number to use. The top floor if it has other than a flat roof you are 35 at the peak but it still technically 28ft. So I worry about specifying 30ft because that actually allows a peaked roof on top of that where that peak roof should be allowed as ceiling space for the top floor units. I don't have a problem coming up a little more than 25ft but let's assume as opposed to a flat roof that it is going to be a peak roof and they use that peak space for the top units. Tom: I think that by special review--you have to look at with a flat roof is 30ft appropriate. And if it is a peak roof they are going to be 35ft and is that appropriate. And it is still special review. Graeme: I think there are going to be a lot of these categories where there are going to be these kind of questions. Tom: What I would see happening is that I would indicate the areas that can be changed by special review and that in the special review article 7-4 I would write for affordable housing ,~' 20 PZM7.25.89 zone districts to increase the lot size for the higher density I would have as special review criteria in that section of the code for all the elements here that are subject to review so that P&Z can waive a development proposal. FAR--O to 27, OOOsqft lots--you go to 1.1 to 1 FAR. there is not a big bonus in FAR here. The real bonus in district is in density. I think that is appropriate. over 1.1 to 1 probably isn't going to fit in anyway. That . 1. the zone Anything And then the 27,OOOsqft to an acre--is at .36 but increasable up to 1 to 1 by special review. Off street parking: Bill Tuite's concern is that we give the developer a maximum he could be hit for but be able to reduce it by special review. What we have come up with is a 1 space per bedroom or 2 spaces for dwelling unit whichever is less. And that can be reduced by special review given the nature of the project. Also we could do the storage as opposed to the actual parking. Perry: If we have this zone district which I think is coming together and it has got all these special review variations where is someone going to use the overlay? Tom: Good question. But we always looked at the overlay as primarily the west end. That is what we have really focused on. A pure residential neighborhood. The Billings property is much different than the west end. This would be a zone district that would apply naturally to those areas. To take this zone district and apply it to the west end you have the right to do--on a l2,OOOsqft lot you could do huge densities on that. Our intention with the overlay is designed to be more sensitive to the mature neighborhoods. You have the right to do certain things in the AH zone. You could come in on l2,OOOsqft lot and put in 30 studios. That would be appropriate. It certainly wouldn't be appropriate in a mature single family area. We wanted to have something that was more sensitive to that. Tom: The action I need is two-fold. district to council and to continue the overlay. One to send the zone public hearing for the MOTION Welton: I would entertain a motion to send the zone district to Council. 21 PZM7.25.89 ... Mari: I so move. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. Welton continued the public hearing on the affordable housing overlay to 15th of August. Meeting was adjourned. -~ 22