Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19891121 ~f RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21. 1989 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Richard Compton, Michael Herron Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Bruce Kerr and Graeme Means were excused. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie: Presented 2 resolutions. 1001 ute Avenue for review of language concerning the 99 year lease on the tennis courts. It has been changed that the Planning Dept cannot accept any development applications--no development on the site. Michael: Did the city Attorney say that that was legal? Leslie: He has not seen this but in discussion with him he thought it was OK. Welton: What does the applicant say to this? Leslie: They like it a little bit better. Welton: They dislike it less intensely. Leslie: Yes. Less intensely. In this respect if there ever is something that someone wants to do that the City wants to see there then we have the ability to review it. Michael: Why don't you say you can accept an application to consider development if that is what you intend. Welton: Now it reads as if there is no point in making a land use application. If there can be no development on the property then what is the point in making an application even if you can accept it. You can accept it for something that can't be done until 2083. Leslie: That is the intention. Roger: Maybe that is the way it should be said--it is the intention that no development should occur on the site until 2083. Michael: If that is what you are going to do, then fine. PZM11. 21. 89 Roger: Whereas the intention of the city to allow no on the site until 2083 and just leave it at that. what our intentions are at this point. development That shows Leslie: A site visit for Hoag Lot 3 will be 4:00pm on December 5. There is a regular P&Z meeting at 4:30 that day. There will be a city van for this visit. I have one more resolution. We are taking to Council on the 27th the Residential GMP scoring. I did a resolution from you all to Council for the scoring and I did one resolution for both projects. This was for the Sportstalker and the Greystones. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES OCTOBER 17. 1989 Roger made a motion to adopt minutes of October 17, 1989. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. CONSENT AGENDA EXPLORE BOOKSELLER GMOS EXEMPTION Jasmine asked the representative of the applicant if there were any issues regarding the conditions of the Planning Dept. memo. The answer was no. Bill Dunaway: It is confusing in your memo whether or not they are supplying employee housing now and having it deed restricted or in the future. Michael: I think they are paying aren't they? Leslie: They must either deed restrict a unit for .92 or they must pay the cash-in-lieu. The restriction must file with the City Attorney and they have the paying cash-in-lieu and provide deed restriction acceptance of building permit application. employees that they option of prior to MOTION Roger: I move to adopt the consent agenda. Michael seconded the motion with all in favor. 2 PZMll.21.89 PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENT TO LAND USE CODE SECTION 1-104CBl Welton opened the public hearing. Francis Krizmanich: Made presentation as attached in record. Basically what it says is--the building permit--if you have got a building permit in the Building Dept and city council changes FAR the method they calculate it that code section is saying that if it was in before the Code Amendment it gets calculated pursuant to the previous code. Likewise the development application--if it is in the process but we make a code amendment before it is finally approved that could affect the application in the way it is reviewed. Whereas this section in the code says if we have an application that has been submitted and accepted that it falls under the rules that were in effect at the time. So basically it means that anything that is in the process doesn't get affected by any rule changes. Council basically requested the staff to look at that and see if it was necessary to keep that section in the code as a requirement of the vested rights bill. The city Attorney doesn't think so. We have 2 other provisions in the code that deal with vested rights that cover the State Statute requirements. About a year ago the State passed Senate Bill No. 219 and the idea from the State was that developers would have some surety if they came in with a project that what got approved they could actually go and build. It had to do with Lakewood where they had votes that turned down some very large projects that had been in the process for a year or 2 and then they had a public vote and they basically denied projects by referendum. That has happened a couple of times across the State. As a result of that the State passed this bill that says that if you approve final development plan and it is up to the community to decide what that is then once that is approved they have that right to build it for 3 years. You can't change it--you can't have a vote of the public and pull it away. This doesn't really have anything to do with the State requirement. Mari: If you have got an approval you can have an approval even before you had an application for the permit. Francis: We can change floor areas for instance. You could have a subdivision approved with a whole bunch of lots and they could 3 PZM11. 21. 89 allow 10,000sqft houses and we might reduce FARs in the City and then all of a sudden they could have only say 10, OOOsqft of houses. (That is what he said) Michael: I don't think this code section # 1, addresses that specific concern. And #2, I think that eliminating this code section is about the ugliest thing I think we have done on P&Z since I have been here. Because what that says is--is that if you have gone ahead and hired an architect and he has gone ahead with a land planner and interpreted the code and as a result of that interpretation submits plans and you spend the money to do it and you submit them to the Building Dept and we know that the Building Dept here is backed up and it takes 4 months to get anything out of them, and in that period of time if City Council decides for one reason or another to change the code that you don't have the protection of being submitted. That is what this section does and I think that is horribly unfair. That means that until you get a building permit and until, according to state law, you rely on that by doing almost more than just spending the money to get it that you have no rights to anything. All it means is that we can change the rules at any time and I think that is unfair. Mari: But doesn't the state law say that once you have an approval-- Michael: No. It requires the approval plus reliance which is something that the judge decides. I would like to see us not going into court and not spending money with lawyers. I would like to think that we are going to be fair in what we do. And if people come by and take a look at the code and go to the Planning Office and get advice as to what to do and submit plans based upon that and spend a fortune with land planners and architects and lawyers to get to that stage that they are entitled to rely on that. We are not entitled to come in and change the rules on them and tell them "Now go argue with some judge that you have gotten reliance on the vesting statute." Roger: That is exactly one of the reasons I talked with Amy just before this meeting. One of the problems I have with this because I am not seeing what this relates to what we have left in the code at this point. Do we have that protection left in the code right now? I am not seeing it. Francis: That is exactly what Council is talking about. That is taking away that protection. Roger: Then I have real problems with that. Because there are a lot of approvals that go through that the developer doesn't want 4 PZM11.21.89 to go through the hassle of getting vested rights through the full ordinance and all of that mess. Certainly a large developer should do that sort of thing. Francis: In fact every development is required by state law to do it. It is not your choice to do it or not. We have to vest rights in 14 days for anything we give development order to. So it is not like a choice of the applicant to hang out for 3 years and come in later and ask for his vested rights ordinance. Roger: But the vested rights occur as a result of an ordinance. Does that mean every development in this town is accomplished by ordinance? Francis: It is how the town says. Whether the town says ordinance or resolution. That is kind of irrelevant whether it is resolution or ordinance. They got to do it either way. Everything you approve that is a development that gets a final development order basically should have a vested rights. Amy: The point at which State says is reasonable is the time of approval. Our code says the time the application is submitted. It is a policy decision here as to whether or not you want to provide immunity to those projects when they come in with their application or when they get their approval. You could have people come with their application that could take 2 or 3 years. A lot of things could change during that period prlor to their getting approval and yet they are in under the old rules which mayor may not be fair. The Attorney's office felt that when push came to shove from a legal perspective that the State Statute would be what would be looked at in terms of whether or not it would work. Mari: In other words once you have an approval you have a protection from changing rules under the State law. Amy: That is my reading of what is in our code-it deals with final approval. Mari: So the part about once you go in for a building permit is just kind of redundant because you are not going to go in for a building permit unless you have an approval. Michael: If you have a residence or a duplex that you don't have to come in for you just submit your plans. You don't have an approval until they issue it. So what they are saying is now while you have done that and spent money to do that, if city 5 PZM11. 21. 89 Council determines that they want to change those rules and say you can no longer have anything but a 1 story house-- Amy: have come It is just the point at which the rules change. You always a cutoff point. It is just the point at where who gets to under the new rules and who doesn't is the real issue. Francis: What this is doing--in the case of a particular house for instance--what the vested rights doesn't do is says if you have a building permit application that has been validly accepted and it is in the office if the City changes floor areas-I couldn't use the new floor area, I would have to go by the one that it was submitted under. Roger: It doesn't say that. It says you can use the old rules and we have had a case where people have submitted themselves to the new rules but it was their choice in that case. But if they submitted under the old rules they were entitled to progress under the old rules. Francis: The potential here is to not allow them--whether that happens or not--what we will do basically is go back to the old way which is no firm rule on whether your application gets reviewed under newly adopted FAR or under the old rules. It won't say that in the code anymore. And the standard common law kind of standard is that they usually go with things like a foundation being in the ground or something like that. Not just significant expenditure--having plans drawn up usually doesn't protect you from a change of the rules. Roger: In this case a building permit doesn't protect you. Francis: Exactly. Right. Roger: That is the problem. Michael: As another example, if you had a duplex lot and you submitted plans to get it built and it is in the hopper and we pass that ordinance we worked on last week that makes one of them an affordable unit, well then what they are saying is then all of a sudden you are not on the rules that you were when you submitted but you are under the rules as they have been changed. Roger: Yes and I think that is wrong. Michael: So do I. Richard: Confused--so you can get a building permit but that doesn't constitute final approval? 6 PZMll. 21. 89 Michael: It doesn't constitute a vested right if you don't do anything else with that. You get a permit--which is good for 18 months or 6 months. Richard: That is fine with me because what we are seeing is with the kind of down zoning pressure happening in this town now, people are getting in with whatever kind of application they can to "beat the lottery" basically. Michael: You might as well extend until people have built their houses. Now they have to tear them down to comply with the new rules too. Where do you stop it? Where do you act fair toward people? You can get a full building permit with final approval and what this code now says is if they change the rules, your permit is toilet paper. The full permit--if you haven't gone ahead and gotten it vested either under the state statue or common law. Francis: An approved permit would be that it is done. approved but a permit that is not finished-- It is Michael: Isn't vested under common law unless you have public hearings on it. Francis: It is very unlikely that we are going to go through all of the permits that we have issued and yank them. Roger: And they are to trust your likeliness? I don't mean that personally. Francis: No. And that is the exact issue. That is that you could have a very large project and this speaks toward the Ritz. If they have to re-apply and you have changed the rules for whatever zone district they are in, it could affect the new application. That is an extreme example of where it might do something the community might want or might now want. And that gives them more flexibility as opposed to having it required to be reviewed under the old rules. Mari: I think the problem is we are trying to catch all the big fish and the little fish in the same net. And I think that what this is intended is to in the case of a project that drags on for 10 years with amendments and so on and meanwhile the town is changing and the conditions are changing that there should be a way to bring a project that has been in the process for 10 years into compliance with the rules that have evolved in those 10 years. A way to look at it would be to direct the Planning Office to come up with a different set of language that would give maybe a 7 PZM11.21.89 time limit for how long something can be in a process before they have to go by the new rules. Francis: If you are thinking about the hotel for instance, that is where the vested rights rule comes in. They go through all of the process, they get their final development order and we pass an ordinance and they are protected for 3 years. After that it is kind of open again. That is where the state vested rights statute came from. Then again you have got this other aspect of what do you do in the meantime if even over 10 years it is a huge project and they are working on it rather diligently but we changed the rules. They have to come in for second phase or they want to do additions or something like that. Maybe we changed the height and they aren't up to the height limit yet. And we decided to lower maximum height. But under what we have now anything that is in is in and you can't change it. Welton: What you are proposing is basically saying that a land use code that has been so fluid over the last 3 years that nobody really know what is going on becomes 10 times more fluid. Because not only do you not necessarily understand the most recent changes but anything that happens in the next 2 months or 6 months to do a little addition to a little store downtown or do a bedroom addition in the west end that, as Mari said, even the little fish are scratching their heads trying to anticipate what the Council is going to come up with next so they can take one step forward on the right direction. This is saying that there is no solid ground in front of you. It could all change at a moment's notice at any time in the future and no matter what you do, you could be sent back to square one without having any concrete set of rules to start from. For that reason I go with Mickey. It just makes me feel extremely uncomfortable. I can understand why it could be a good idea in some circumstances. But the kind of uncertainty that it lends to the Land Use applications in this community would be just a nightmare for anybody processing them and for anybody no matter how small the project. Michael: The proof of the pudding if we are concerned about somebody like the Ritz which hasn't gotten very far-now we have got a judge who says they have no approval. So if we are concerned about what happened with the Ritz, they didn't get into anything by virtue of any of these regulations other than they are in deep cah-cah. That is about the best they have gotten out of our code right now. So this certainly hasn't helped to 8 PZM11. 21. 89 protect them. And the vested rights ordinance isn't going to help anybody that doesn't have vested rights. You don't have vested rights unless there is a public hearing with it. Most of your residential don't involve public hearings. There is never a vested right involved in that kind of an application. Roger: Addressing large projects that go on for years. ~ay~e there is a different way of addressing that. Part of that lS ln the initial approval process. You approve a phase one knowing that there is going to be a phase 2, 3 or 4. And indicating that the following phases may be subject to the changing law. Michael: Well, you don't get any approvals for any subsequent phases. All you do is get a permit and if you don't work on it in 6 months you are out anyway. If you are a project that is big enough then you are going to go under the state statute that is vested by public hearing. And then the city can't affect you for 3 years no matter what we do here either. Francis: I didn't talk to Council. I don't know what their goal is. I am not sure whether they are trying to weave a net for whales or sardines. I think the net that they are trying to weave is one that allows them to make some of the code changes that they are looking to make and they want to catch the maximum number of people in those code changes. And this will help that. It doesn't help the guy that can't whip out plans in a week. Maybe he is doing it himself and it takes 6 months and he comes in then and finds out the rules are changed. Welton: If you come in 6 months later and the rules are changed then that is your tough luck. But if you have had your plans sitting on the counter in the Building Dept for 6 months and they haven't gotten to them yet and the rules change then there is no way you could have anticipated what those rules would be when you made a good faith effort when you applied. Mari: Then you think a proper cut off point is when the plans are in the Building Dept. This has 5 different cutoffs. Welton: For most small individuals that are already most confused by the land use code as it is--a building permit application is the only approval that is required from the city. Dunaway: According to building permit reliance that still remains. Sandy's letter to Amy Margerum the is found in another section of code so Roger: Yes. But that substantial reliance. is the problem--building permit plus 9 PZM11.21.89 Dunaway: permit. Michael: What about peo Ie who are waiting to get a building permit after they have sp nt all that money? Well, you have reliance any time you have a building Roger: That is our pr problem is exactly as Mic devil who has submitted Building Dept. They take and 1/2 months down the the rules in him. There She has addressed it and our ey explained. What happens to the poor is plans to the existing rules to the maybe 4 months in their process. But 3 ine the city Council decides to change as been substantial reliance. Francis: For P&Z' s inf rmation the section 13--basically that sets out the standard com on law approach to how building permits work and stuff. In any municipality that doesn't say anything about it relies on that k'nd of thing as in section 13 that says that unless you have in a foundation and spent a whole lot of money, we can jerk the p rmit. That is what it says. And most people go by that. The C unty does that. Although I would tell you that since I do Cou ty projects we never pulled a County application that was su mitted and in the process because we changed the rules. But i is definitely a possibility. Welton: This is a the public. hearing. We will take comments from Amy: It is not uncommon to have that period between application submittal and approval. If the rules change--the approval reflects those new rule --puts conditions on them to reflect those new rules at the ti e of approval. The basic issue is wheth r people the ability to kno submit their application. you want to be more lenient and give what the rules are when they actually Welton: That would be re I kind. Joe Krabacher: My feeli g is on the delay at the Building Dept level that all final de elopment approvals should be combined with the application for vesting of rights. Once you get the final development approv I you get vesting rights at the same time. I would think that would take care of that. I think it is unfair to c1ange the rules after you have submitted to the Building Dept. ou have spent a lot of money planning your project. You submit on what the rules are now and to change those rules midstream I hink is unfair. I realize it is legal to do based upon our exi~ting vesting Rights legislation but if 10 PZM11. 21. 89 you look at the actions that the Council has taken or the commissioners have taken whenever they get around to a maj or change like that you get a bunch of people come in and say it is unfair for you to catch me in the middle here and typically they exempt all of those people out anyhow. Sally Roach: I am really quite horrified to find this because at some point the public has to have something they can rely on coming from the city. And for the amount of money and time and effort that goes into even planning a single family residence, once you have submitted it surely we should be confident that the city is not going to pull the rug out from under us. It is like being invited to a game and everybody says we are going to have this game but we are not going to tell you what the rules are. So I find this to be extremely unfair and I can't believe that--it is something that should not even be considered. Roger: I might add that we have discussed this before way back when. And we came up with the same conclusion that what is generally fair is that once the proposal is submitted to the Building Dept that they go by the rules on the date that it was submitted to the Building Dept for a building permit. I think those are fair rules. Dunaway: Your Vested Interest Law states your vesting starts when you get final approval. Most proj ects don't submit their building application till they have final approval. So it doesn't really change for the maj ori ty of proj ects--only the projects that are so big that they need a series of building permits. Very few people go submit for a building permit before they have approval. And approval starts the vesting. Roger: Hang on a second. Approval of what? things that you can do to your house that Planning Dept approval other than going down building permit. There are certain don't require any and applying for a Amy: Maybe what we should do is try to differentiate between building permits and other approvals. Welton: I have a zerox of the definition page. Final development order--what is a final development order? Is that final PUD approval, final SPA approval--is it one of the above? Is it none of the above? Mari: For me I feel that it is reasonable that once a submission has been made to the Building Dept no matter whether it is a single family house or a large project that the person can rely that the rules won't be changed from that point. I think that 11 PZM11. 21. 89 may be the point where the barrier is erected because with a larger project if it drags on for 10 years then you still have the opportunity to require the present regulations are followed. At the approval the very next thing is to submit to the Building Dept. So maybe that is the place where it ought to go in. Roger: Dept." Maybe stated "Final approval or submittal to the Building Because that would take care of both of them. Francis: Final approval is taken care of by the vested rights. Mari: So that is already taken care of so all we are talking about now is small projects. Francis: I am getting the feeling from 4 of you that you think that it is pretty reasonable to allow a building permit application that has been accepted to go through under the rules that it was accepted under. Welton: Not based on what the law mav be--not on what the law is not right now. You have to do it based on what the law is in effect. Francis: So that is I think what we have separated out. And that is one thing that I hear is the building permit thing seems to be like you would like to keep that protection. That is Number One. We have got 5 of them. The number two is the approved final development order. That is the part that is talked about in the other section of the code that covers vested rights. That is totally redundant. Number 3 is the development applications and building permit applications. We have talked about the building permits but we haven't talked about is what about a development application that say has gone through conceptual review and then we decide to cut the height limits in half or raise the height limits. Should they be allowed to recapture the change or should they be affected by the negative change. Michael: What really concerns me is going to all the specifics. The city hired a consultant and they paid a fortune to come up with this code and this is not one of the specifics of the code that we are intending to deal with from time to time like FAR and lot size and whatever. I would like to sit down right now with Alan and ask him why we have this in there specifically. But I know from my recollection of the time we did it is we did it at the time so that projects that were in the mill already were protected from what we are 12 PZM11. 21. 89 doing now. And it really concerns me as to why we are doing this now. If one of the sections is inapplicable, it isn't hurting anything by being there. And I am just suspicious as to why we are trying to take it out. I don't understand why and it bothers me. Francis: Council wants to be able to change the rules and they don't want to vest rights more than what the state Legislation says we have to vest rights. The city Attorney's opinion is that you can ditch this whole chapter. It doesn't affect the city's liability. It is legal-that kind of stuff. I talked to him about changing the wording and he said "No, Council wants it deleted". You apply under the rules you have got. If the rules we are thinking about changing--we can't do anything in our review of the project--we cant review it based on rules we are thinking about it though. But if the rules do get adopted and changed it that gives you the opportunity to apply those rules if you think it is fair and if you think it will make a better project. But it doesn't say you have to apply the rules. Right now it says you don't have the choice that they get reviewed under the rules they entered the game under. Amy: I would like to recommend that we continue this and we go back and research on this. Also for your information you also have the option when you change the rules to designate on a case by case basis whether this is going to apply across the board. Welton: I would like comments from members of the Commission as to how they want to direct you. My feeling is I feel much less strongly about development applications than I do about a building permit. There is much less investment in time and money in making an initial development application than there is in doing working drawings, construction documents for a building project. So I could see maybe a cutoff date that it doesn't give you vested interest implied or actual just by making conceptual SPA or PUD application. Maybe the cutoff date is some point in the middle of this process. I do feel real strongly about the building permit. Michael: I have a tendency to agree with what you are saying. And I guess what concerns me is what Amy said. That is the County turned around and when they passed the low impact subdivision and granted exceptions I think the public has a right to not have to worry about whether they are going to catch the Councilor the County Commission on a good day or a bad day. I think we have a right to rely on some kind of laws and rules. I don't like idea of its being discretionary. If you have a bad 13 PZM11. 21. 89 Councilor a Council with a bad feeling or a prejudiced sort of project then you don't get that. That is not fair. Then everybody is judged on different rules and get different regulations and that is not fair. I don't mind considering where the al ternati ves and where the cutoff date should be between a conceptual application which is really not very much of anything and a final development application if there is different degrees. But I am very concerned about having to turn around and say "Well Let's not do something". It's like relying on City council to feel good when I come in and tell me that my application is OK. Jasmine: We have been spending a lot of time on this particular amendment to the code. And having been on P&Z as long as I have I am really cynical about this because it doesn't really make a bit of difference. Anybody who is caught in the middle of the rules is going to come in and argue about it no matter what it says in the code and no matter what we do. And for us to spend this amount of time with this I think is absolutely ridiculous. ., My concern is not so much with the big projects where you do have a very formalized approval process and review criteria. My problem is with the small projects. I remember when the first moratorium was about to be put in because of concern about the loss of affordable housing all these people who knew, the little fish who knew these rules were about to be imposed, came in with all kinds of things like stream Margin Reviews and things like that that had really nothing to do with what the ordinance was trying to accomplish. But as long as they had something in process they were exempted. '1.,0.7 So to me whatever people want to do they are going to find a way to come in and protest it. And my experience is that they win. So I don't care what you do. Nobody has ever been forced to tear down anything. Nobody has ever been stopped once they start putting this stuff up. No matter what happens, they get to do it. Roger: At building permit application time is a period. Or final approval for a larger project. development projects in process this is a gray area needs to be addressed individually. good cutoff As far as that I think Francis: As it it in. What individually. is addressed here it says you are OK if you got I am proposing is that they be addressed Roger: I think it should be addressed development applications that are in process. individually for If the law changed 14 PZM11.21.89 the day after they got conceptual approval then they should go under the new law. If the law changed they day they put in for final approval "Hey, let's take a look at it". Mari: First of all I think that the Building Dept applications submittal is a good cutoff. I would like to see projects that go through multi -stage approval processes go by the new rules as they come in. And I don't agree with Roger that you take it on a case by case basis because that means that everyone is going to come in for an exemption. I think it should be a specific stage in the process where that happens for everybody. Richard: I think it is rather absurd that in this town we are bending over backwards to be more lenient to developers than the state code requires us to be. So I would go with the State code. And it seems to me the only section in here that applies to is #3 which is the submitted application. I am really in favor of going to the approval point. I don't see that it is going to affect someone that is doing something innocuous. Dunaway: I have a feeling that if you just table it a few times, everyone will forget it. It is something that was thought about on the spur of the moment. So many things get forgotten, why do anything? Michael: I would like to move that this becomes a public hearing process. Francis: This is a published public hearing. recommendation from you to City Council and another public hearing. We will get a then they hold Dunaway: The problem is nobody knows what the amendment means. Michael: And the legal notices in the paper aren't large enough for anybody to read. Welton: I heard a general consensus that you apply for a building permit based on the rules that are there for a building permit. If you have final approval, that final approval is based on the rules that exist and you can proceed from there. Up until that point there is a little bit of softness in the opinion as to when-- Francis: What it is down to is that if we delete the whole thing the part you would like to keep is the part that says when you get an application in it is good. The rest of the stuff talks about things in review--other stuff that is basically covered by other code sections. Mari: I think you have a consensus on that. 15 PZM11. 21. 89 MOTION Jasmine: I move that we continue this to the night of the meeting when we review the lease on the tennis courts to the year 2083--the first meeting in December. Michael: Are you prepared to say that in between getting conceptual approval for a client of yours and working toward the final approval that there isn't a stage in there that you think should at least be discussed as to whether you are precluded from your project by virtue of a rule change? I think it is certainly worthy of more discussion than we have had tonight as to what the implication of getting conceptual approval is and then working on that conceptual approval toward final and at what stage is a citizen entitled to rely on the rules of the city as opposed to just saying you have got no rights to anything and that guy spent a couple of a hundred thousand dollars on plans. Roger: That is why I had this gray area between conceptual and final. That is my problem. ~~ Michael: I think Mari's concept is more correct that you have to have something that is firm as opposed to a case-by-case basis because that is not fair. You have got to have rules that people can rely on. I like the idea of having the code do something that you can rely on. Mari: But if you are in the approval process, you can't be relying on anything yet. Michael: The minute you say to your architect "Draw me plans" you are relying on the code. Mari: But if you are in the approval process if all you had to do is go by the code you wouldn't be in the process. The approval process implies that there-- Michael: Because we have got a lot of stupid rules and regulations that impede development doesn't mean that nobody should rely on them. Somewhere along the line they come in for conceptual, we lay down the groundwork and they go to an architect and say "Now tell me what P&Z said and tell me what the code says and draw me a set of plans". Mari: But in every case if you are having to go through the process of public hearings and before the City Council--usually what is involved in those public hearings and City Council approvals are things which are not allowed by code anyway. They are usually variations. 16 PZM11. 21. 89 Dunaway: Don't forget the single family houses that don't go through approval but they spend money on architects and go through building permit. They have to be included in the code as well as your developments. Mari: But a building permit application catches them. Welton: There is agreement that--you can rely on the code at the time you make a building permit application. Dunaway: But you are deleting that. Mari: No. Richard: We are arguing about deleting it, yes. Welton: I think there was a general agreement that that part was the least likely to be deleted. Michael: The least likely not to be deleted. Dunaway: reliance right? So it is a council consensus that on small projects may start on application for building permit. Is that Michael: Isn't there a motion on the floor to continue this until 2083? MOTION Mari: I move to direct the Planning Office to come back with a proposed new amendment language to replace this one to include the cutoff at the building permit application stage. My feeling is that the final approval stages are taken elsewhere in the code and why duplicate that? Welton: And you don't want to present any level of reliance for a project in the process. Mari: No. This motion died for lack of a second. MOTION Michael: Planning and come I make a motion Office come back back to us with. that we just continue this and let the with whatever Amy was going to work on 17 PZMl1. 21. 89 Roger seconded the motion. Francis: Basically Council wants to delete that section of the code. They want a recommendation from you guys as to whether you want to delete it or not. Not to re-word the whole thing. Richard: It sounds like the majority here does not want to delete it. Michael: We are not prepared to do it now. Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Jasmine and Richard. Welton: I continue the public hearing until the second meeting in December. ASPEN ANTIOUE BROKERS CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW AND GMOS EXEMPTION PUBLIC HEARING Welton stepped down from this hearing because of possible conflict of interest. ~- Jasmine opened the public hearing. Leslie presented the affidavit of public notice. record) Michael: This is pretty innocuous. If there is no public comment and as long as the applicant doesn't have any problem with the conditions then I will make a motion to approve. (Attached in Roger: I have a problem with the conditions. But it is to the applicant's benefit. Jasmine asked if there was any public comment. There was not. Roger: My problem is condition #2. "Shall provide a 4x4 easement abutting the alley for a pedestal easement. This alley is already undergrounded. The adjacent property happens to be the Hickory House. They already have a transformer pedestal right there. To me there is no logical reason for requiring a 4x4 transformer/pedestal easement on this property when there is nothing going on on this property to increase their power requirements. If something happens on this property in the future that would require additional utilities then we have the chance of getting that easement at that time so there is no point of burdening this property with that requirement at this time. 18 PZMll. 21. 89 Jasmine asked if the applicant had a problem with #2. Joe Krabacher: I would prefer not to have it there. Leslie: First off the idea of requesting easements for properties that we see through the process are not always physically for that property. It is in the event that the Engineering Dept needs to go in and do work and add more that with the easement they have the ability to pick the best place for the transformers and the pedestals. Michael: I make a suggestion that we modify that condition to provide since there is going to be a further application coming in that they can seek to have the easement vacated if it interferes with their future plans for the property. Roger: Why not--we will seek an easement if required in the future. Leslie: The application that we got talked about what they are doing now. It also talked about what they want to do in the future. For what they want to do in the future the HPC, Engineering Dept and myself are very clear on the fact that whatever you do in the future comes back through for review. For example the parking review is based on what is happening in this building now. When they come back through they will require a parking review for reduction of parking spaces at that time. Roger: To clarify my problem with the easement thing. They are showing 5 spaces plus an area not quite as wide as a car space for trash service. My problem is if you stick a 4x4 easement there that that significantly interferes with the trash service area. And if you were going to put it over on the other side you end up losing a parking space. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the change of use and GMQS exemption for an antique store at 706 West Main street with the following conditions: Condition #1 and #2 will be the same as conditions #1 and #3 of Planning Office memo dated November 21, 1989. (attached in record) The previous #2 being deleted. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned. time 19