Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19900206 AC/U RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6. 1990 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr, Michael Herron, Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roger: Gave update as to the wind machines on the 2 stacks on the Little Nell Hotel. Re: I have encountered the situation where cars are parked at the end of that Hunter Street elephant ear blocking traffic on Durant. In one case I went up to the ski host who was watching one of the cars in this process and asked if she was going to do anything about this. And the ski host said "We get so tired of people doing it that we just finally have given up." My point is I don't know who is responsible to not have cars stay there. If the city Council decided that they wanted to have that thing proj ect out into Durant that far, then I think the City Council should fund a pOliceman to enforce the thing. It is an absolute mess. If it is not that then the Ski Co. should do it. It should be remedied. The RFTA plans at this point which I don't happen to agree with, are to run both the Highlands and the Snowbunny buses east on Durant before going west on Main Street and all I can see is major, major conflict if that ever happens. MOTION Roger: I would move to request the Planning Office draft a resolution to the City Council pinpointing the problems with the elephant ear sticking out on Durant at Hunter and citing the problem and even citing the response of a snowhost to the problem and indicating the possible solutions are #1. Put it back where it was recommended originally. #2. If it is the City Council's responsibility that it was put out this far that they should hire a pOliceman to enforce that area during ski operations. #3. If it is a Ski Company responsibility that they should hire a policeman who can enforce that area. It is well signed. It says "No parking, stopping or standing". So the signage is more than adequate. Jasmine seconded the motion. Michael: Not that I doubt that the problem exists but it seems to me that to go ahead and jump in when you have seen it on 2 PZM2.6.90 occasions--I think it would be more appropriate to ask the Planning Office to ask the Engineering Dept to determine if there is a problem before we go in and assume there is a problem and recommend solutions. And if there is a problem, ask the Engineering Dept what their recommendations are. My office is right on Durant. I walk right by there a lot and I don't particularly notice traffic jammed up on that spot and I usually go home that way. Graeme: Not understanding the problem too well, I would tend to agree with Mickey's approach to that. Welton: I agree with Mickey as well. Roger: OK. I guess it is a resolution then to the Engineering Dept requesting that they respond to this problem and come back to us with possible solutions. Wel ton: I don't think we have ever done a resolution to the Engineering Dept. Why don't we just direct the Planning Office to ask the Engineering Dept to come back to us in 2 weeks with a report to see what the problem is and if they can come up with a solution and what their recommended solution would be. Whether it would be different signage, a different configuration--I think they called it a neck down when it came through for review. The Commission directs the Planning Office to find out what difficulty there is if there is any and come back to us in 2 weeks with a mini report. Roger: Then I withdraw my motion. Jasmine withdrew her second. Bruce Kerr: I am curious what the procedure would be for us to get updated provisions of the code. When I came on P&Z I was given the book with the code and there have been a number of changes, deletions, additions since then. Is there a set format on how that is supposed to happen? Leslie: Did you all get the revised code? Welton: No. It was going to be given to us but it changed so much between the time it went to the printer and came back-- Leslie: There have been just 2 or 3 revisions since August so why don't I make sure that you guys all get you new code next meeting and all the ordinances that have happened since August. 2 PZM2.6.90 Bruce: Maybe there ought to be some way that every 6 months we turn our books back in and have them updated. Jasmine: We have no remedy for non-compliance with any of the requirements that we put--whether they are conditions or whether they were part of the code. If a project is not in compliance with what was approved there is no penalty. There is no remedy. And so you have situations like we had at the Mill street Plaza. Part of the approval was that they were supposed to install the elevator. They never installed the elevator. There was no penalty. They were supposed to have employee housing. office. There was no penalty. It was used as an This seems to be becoming most obvious in the areas of employee housing. But it does affect other things as well and it seems to me that we make these rules and we might as well just not make them because the applicant who decides that this rule is onerous just does not follow it and that is the end of it. Welton: Not really. If you have ever had Bill Drueding hounding you, it is not a pleasant prospect. Jasmine: The Mill street Plaza still does not have an elevator 8 years later. Herron: Those are things that are supposed to be caught and a CO not issued. There are enforcement mechanisms and sometimes they are not vigorously enforced. The Housing Office is inventorying housing so that they can make a determination that housing isn't being used as an office. But all of those mechanisms do exist. Jasmine: But the point is that you catch some guy 3 years later and then he goes through various negotiations for another 2 years and in the meanwhile there has been 5 years where an employee unit was not used as an employee unit. There is no compensation to the city or to anybody else who is an interested party. It seems to me that is a situation which could be easily remedied that you would find more compliance if there was the threat of penalties for non-compliance which there are not at the present time. I mean for all things. Not just housing. It is most obvious in housing but there are other things like that. It seems to me that the knowledge of a financial penalty which would be put into a fund that we would think would do the most good--open space, housing, whatever--would then insure that the money gets used for a valid public purpose but would also be a deterrent for people who think that if they are in non-compliance that they could just 3 PZM2.6.90 keep postponing complying long enough that that is one way of dealing with the problem. Welton: Leslie, would you find out from the Attorney's office what civil liabilities from a legal standpoint are possible to put some teeth into conditions of approval in addition to the more normal CO and zoning enforcement requirements. STAFF COMMENTS It was decided to meet at the volley ball court at the Koch Lumber property with Leslie at 4: OOpm February 20th for a site inspection. (This was a setup) There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS MINUTES OCTOBER 3. 1989 & JANUARY 16. 1990 Minutes of these meetings were approved. PITKIN COUNTY LIBRARY REZONING PUBLIC HEARING Leslie presented the affidavit of pUblic notice. record) Welton read into the record a letter from Edward Neisser, 114 E. Bleeker Street in support of the rezoning. (attached in record) (attached in Welton opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Roger made the suggestion this space be used as the Teen Center as opposed to next to the parking garage. Welton: The list of uses for a non-historic building in the 0 zone are single family and office are permitted. Anything else would have to come back for review and that review would include discussion for parking and mitigations. Baker: Staff's concern is that we don't let an asset get away from us. All of the change in uses we have done historically we knew what was going in there. Welton: The things that you don't need P&Z review for are pretty predicable. A single family or office. And I don't see any great social goal being promoted by turning this down unless there is something to be afraid of. And I don't think there is. 4 PZM2.6.90 The only advantage I could see to the City is that the value of the property as public is one thing vs the value of the property as Office is something else and would the city use that leverage to get it at a better price for a public use and therefor knock the Library Board's equation hel ter-skel ter for financing any library. I don't think that is in the best interest of the City or a goal of the city. Graeme: That is a good place for public use in the sense that it's more valuable in terms of cash. Maybe the pUblic is served better by rather than putting a public service organization into a very high-priced piece of real estate--getting into a very high-priced piece of real estate getting what it can out of that real estate and saving itself having to raise the money for the library somewhere else. It seems the pUblic good may be served best by not reserving that prime real estate for something that doesn't necessarily need to be right on Main Street. I am tending to side with the Library at this point. Bruce: I am a little curious as to whether the applicant at this point in time really just wants to just rezone the property or is it your position that you want to rezone for change in use now. And if that is your position why not wait and do the change in use later when you actually have a contract buyer for this property? Chuck: Because of the onerous prospect of that. We are trying to maximize the value of that building. The Library is as greedy as anybody else. Our plans are out for bid and we hope we have the ability to build the library that we want to build. And when you are going to the private sector with something for sale and the more in question his ability to use that property is the less you are going to get for it. Welton: I don't see rezoning and providing a change in use at this point as precluding the City or the County or any other government agency from doing anything they want to. So I would entertain a motion to recommend to City Council for the rezoning of the old Library property on Main street from Public to Office and to approve the change in use GMQS exemption and to sponsor that the rezoning application. And also any ultimate purchaser be required to provide employee housing and parking in accordance with the code provision for their occupancy type of use. Michael: I make that motion. Graeme seconded the motion. Jasmine: There are a couple of things that disturb me about this. One is the assumption which I think is going to come up 5 PZM2.6.90 again particularly in the sale of the elementary and middle schools. The pUblic entities using the existing buildings have a fiscal responsibility to try to get as much money as they can from the property that they are selling so that they can finance the new school or the new Library which are very worthy causes. What happens though is everyone starts getting the feeling that maybe it would be better for these pUblic buildings not to be on such expensive real estate. And so maybe the best thing to do is to take these important public buildings and put them on "Free Land" or in land that is less desirable and therefore less expensive. I think this says something about our feelings about pUblic buildings. I think this is something that we should think about. I see a situation which buildings that are public or semi-public are going to be gotten rid of because why should you have them on such expensive pieces of real estate when you could put million dollar condominiums there? I think this is a very peculiar thing about our community which disturbs me. The other thing is that I feel very uncomfortable with growth management exemptions for change in use without having more specific information because offices do differ in their use. I think we do have enough safe-guards in this particular application and I think because of the location because of the limited size of this particular building and its unsuitability for doing anything without major expansion which would then bring it back into the process. Roger: I agree with Jasmine's concerns. this motion which goes to the City Council to the City Council. And specifically with as our recommendation I would like comments added along with this that they review this request that they review this property for possible acquisition. And also specifically that this site is a much better location for something like a teen center and this building could be converted at very little cost to that type of use when balanced against the construction cost over at the "Free Land" site. Michael: My only concern would be whether that interferes at all with the people next door. I am sure the people on Bleeker street wouldn't be happy. Bruce: You might also want to consider CMC as a possible user. I don't mind adding those kinds of things. Mari: My only comment would be I don't see how this library site could be incorporated into the Teen Center budget if they didn't 6 PZM2.6.90 put anything in the budget for a location. Who is going to pay for it? The Teen Center doesn't have any money for it. Michael: Sure they do. They have got a construction fund. They have a lot of money that they have collected. Roger: It may be close to the same cost for them to acquire this land because I assume that a private individual assessing this land--this is basically an open type of building that that open hall type of building doesn't suit too much in the way of office needs without considerable interior walls and things like that. I am saying that something like a teen center might be able to utilize that building very well as is. So all they are paying for is the land. Welton: For the motion let the record show that this is a one step for the GMQS Exemption and the motion is to include that cash in lieu would be acceptable if parking needs to be provided and the existing building is not torn down. Bruce: Are we actually approving the GMQS exemption for change in use with this motion? Is there any way we can fabricate this into 2 motions? I really haven't looked at anything on the change in use. Welton: The change in use is only Office or single family. Michael: We are changing the existing use from Public to Office. If you made it private you have to put something on it anyway. I don't understand why we have been talking about the distinction all night anyway. It can't be just private. Welton: The use is Office whether it is Doctors, Lawyers, or Architects. It will be an office use only. Bruce: If we approve the change in use what immediately, Sunny, are you going to have to do in the way of parking. Sunny Vann: It will be advertised for sale as City Council rezones it. As an Office zoned building which has approval of the P&Z change it's use to Office subject to conditions. The conditions on the purchase would be they would have to provide parking in accordance with the zone district requirement or may be provided through cash in lieu. He would have to provide employee housing acceptable to the Housing Authority on the formula that is currently provided for in the Housing regulations. Leslie: So these conditions of approval will be prior to CO? 7 PZM2.6.90 Payment of the housing fee, payment of cash in lieu prior to CO? Welton: I think there is going to be a building permit involved in whatever you do because the building is not going to be suitable for anything other than a library. Sunny: Prior to building permit or CO. Welton: There is going to be a building permit one way or another. Michael: How about if we condition this as prior to occupancy that those things get paid for. Wel ton: My point is that you don't get a CO unless you get a building permit. Leslie: Prior to CO or building permit. Michael: Or occupancy. There is no way to get around it. MOTION -' Roger: I would like to move to request the Planning Office to draft a resolution to the city Council expressing the P&Z's concern about losing a public asset and would they please look at this potential public asset very closely for example we could foresee such uses as a teen center, CMC office space or other public use. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. Welton closed the public hearing on the Library rezoning. OBLOCK SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Graeme: What about the encroachment. Did you talk about that to City Council for the garage under the alley? Leslie: No. The only thing we talked about to City Council were the accessory dwelling units and the TDRs. If they cannot get the encroachment license then, in my mind, the site plan changes in that you should have the ability to review the new site plan. I do have some changes in the resolution. On page #2 second to last WHEREAS--add "due to the garage ramp". Then under the conditions of approval--#5--I would change that to 8 PZM2.6.90 say "Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit a storm/water drainage plan to be approved by the Engineering Dept. The plan shall include but not limited to demonstration that the short range pattern shall not be affected and also foundation drainage or outside floor drainage shall be connected to a dry well of the storm sewer in accordance with the clean water act. #6. I would eliminate the word "immediately". #8. I would say "Prior to recordation of the subdivision recording of the final plat the applicant shall submit documentation to the Planning Dept demonstrating that down stream collection constraints can be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Sanitation District". Jasmine: The GMQS exemption to the accessory dwelling units-- these are not deed restricted. Leslie: They are deed restricted to residents only but they are not deed restricted to price range. Michael: These are voluntary units then. Leslie: Yes. They do not have to include that for accessory dwelling units. ,~ Bruce: Can we get a quick why TDRs are exempt from the provision of affordable housing? Is that something the code provides-- - Welton: Because they already provide the employee housing by virtue of creating the situation at Smuggler Trailer Park some 1/2 dozen years ago. These were about the only TDRs that have ever been created. MOTION Michael: I move to approve Resolution #90-1 as amended. Bruce seconded the motion. Compton: An accessory dwelling unit being resident occupied without any in-place restrictions on the--is that--it is not clear what the use will be. Are we creating essentially extra development rights with those or is it really going to be employee housing which I think is in the spirit in which they were recommended. Sunny: Accessory an incentive to requirement. dwelling unit category I believe was created as the private sector. It is not a mandatory Leslie: But you cannot sell an accessory dwelling unit. 9 -~,-~-~;,.,.._. PZM2.6.90 Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Roger and Jasmine who abstained. DISCUSSION ITEMS CARPOOL UPDATE Gary Gleason, Marketing and Planning for RFTA: Made presentation to P&Z regarding plans in the carpooling program. ORDINANCE 1 UPDATE Tom Baker: It is being modified significantly. And it is going to be modified further. Some of the changes that have been made to date that appear to be acceptable to City Council include the cash in lieu to be to the discretion of the property owner instead of the P&Z or the City. That resident occupied units or accessory dwelling units would not be mandatorily occupied. We are looking at the potential of an FAR bonus for attached accessory dwelling units up to 250sqft and detached accessory dwelling units up to 350sqft. There are all sorts of caveats in there. We are recommending that through the Land Use element that we are undertaking this year that we re-visit the entire FAR' question. Bulk is the appropriate question to get at. We are also looking at offering some financial incentives. If the taxes pass next Tuesday there may be some money available to do some matching grants for people who come forward and want to do accessory dwelling units. In those cases we are recommending that they be price and income restricted as well because of that financial incentive. It still is not receiving very favorable comments from residents. Council has directed us to investigate further incentives. Jasmine: I am beginning to think that the only way to really accomplish this is to forbid people under any circumstances to put in any kind of employee or accessory dwelling unit and then they might come and do it out of shear pervasiveness. I have to say that I am really perturbed about the allowance of the creation of the greater density that you have with accessory dwelling units and not have them be occupied. I think that is just absolutely contrary to what we wanted to have happen. And as far as I am concerned if I knew that was what they were going to do I would have voted against the Ordinance. Roger: Same here. Michael: Pretty soon I wouldn't have been alone in left field. Is there any thought to possibly giving some kind of a tap fee exemption to somebody building an affordable unit that they would ,~ 10 PZM2.6.90 then be restricted? In other words just waiving that part of the tap fee? Baker: For the accessory associated with that. Yes, considered. dwelling unit waive the tap fee that is something that is being Michael: We would be crazy to do it and not do that. Graeme: Once this thing is passed in whatever form, how does it affect the units that have already been approved? Baker: The contract made with the City is the contract that I think is valid. Richard: I just wanted to register my disappointment in the cash in lieu of a unit at the discretion of the owner. That is just buying additional development rights for a very small fee it seems to me. Roger: hope. If they do cash in lieu they don't get any FAR bonus I Baker: The bonus goes to the free market aspects. Originally we had some concerns about the 80%. And what resulted out of that was an impact mitigation equivalent to $10 per sqft. One of the concerns with the 80% was that when you go to 81 the whole impact kicks in. And so Dave Myler crafted a different formula where it is on an incremental basis. If you do 100sqft of new development then you only pay for 100sqft. It is only on the new development. That doesn't seem to be working either. Some council members were concerned that if somebody wanted to come in and add a bedroom and it was a local that they didn't feel it was appropriate that that have to be mitigated. To try to compensate for that we said that any mitigation that is going to be required if you are a working resident and that is your primary residence that you could defer paying that employee mitigation until you sold that unit to a non-resident. If you sold it to another resident of the community then it gets deferred again until it is sold to a non-resident. Meeting was adjourned. Clerk 11