Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19900717 ~u RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 17. 1990 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr, Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Welton: The motion we made last week to the County Commissioners concerning Shadow Mountain/Midland ROW asking they reconsider it. Has that been done? Has any message gone to the County regarding our concern about the Midland ROW? Can we have that right away? Also there has been some talk about a code clean-up. Picking up oversights. And I don't see that listed on any of our work sessions or regular meetings. Baker: We will do that the last meeting of August or the first meeting of September. STAFF COMMENTS UPDATE ON COTTAGE INFILL (City Council Meeting) Leslie: The 2 biggest changes in the draft ordinance and in the overall program itself was that they think that the 850sqft cap is too big. And they would like it to get reduced. Bruce brought up concern about using other residential zone districts that did not have alleys. Bruce said let's revitalization of historic buildings go back to our original purpose which the neighborhoods and preservation of which we already have. is the I think what I heard from Council though was that maybe they would consider a detached if somebody was proposing to put it over an existing garage. But that the idea of a separate free standing building in the R-15 zone or the R-30 zone just really is not very palatable to a lot of people right now. We discussed the setback issue and recommending a 3 foot minimum setback. Martin's idea that if 2 people want to get common wall right down the property line. at first Everybody together staff was liked Bill and have a Roger: I think on the FAR issue the 850sqft was net leasable space or net liveable space and that figure might be all right for net liveable space but let's get back to an FAR figure that PZM7 . 17 .90 everyone is accustomed to dealing with in that area. So in that process chances are it will come down. The issue of lot line setback was that it is important that if there is snow falling into that setback that it be accommodated by the property that the building is put on--not by the other property. Another is that this is a conditional use and the Planning Office felt that present conditional use conditions are very appropriate. But I pointed out that one of the criteria is compatibility with the neighborhood. Graeme: I think that there should be an 18 inch or something of a minimum setback. Besides the snow if you have a house that somebody built right on the lot line with windows looking right into your yard, it is an invasion of privacy. Roger: That triggers the minimum 3 foot setback. Graeme: You could have a big fireproof window in there. You could have a picture window in there that was wired glass. Roger: Maybe what we should do is say if there is windows there it automatically triggers the 3 foot setback. Welton: The building code says no windows less than 3 feet and no less than 5 feet for owner occupancies. Mari: Is Roxanne planning to do a small homes tour? I was thinking of it more as a way to promote it to the Council than to promote it to the public. Unless the ordinance is passed or the code is changed it will never get as far as the public. Roger: to 16 but I would feet. They also covered the height limitation--going up from 12 feet. On a pitched roof I don't have problems with that think it is something we will have to look at closely. I have a problem if that ends up being a flat roof of 16 MEZZALUNA RESOLUTION #91-9 MOTION Roger: I move to adopt Resolution #91-9 concerning the Mezzaluna GMQS exemptions. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor except Mari who abstained. 2 PZM7.17.90 MINUTES NOVEMBER 21. 1989 Jasmine: I move to approve minutes of November 21, 1989. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. MINUTES APRIL 17. 1990 Jasmine: I move to approve minutes of April 17, 1990. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. PUBLIC COMMENT There was none. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATURAL GAS STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Kim Johnson made presentation as attached in record. After discussion: MOTION Mari: I move to approve the stream Margin Review for Rocky Mountain Natural Gas with the condition of Planning Office memo dated July 17, 1990 and condition #2 that the fence be made of wood or something other than chain link. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. ASIA COMMERCIAL/OFFICE GMOS SCORING PUBLIC HEARING Welton stepped down from this hearing because of possible conflict of interest. vice Chairperson Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. Leslie Lamont, Planner, presented affidavit of mailing. (attached in record) After discussion: Dennis this. us the Green: We would like you to give us some direction on We believe we will probably go ahead with it if you deny FAR. I think the logical way to proceed is to decide the 3 PZM7.17.90 FAR question. If you decide that you are not willing to give us that then it seems to me that that simplifies all of the calculations and at that point we ought to be able to make threshold. Roger: Is there another way of doing it? This is only applicant we have to deal with this year so there is no one hurt by tabling it at this point. They know our problems and can resubmit technical or substantial amendments that we can rescore. Baker: There is some language about the competitive nature. Green: Maybe what we should do is get a sense of the Board as to the FAR question and then table it and let us come back and make a presentation based on that. Jasmine: I have no objections to that. Richard: The only reason that I would be inclined to grant them the bonus is because of the crying present need for that kind of space. I would certainly score the application higher without it because then everything else--all the other problems would be reduced. Mari: I would not be inclined to grant the bonus. ~. Roger: As much as I agree with Richard, I am not inclined to grant the bonus in this case because of the physical problems on the property and the fact that keeping it at the point set on 5 really helps substantially in the rest of the site problems. Bruce: That is good enough for me. I think they are more likely to get a higher score without the bonus in there. We solve the parking problems. I would be disinclined to grant the bonus. Graeme: I feel pretty much the same way as everyone else. I would be pretty disinclined to approve the FAR bonus. Jasmine: I agree. Green: I guess I would ask that you go ahead and table it. Mari: I am very much in favor of doing anything that will preserve the historical. The only problem I have really with this is the physical--I just feel like it is going to be putting cars on the street that belong to people who live there. That is my main concern. And especially with the new building going there. I can't justify it. One of the solutions would be if you could locate a place even if it is not right on the site where ~""'"1"'''' 4 PZM7.17.90 residents of this building can keep their cars and find a way that we know that will be there forever. Green: That is a very viable option. Mari: I agree with you that they will not probably need their cars to get to work and they won't need their cars to go to town. But they are going to have cars. I would like to see these problems solved because I would like to see this kind of thing happen but not to the expense of putting cars on the street. Green: There is a place that that can be done. Mari: there to be But it needs to be something for just one year and then it permanent. that is not just going to be is going to go away. It has Graeme: I think it is important to have a passageway through between the 2 buildings. The delivery and the trash need to be addressed well. I think that the open space in front of the building could be re-thought and made more attractive. I think you could think about putting some more of the employee living spaces above grade and some of the office space below grade. "'....v Roger: I am amenable to approximately 14 spaces on this site and how the next works out with maybe another site. It looks like physically the maximum number of parking spaces you can get within a proper service area is about 14. Bruce: It might be a good idea for the applicant to spend some time with your neighbors. Specifically the Hotel Aspen to find out if there is a way that you could avoid the potential objections on the part of reducing windows on that side of the building. Richard: You could do a little more work on the Main Street landscaping and sidewalk plan. Jasmine: I would like to see in the site plan--referral comments as to parking spaces and location of trash and access. Graeme: Something that bothers me with these parking plans is that they go wall to wall. I think it looks terrible. I would-- maybe we should think about not allowing parking space to be in a side yard setback on the rear. So that you get a buffer of about 3ft or 5ft so that you just don't see all these cars lined up. I would look more favorably on a parking plan that had amenities like that. Then put in some planting. I feel the parking could be increased in aesthetic value which would offset the loss of actual parking. 5 PZM7.17.90 MOTION Jasmine: I would entertain a motion to table based on required amendments and in view of the fact that this is the only applicant for this quota which is making it possible for us to take this somewhat unorthodox approach. Baker: The applicant is going to have to resubmit and afford the public the opportunity to come back in. The public hearing should be closed and we will re notice instead of continuing. When the applicant comes in and has a completed amended application the code says that we will notice for public hearing and set the date. We can continue it to a date certain of the second meeting in August and then the Planning Office will also assure that that meeting gets noticed in the paper. Roger: I move to table this application to date certain of August 21, 1990 based on required amendments and in view of the fact that this is the only applicant for this quota. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned. 6