Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19900821 }J ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 21. 1990 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Bruce Kerr, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre, Mari peyton, Sara Garton, Richard Compton and Welton Anderson. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Roger: Last night the city Council in a work session basically approved going ahead with the trolley plan. The next step is for them to take official action to sponsor the SPA for it. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie: Just a reminder that you have a joint meeting on the highway on August 28th at 2:30. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MOTION Welton: I would entertain a motion to adopt Resolution #11 recommending to Board of County Commissioners that the building envelopes be kept off the Midland ROW. Roger: I move to adopt Resolution #90-11 concerning Midland ROW. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. MINUTES JUNE 6. 1989 Jasmine made a motion to approve minutes of June 6, 1989. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. MINUTES SEPTEMBER 12. 1989 Graeme made a motion to approve minutes of september 12, 1989. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. ICE GARDEN REZONE PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. Kim Johnson made presentation as attached in record. PZM8. 21. 90 We did get 3 calls from neighbors--inquiries for the most part. After they heard what the re-zoning was involving they didn't have any objections to the re-zoning. Welton asked if there was any public comment. There was none and he closed the public hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the re-zoning of Lots A through I, Block 54 from R-15 to Public. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. CROWN PUD AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. Gerd: What you have in front of you is basically the summary of all the numbers we have. Also I have submitted to Kim a breakdown of all the units, all their square footage in terms of an FAR calculation, all the deck areas, all the additions that have been done, all the bedroom additions--basically all construction including storage units that have been done in that project to date that we are aware of. It has all be included and we feel that all of these numbers are as accurate as you are going to get. We feel that there is a pretty accurate record there of the cumulative impact of the Aspen Club. Sara: If we approve the Crown proposal, does that then change the PUD amendment to increase what is allowable and the FAR for this project for everyone? Kim: No. This is very unit-specific. If the project had come in in a kind of a class action application and they all wanted to know for in the future that they could each have this then we would be looking at all those square footages combined adding them to the current figures and then calling that the new PUD approval. What the Planning Office is trying to get out of the Condominium Association is that it would not require then each individual applicant to come through this process. Rather if they got a blanket approval for X square feet then each individual owner could just pull a building permit. The application would be done. 2 PZM8.21.90 Sara: Shouldn't there be a formal improvements to go with this application to improvements that have been done instead of survey of existing show all the existing just calculations. Sutherland: A year or two ago Aspen Club units kept coming in for bedroom-type expansions and decks. The bedroom units were coming in one at a time over 4 or 5 years. I think there has been at least 4 or 5 bedroom expansions. Each time we had to go back through the issue of adding another car, counting the cars, etc. The last time that happened it was a couple of years ago. There was 2 projects approved. One which was constructed and the other has not been. The point was at that time we should somewhere along the line the Aspen Club produce a build-out from day one. That is in the process now and it is going to be another 6 months or a year before they get any kind of read out of who wants what. The Crown felt this has been ongoing for a year or so and that probably will continue for another year. The Crown felt that they are going under a deck that exists and only adding 72ft and that they did not want to wait for that long process. They are not asking for bedrooms which require parking so that is why they took this action rather than wait for the full blown which might or might not come in a year. They are adding 72ft and going in under an existing deck and expanding a bedroom and is not a substantial thing. Bruce: Who decides whether the Crown application is entitled to receive the 72sqft site coverage of the remaining 19.8 recognizing that it is an insubstantial change. How do we know that there aren't other homeowners that are part of this that may want that 72ft. How do we decide who barely gets this remaining 191sqft? Kim: Because we have tried to work with the Homeowner's Association and get them moving in this direction and haven't seen any substantial progress made, we the Planning Office doesn't feel like we should impede any individual who is willing to pay $1,700 in planning fees and architectural fees and the time and effort that Gerd has put into this research that it is basically first come first serve. Bruce: Wouldn't it be wise to get a part of that approval to refer to this remaining square footage and that we are approving this one owner to have 72sqft of that. Gerd: I think the Homeowner's Association is aware of the fact 3 PZM8. 21. 90 that they are very close to reaching the buildout in terms of the site coverage. Bruce: It might be for your protection to have them filled in for whatever approval that the Homeowner's Association grants so that it is very clear on the record that there is only 191sqft left and you are getting 72 of it. Sutherland: The Homeowner's Association has been contacted and they have to respond in a certain percentage. The way it has been in the past has been on a first come first served basis. Roger: I am adamantly in favor of the ultimate buildout proposal. My question is is there a way of doing that that is not unit specific. That we can determine the maximum buildout that is a set number and the insubstantial changes can keep coming in and be approved by the director up until the limit and that is it. Richard: In the memorandum it says the original PUD granted 42,560sqft for the townhomes. Calculations provided by the applicant indicate that the project now exceeds this figure with 4,6875.9sqft. Then it says total original site coverage was 46,912sqft. Now where are these different numbers coming from? Kim: One floor area and one site coverage. Welton: I can tell you what is probably going to happen. One other person is going to come in with 118. 8sqft of additional site coverage. It will all be used up. The rest of the association will say "Well, we want to have our piece of the pie". They will come in with an overall PUD amendment for what we have been aSking for for the last 2 years because there will finally be some pressure when the next person wants to do it. When the next person does it it will be all used up and they will have to do an overall comprehensive kind of planning effort in order to get the numbers re-adjusted so that somebody else can do something. Every time 100sqft has been added to one of these units it has come through as a PUD amendment. The PUD has been amended so the ultimate square footage of the project has changed because each time PUD amendment has been processed and approved the number has risen. Well that number, as far as site coverage is concerned, is getting to the point where it can't be exceeded any further. It is up to the applicants, architects and representatives to let the association know where they stand. It is not up to us. They are using up what they have left and we have been approving 4 PZM8. 21. 90 it on a piecemeal basis. We just can't keep doing that once it all runs out. Bruce: To the applicant: Do you have any problems with the staff conditions as outlined in the memo? Gerd: No we don't. Welton asked if there was any public comment. There was none and he closed the public hearing. MOTION Bruce: I move to recommend to city Council approval of the Crown PUD Amendment subject to the conditions listed in the Planning Office memo dated August 15, 1990. Roger seconded the motion. Roger: I think it is time that on any PUD that when the first amendment of that PUD comes in wanting a bedroom I think at that time we have to look at the overall project and say "Hey, what is the maximum buildout of these additional bedrooms?" I am really upset by the piecemeal increasing of the floor area adding a bedroom at a time through this PUD process because the building was originally approved as an entire package. I would really like it established that from here on out that on PUDs where they are requesting an amendment to add a bedroom we look at the entire project and find out what we are going to accept as a maximum. From here on out I would rather not see this type of PUD amendment without knowing what the ultimate is going to be. Wel ton: I wouldn I t think that it would be inappropriate after the motion is on the floor and has been voted on for another motion to be made that says perhaps a specific deadline timetable to the Aspen Club that this is something that has been required of several other applications in the past and that this is going to be the last one that is going to be approved on a piecemeal basis and that from now on the next one that comes through is going to have to be piggyback on an overall look at where you started off, where you are now and where you think you might ultimately be even if it is going to be 10 years before you get there. Jasmine: approval lot of Part of my concern is that more often than not a PUD is a very closely negotiated process which involves a considerations about parking, massing, clustering, 5 PZM8. 21. 90 building, etc. And that there should be more involved in a PUD amendment than just because somebody wants it. Mari: owner here. and I It bothers me to be approving something just because an wants it. If it were a right, then we wouldn't be sitting It is something for us to decide based on those criteria don't think those criteria have been addressed at all. Welton: nothing nothing I disagree. I think this criteria is so vague that more than just a general idea or outline--there is there that talks about--nothing you can really hang-- Mari: I am also thinking about it in the incremental amendment of a PUD can totally overwhelm what the original negotiated deal was. Welton: This individual has gone through the process in good faith to exercise the same rights that have been granted in the past. I think a fair warning was given to the next person that maybe they could get some momentum going. I don't think it is fair of us to hold this applicant hostage for something that is not their fault. Welton: There is a motion on the floor and a second. Is there any further discussion? Roll call vote: Graeme, yes, Bruce, yes, Jasmine, yes, Mari, no, Richard, yes, Roger, yes, Welton, yes. MOTION: Roger: I move that from here on the Zoning commission and the Planning Office not accept amendments to establish PUDs that include additional bedrooms specifically and what may be more than an insubstantial increase in floor area as well from any individual unit in any PUD project without having at least at the same time the overall project's plan for maximum buildout. Welton: I cannot support--it encompasses the entire town and every PUD in the entire town and anybody that might want to have that accidentally has a PUD overlay that wants to tear down an outhouse. I was being very specific on something that we have been discussing for 10 years that we came to a conclusion on a year and a half ago about the Aspen Club. Jasmine seconded the motion. Bruce: I won I t support this motion either. comfortable with us setting a policy for staff they stated in the memo that they are trying to I would be more that states what discourage these 6 PZM8. 21. 90 insubstantial amendments. I don't know how we can take away a property right of an individual property owner. If he wants to go through his 2 step process, pay the fees and take his chances with us and Council to try to get an amendment--we are talking about somehow amending the code and taking away somebody's property right. I don't know how we can do that. Graeme: Could we make the Homeowner's Association apply for the PUD amendment rather than an individual. This would make more sense. Roger: I agree. Jasmine: What happens under Bruce's scenario is that anybody who has money comes in for an amendment and there is no grounds whatsoever to deny it because you are assuming this is a right. But it is not a right because you have already agreed to a specific PUD agreement. But if you just keep on allowing people to do this then you never have grounds for denying anybody doing this. Mari: It also bothers me that what we are saying is "You have the right if you have the money to go through this process." Welton: I don't think we can do what Roger is suggesting that we do without a code amendment. Mari: Maybe we need a code amendment. Welton: Well then let's do a code amendment. But the motion that is on the floor is not addressing any kind of ultimatum to the Aspen Club. It is just saying blankly allover town PUD amendments which are written into the code to allow for relatively simple 2 step $1,700 process that they are not available to anybody because of a situation at the Aspen Club unless they go through a full blown PUD rather than just a PUD amendment. Kim: I think we need to remember that there are a lot of areas in town that have PUD overlays that the development that is there now does not fall anywhere near the intensity or scale of this one and that might compound Planning Dept's work load as well as your own if we start seeing duplexes and triplexes that want to add a porch or something like that. Graeme: I think if you get the proper applicant in here who is the homeowner's association or the owner of the project at that time--somebody who is going to represent the project rather than an individual I think that would solve the problem. 7 PZM8. 21. 90 Roger withdrew his motion at this point. Jasmine withdrew her second to the motion. Welton: I would entertain a motion along the lines very specifically that a resolution be drafted by the Planning Office to the Aspen Club Condominium Association that this is the last individual application that will be accepted by the Planning & Zoning Commission or reviewed that will be accepted by the Planning Office or reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission for any PUD amendments and that the direction of a year or more ago that an overall comprehensive look at ultimate build-out be presented all at once rather than being presented in a piecemeal fashion. MOTION Richard: I will so move that prior to any further individual applications for expansion of units of the Aspen Club that a masterplan be submitted. Welton: What I want it to say is that as of this point it is our direction that the Planning Office not accept any more applications on an individual basis and that we won't review any more applications on an individual basis until the condition of a year and a half ago is met. Richard: OK. Bruce: Point of clarification: Are you talking about any amendments or insubstantial amendments? Richard: As I understand it there is no such thing as insubstantial amendment at this point because that covers matters not additions to units being new bedrooms, expansion of bedrooms and decks. Kim: That is not insubstantial. But conceivably there could be a bonafied insubstantial that needed to be filed. Welton: There is a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Jasmine seconded the motion. Roger: My only criticism is that this is fine for this specific problem but I can foresee other problems coming up and I think we should as well either in the form of a motion as far as policy direction to go by the Planning Office or something on that order cover future ones that are going to come in so the Planning Office can identify those when they come in and warn the people 8 PZM8. 21. 90 that the nature of this beast is such that they are going to want an overall plan. Welton: May I suggest that after this motion is voted on that you make another motion that the Planning Office fit in a discussion of PUD amendments into a work session some time in the next few months that we can look at the variety of PUDs and PUD amendments and how we can correct this problem that has been a subject of altogether too much discussion over the last 10 years when individual owners as opposed to whole associations have been coming in in bits and pieces fashion. Graeme: Welton: Welton: Everyone I would second that one. We have a motion on the floor. All in favor signify by saying aye. voted in favor of the motion except Bruce and Graeme. MOTION Roger: I move for the Planning Office as soon as possible to get on the agenda the topic under discussion here so we can arrest this problem. Jasmine seconded the motion. Everyone voted in favor of this motion. WHITCOMB FINAL PUD PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. Richard: site. They are asking for the maximum allowable FAR on the Kim: The floor area that they have used in their upper end is the floor area that would be allowed for a duplex in R-6 zone given the whole lot area--not using the slope reduction calculations in PUD. Their existing credit is a duplex. So Bill Drueding, I, Leslie and Amy came to the conclusion that we would because of the non-conforming structure status that the code allows non-conformities to be replaced as long as the non- conformity is not expanded. In this case the non-conformity is the number of units and not the floor area. They were way under the floor area for the site. So they are working up towards the floor area and not exceeding the non-conformity which is a duplex. Welton asked for public comments. 9 PZM8. 21. 90 There were none. He then closed the public hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the Whitcomb duplex final PUD development plan with the conditions #1 through #13 being the same as on Planning Office memo dated August 10, 1990. Bruce seconded the motion. Bruce: In regard to fisherman's easements. I ran across the fact that there is a Colorado state statute that limits the liability of land owners which answers some of the questions about us requiring that easement. That may take away some of the objection that applicants have had to granting that easement. Richard: I would like to point out that the new proposed project adds another story below the existing one and the difference between the building and the river. And that talking about stream Margin criteria in the original memorandum said "If many parcels are developed in a similar way the open wooded slope and riparian habitats will be lost in a canyon of hard architecture". So I am going to vote to deny this on that basis and what you told me about the allowances you made. Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Jasmine and Richard. ASIA COMMERCIAL GMOS PUBLIC HEARING Welton stepped down from this hearing because of potential conflict of interest. Jasmine then opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Bruce: On this parking--they previously were required to have 15. Forget what is on the site. They were required to have 15. On this new proposal how many are they required to have? Leslie: The new proposal entails the change in use. Bruce: So that is the credit? Leslie: Right. The change in use all of a sudden will say they are required to have 15 and they go through the change in use they are only required 13. Then they go through special review 10 PZM8. 21. 90 to reduce the required amount of parking spaces for employees which is then down to 10. Now then at the office building they are now required 8.5 spaces for that. Now we are up to 18. 5. But they go through special review to only provide 4.2 or 4. Bruce: So there is 14. But if there is 14 on site why are you requiring cash-in-lieu at all? Leslie: Because when you go through the special review to go from 3 spaces for 1000 to 1.5 spaces to a 1000 that remainder, the other 1.5 must be provided through cash-in-lieu. And the 1.5 spaces on site have to be provided on site. There is no other variance for that 1.5. Mari: I would feel like approving the reduction of on site only with conditions that there is parking provided adjacent. Leslie: There is 2 points to that. They are in the process of negotiating that with the Hotel Aspen. If they were to be able to buy those spaces it would reduce their cash-in-lieu payment. That is the only thing they can reduce. They can't reduce further the parking on site. And their ability to secure those 3 spaces depends upon whether the hotel had to provide those spaces from a prior approval and we don't know that yet. Mari: So basically I am being asked to make a decision without the information. Leslie: The way I structured the conditional approval is that it is only tied to the cash-in-lieu payment that they have to make. Mari: But that is not good enough for me. Cash-in-lieu is not good enough for me. So I guess I would have to deny that reduction because that is all we have for sure at this point. Leslie: Right. 14 spaces are all we have for sure. Roger: How do we normally treat parking for dorms? Because I do have a problem. A residential bedroom in my normal estimation usually has 2 occupants in it as an average. To me a typical bedroom would normally have 2 occupants and 2 occupants normally occupy 1 vehicle. My problem is when you start using that residential bedroom calculation for dorm space and the nature of the residents in the dorm compared to a residential bedroom--you see my problem? Leslie: Yes and I did not find anything in the code that differentiated between a dorm for parking and a single bedroom. 11 PZM8. 21. 90 Roger: In other words if a dorm space had 12 beds in it we treat that the same as a residential bedroom as far as parking is concerned. Jasmine: we? We have a dorm requirement on a limited number don't Leslie: units. space. They cannot put more than 4 people in each one of these And what limits that is their bathroom and their kitchen Jasmine: But even so I think Roger's point is very well taken. We are talking about a bedroom which is going to have for sure 4 people in it as opposed to normally 2 people and maybe even only person. Leslie: We are talking about in this application by the configuration of space that they are providing we are talking 2 rooms in each dorm unit and 2 people in each of those rooms. So they are housing a total of 8 people. Roger: Then I have less problems with it. Applicant: We believe we can satisfy the parking requirements. I would note that we are going to free up some space on 4th street that can be used. Just because we are asking you to waive 3 out of the 4 requirements for the affordable housing doesn't mean that we are not going to provide parking for those employees. The big change is that we have reduced the size of the building to .74 to 1 and that certainly makes all of these problems a lot easier. At your last meeting you asked us to do certain things with that plan. You wanted 2 walkways. Both of those are included. You wanted some landscaping and we have provided all of those things. So the only real unresolved issue is the location and the adequacy of the trash area. We feel the location as shown, and that is close to the entrance of the alley, is the best place for it. We are not totally adverse to moving it but we feel all things considered that is the best place for it. There is a tradeoff between the trash area and the provision of parking. We basically agree with all the conditions. Jasmine: Leave us go to item #1 which is the parking. 12 PZM8. 21. 90 Jay Hammond: Made presentation regarding trash area, transformer and parking. Roger: Is the trash area screened by fencing? Jay: Yes it is. Roger: does it pick it How do you expect the--I assume it is a dumpster--what get pulled out onto the walkway then out to where BFI can up? Jay: We may flip flop the transformer and the trash area is that we are concerned that they tend to be reluctant to mess with those dumpsters very much. So if we re-Iocate that trash enclosure adjacent to the alley they may access it from the kitchen from the walkway so you may have a door on the end of the enclosure and go out and pull that thing straight out into the alley. And so from a functional standpoint we are going to flip that around but we still think that that is operational. Roger: Asked regarding the Sysco truck deliveries. ?: I talked to the Sysco driver and asked him if he had any problem pulling into the alley. He said he had no problem pulling into the alley that they would have to block the alley for a few minutes to unload. Then he would go up the loading ramp into the loading dock area and then back back out onto the street to exit. Sysco drives a-- they don't drive a 10 wheel semi truck. They drive more of a box style delivery truck. Sara: About parking, Jay. Are these undefined spaces--might office people be in them into the evening, residents and diners? Applicant: We were anticipating that the remainder of the spaces would not be designated. One of the reasons being that they would be used at different times. People in the office would not tend to use it at the same time as the people at the restaurant. We would be willing to designate some of those spaces for the employee if that would be part of the solution. I think that the remainder for the office and restaurant probably we prefer to leave those remain undesignated. The other main response we have is that there really is no parking problem in that area. We are putting up some spaces on 1st street as well. Charles: Made a presentation here regarding the changes in the architecture but he must have been standing behind the fan and mumbling. 13 PZM8. 21. 90 Jasmine asked for public comment. DeWolf: I live at the corner of Bleeker and 7th. Across the street from me on 2nd street is the restaurant called the Log Cabin which is a very pleasant place---mumble. I do not want to see any more free parking in our area here. It is impossible to find a place. Now Asia does have and does make a parking problem at times. There are a lot of cars parked there on 1st street and I think if somebody doesn't address this these employees might keep their cars in the underground parking garage. You might do something like that. This parking problem in the west end has to be addressed. Kemper Penne: I live directly behind Asia at 121 West Bleeker. And if the gentleman doesn't think that we have a serious parking problem mumble_ There are so many cars in the alley right now--I am ___mumble_if you look out your window, you are looking at somebody getting out of their car. We have got in the front of our house it is awful because of the cars coming from Asia and coming around to the hotel. I can't get my mail delivered sometimes. It is a terrible problem. I am not against this building at all. I think they are doing something that certainly improves what is there now and I am for this but not without doing something about the parking. For me living there I can see it every day and see it at all hours of the day and night and since this just has been started that Asia has gotten rid of a few cars and you did see a little but 4 weeks ago it was impossible and I think the cars will come back and I don't know where they are going to go. Anthony Lipkin: I live a 121 West Bleeker next to the alley by Asia. Progress is progress and the building is being built. I would just like to address the owner. Their employees seem to think it is a garage. Last winter I walked out of my back door to the alley and I stepped into a puddle of oil. A man had just left the plug out of his oil and changed his oil right there in the alley. If you go there right now at the moment, all of us, there is a man with his car up on blocks. He is painting the car in the alley. I mean if you live on an alley, you are an alley cat. We put up wi th some things. But these things are ridiculous. We don't need this. They are not doing a good job. ?: I live in the neighborhood. There is really a critical parking problem with people during the day of parking_. People still have the habit. And I know people will say "Well my car will be by my house". mumble. Oh thank heaven, someone turned off the fan. 14 PZM8. 21. 90 There are people who are parking at 5th and Bleeker and work downtown and not using the parking garage. So we are getting an overflow of parking problems. And one of the most high impacts of parking is employees. I have employees. And each employee has at least 1 car, a motorcycle and cars they are fixing up. It is really--employees generate a lot more traffic than the requirement is in the code. So I think giving any kind of variance on the parking is really going to compound the existing parking problem. It is critical as it is and I know they are trying to do what they can but I don't think a variance is in order in this case. And giving cash-in-lieu does not solve the parking problem that is existing now on Bleeker Street and 1st. We have parking overflow from the Tyrolean Lodge. You have Asia with the customers. You have employees and then you have the general public parking there so there is always a lot of cars there during the day and in the evening. And they overflow into the residential area. So I would really--the other thing is that even if you provide these spaces in the winter time unless you have a provision to make sure the snow is removed it is piled up and these spaces are basically useless during the winter time. Charles: It doesn't solve the parking problem neighborhood but one thing I would like you to consider in remodeling the building they are reducing the size restaurant so one of the end results of this project restaurant will be smaller. of the is that of the is the Jasmine: That is taken into consideration in the parking calculations because of the change in use. ?: I might also point out that presently there is no design for parking back there. It is just people park along the home side. with this new parking plan everyone would park against the back of the Asia building rather than along the Bleeker house side of the alley thus giving them a better view plain from their residences taking noise away from their structures that exist now. And placing all the cars against the Asia building in a parallel version. Some people right now are lining up single file along the Bleeker side street properties. Once we have the new parking design implemented would probably create about twice as many parking spots as compared to what is being parked there now and would pull them all to the Asia side of the alley rather than allowing people to park vertically along the back of the Asia building. Charles: We are not asking you to waive all of the affordable housing parking. We are only asking you to waive a portion of it. If you recall the last meeting that was a sense of the Board. You did not want us to waive all of it and you wanted us 15 PZM8. 21. 90 to do certain things. You wanted us to downsize the building to .75 to 1. We have done that. You wanted us to add walkways to take care of the trash area. That transformer that is back there. We have done all of those things. We are removing a lot of clutter. We are removing in addition the shed that is on the back of the existing building. We are moving the transformer. We are adding landscaping between the parking. And as far as people spray painting their cars, we will take care of that. We will make sure the area is cleaner and is going to be improved. Those things should not have happened and we will make sure that they don't happen in the future. If people are parking on the streets rather than using the parking garage then you need to look at the structure of timed parking. Jasmine closed the public hearing. Graeme: I do think that a conditional use has to be more carefully considered than something that is in the core. And I think that it is dependent on the applicant to come up with some good solutions to the problems that they create for different uses that surround it. And so I feel that we do have a right to demand solutions. Bruce: Question for Leslie: If we assume for the time being that the number 15 is just off the wall and somehow it doesn't apply, what would the number be if they were starting from scratch with the restaurant, housing and office? Someone answered 10. Bruce: So 10 would be required if they were starting right now from scratch to build the structures there. The office building, the restaurant and the employee housing. Does that assume that we are waiving the employee parking? Charles Cunniffe: When we started calculating the parking we learned abut the previous Moss approval so we never bothered with the parking situation after that. So as the building has changed in dimension and the uses have changed in the 2 buildings I haven't studied the parking calculation. Applicant: If that is the case then the total on site required would only be 12. Mari: Is that considering waiving? 16 PZM8. 21. 90 Applicant: Yes it is. Yes. That is based on the calculation on page 21. Jasmine: I think what Bruce is trying to get at is if you didn't ask for any waivers or any reductions and you just came in fresh, what would the number be? Bruce: Yes. He has made the argument that the 15 number may not have anything to do with anything and if that is the case then I think we ought to know what the number ought to be if they were just starting from scratch. Graeme: I live across the alley from a restaurant and I know what the noise and mess of the trash does. And at least looking at it here the trash seems fairly minimal to me. And I think a dumpster is wider than that. Maybe there are some dumpsters that would work in that space. I am not real convinced that the trash problem is dealt with. Applicant: We have 2 ways of dealing with it. One is we can cover it. And again that is going to improve the situation and it is going to be--the dumpster right now is just sitting there Now it is going to be an enclosure and secondly we are just going to pick up the trash more often. ? The dumpster is 5 and 1/2 and that space is 6 so we actually have room for 2 2-yard dumpsters in that area. Bruce: What mechanism do we have to insure that you actually do increase the frequency? ?: We certainly want to keep the area clean and presentable. We don't want people parking in the back and what not. We don't want complaints from the tenants saying "Every time I park my car back there, there is trash allover and it stinks". Applicant: You can make that a condition. Bruce: I understand that you don't want that. I don't want it in my business either. But sometimes I have to call up BFI and have them come back. I just want to make sure we have a mechanism to be sure that that alley is kept as clean as possible. Applicant: We could submit a contract for the following year. We would be glad to do that. Jasmine: I think what we are concerned about is to establish conditions that have some degree of enforceability to them. There is no point in trying to do things that you cannot monitor. 17 PZM8. 21. 90 Leslie: Parking is not based on total floor area. So for the net leasable excluding the amount that is being dedicated to the affordable housing the net leasable for the office and the restaurant and bar at 3 spaces for 1,000, we require 19 spaces on site. Then if you add 4 spaces per residential unit we are looking at 23. If you go through the special review reduction to 1.5 for 1,000 you are down to 9.5 spaces. Then if you still add 4 spaces for the residential parking you are up to 13 and 1/2. Applicant: Which is basically what we submitted. Leslie: In the Arthur's approval the Engineering Dept was requiring 20 spaces and they asked for a reduction to 15. Applicant: We would only be required to provide on site 9.5 plus 4 spaces. Leslie: Using the special review available to reduce 1 and 1/2 spaces for 1,000sqft instead of 3 spaces for 1,000sqft. Bruce: And the employee waiving. Leslie: That is not waiving the employee units. The 13.5 is not waiving any employee things. Graeme: What are the criteria that we can waive this or reduce it? Cunniffe: One of the things that we haven't done and didn't feel the need to is go before HPC on the designation of the restaurant building and appeal to them to reduce the parking requirement which is something that they often do for historic buildings. This existing building is an historic building. Jasmine: I think what Graeme is asking about is the reduction from 3 to 1.5 which has to do with the commercial space rather than the employee housing. Leslie: It is in here. In our CC-C1 Office, Commercial Lodge an approval for payment in lieu shall be at the option of the Commission determining whether to accept the payment or whether to require that the parking be provided on site, the Commission shall take into consideration the practical ability of the applicant to place parking on site, and whether the City has plans for parking facility which will better meet the needs of the development and the community than location of parking on site. ?: I might also add that it looks very favorable that I can negotiate with Bob Morris from the Hotel Aspen on additional 3 18 PZM8. 21. 90 spaces. It is just that we hate to use this thing on that right now because we haven't had a chance to research whether those 3 spaces that he talked about are legitimate legal spaces that he can, in fact--he assured us that he can and that is certainly an avenue that we are pursuing. He has given us a better price than what the cash-in-lieu would be so we would much rather use his spaces. Bruce: Are in between? parking. our only choices 3 and 1.5 or can we choose anywhere Based on what we think the real needs are for Roger: The way I read that is we can find anything in between. Applicant: The ultimate level is there really is not a way to get more than 14 spaces on the site. As you recall we had a plan for 15 spaces and you all looked at it and definitely rejected it so that is why we have come back with this plan to take it to 14. And to lower the size of the buildings. Jay Hammond: One additional comment in addition to the physical constraints of the existing structure and our ability to provide parking. As we started to touch on--one of the things that we envisioned the uses on that property to be substantially not overlapping that is that the office structure for the most part will be in use 8: 00 to 5: 00 whereas the predominant restaurant use as a dinner operation will be predominantly after 5:00. Jasmine: But they serve lunch. Jay: But the predominant business is the dinner business and that a lot of that activity will not tend to overlap. You won't have a full blown restaurant and a full blown office activity going on at the same time all the time. Applicant: Suggestion: We designate some spaces as affordable housing and the remainder are for the other uses. Mari: I have a question of Leslie. If the 4 spaces were designated for employees and there were 10 spaces left is it possible to arrive at that legally through waiving the commercial spaces? Leslie: I think a lot of this is the numbers and the spaces are a shell game and I think that if by ultimately signing certain spaces to really fit what we perceive--the code does not agree what we perceive as more in the need if that is what needs to happen I don't-- 19 PZM8. 21. 90 Mari: I perceive the problem to be the employee housing. Because if you are going to have 8 employees you know you are going to have at least 4 cars. Now the question in my mind is does the code legally allow for us to waive the other parking spaces down to 10 if we designate 4 parking spaces for employees. Because if the code doesn't allow it then we are not going to be able to take care of the employees. Leslie: I think the code is silent on how you sign on whatever you have left over. What the code says is that you can use the special review process to reduce the number of parking spaces. And then I think when you ultimately go to sign them it doesn't say that you then have to sign those--you can't sign those spaces employee parking or not. It doesn't say that--it says that you can reduce the amount of employee parking but it doesn't say that the remaining parking spaces cannot be signed for employee parking. Mari: That doesn't make sense to me at all. The code requires a certain number that we cannot reduce it further than from the commercial not counting the 4 spaces. Leslie: But the code does not require them to then sign all those spaces that they have in any way, shape or form. Mari: But if they are signed for employees then they are not available for the general public. Applicant: You have to look at the project as a whole. Does the project as a whole meet its needs and do we have enough parking for the employees. Jasmine: This is getting really too involved. I think we just have to take a straw vote on this. Do you think that overall there are enough parking spaces. I think if we want to apportion them in different ways we can find a mechanism to do it. Mari: That is what I am trying to get at by asking these questions. Jasmine: Yes. We can. We will figure out a way to do it. If we decide that overall the project has enough parking that is fine. Then we will then figure out a way to make the parking work the way we want it to. The question is does it have enough parking overall. Mari: If there are 4 parking spaces for employees and the code allows us to have no more than 10 more than this. Yes. Richard: yes. 20 PZM8. 21. 90 Roger: Yes. Bruce: I don't know whether it is adequate or not. This applicant cannot solve the west end's parking problems. One of the criteria that Leslie mentioned is the parking garage. So, yes. Graeme: I have to on this particular issue say that I agree that they can't--they are probably going as far as most applicants do in terms of addressing the problem. Sara: Yes. Jasmine: Now the question is how do we handle--we have agreed that we will work within the parking spot that you can have--I think that we can certainly make a condition that the applicants make every effort to pursue the leasing of the spaces from adjacent property owners which I think would really be a tremendous help and which of course the applicants have indicated they are interested in doing as well. Roger: A condition of the parking reduction approval is that they pursue the leasing of the spaces from the adjacent property owner? Leslie: OK. One of my conditions that I have is prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall make a one time cash-in-lieu. If the applicant succeeds in securing a long term lease--99 years or Denis has indicated that they would want to just buy the spaces for 3 spaces adjacent to the parcel then the cash-in-lieu shall reflect the additional parking. But you want to make that strong or you would like to make that- Why don't we make that a separate condition of approval. Jasmine: All right. Leslie: The applicant shall pursue? Jasmine: Yes. Mari: Shall pursue though--if it doesn't happen then-- Roger: Well then it is cash-in-lieu. Applicant: We don't want to pay that $64,500. 21 PZM8.21.90 Leslie: As part of this condition what if the Hotel Aspen spaces don't become available but maybe spaces a block away or 2 blocks away become available? Jasmine: I think that would be a separate thing. We can't cover all contingencies. Now do we want to put in anything about the signage for employees? Mari: I will not support this unless they do. Jasmine: Then you come up with some words. Mari: That 4 spaces wherever they are either adjacent or on the site will be designated for resident employees. Jasmine: OK. And that would be condition #6. Sara: If the hotel sells, you have to deal with that. Right? Jasmine: No. wait. Wait. Please. Leslie: housing. 4 spaces on the site shall be signed as employee Jasmine: Shall be designated for resident employees. Mari: Either on site or adjacent. Roger: And that is #6? Or is that #7? Leslie: That will be #7 because I am separating that into 2 conditions. Applicant: What is the every effort to pursue? Leslie: That will be #6. In condition #1 I talk about a site plan and landscaping plan. Now the site plan would incorporate this site plan that they submitted to us showing us the trash enclosures and the parking and landscaping. What I want to make sure with this condition of approval is that this site plan is actually going to be done. Like Arthur's wasn't done. So I want them to prior to issuance of building permit submit site and landscaping plans and I would look on that for asphalting of the alley and striping of the spaces. That is what I mean by that. 22 PZM8. 21. 90 Richard: Is that not handled in condition #5? site inspection-- "Prior to CO a Leslie: Those kind of go hand in hand. But I want to see more of a screening of the trash area because the site plan that you have submi tted just shows the trash. It doesn't show the screening or the fencing or anything like that. And I want to see that before the building permits are issued. Jasmine: I am ready to entertain a motion. Roger: But is that included in #5? Leslie: #1 will is the site and landscaping plan that they need to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Dept. And that is where-- Roger: OK but it is in there. Leslie: Yes. Right after I did this Denis and I discussed the screening of the trash and things like that that was not shown on the site plan as it was submitted. Roger: Now we approve reduction of parking? Leslie: The change in use and the special reviews are approval at Commission level. MOTION: Roger: I move to approve the special review for reduction of parking for the office building in the deed restricted employee housing and change in use of the Asia Restaurant project with conditions #1 through #5 being the same as on Planning Office memo dated August 21, 1990 (attached in record) with the addition of condition #6, "Every effort shall be made to pursue the 3 parking spaces on an adjacent site which can be used in lieu of cash-in-lieu". Those words may have to be corrected as above. Condition #7, "The 4 spaces on the site or on the adjacent site shall be designated for resident employees". And then continuing on Planning Office memo dated August 21, 1990 the further statement and conditions additional #1 and #2. Richard seconded the motion. Applicant: Can I clarify that on paragraph 2 that we have the option of something other than a lease, a purchase or equivalent guarantee of an easement? We don't want to get tied in to 23 PZM8. 21. 90 whether that is going to be a long term lease. outright purchase 4 spaces. We may just Roger: OK so then amending my motion. indicate lease or purchase. Condition #2 shall Bruce: Leslie spaces It ought to refer to legal transferrable parking is still checking out whether there are actual or not. spaces. parking Leslie: Another point of clarification: Roger the last 2 conditions #1 and #2 go with the GMP scoring. You haven't scored yet. Roger: I again amend my motion to strike staff's comment in additional condition #1 and #2 from that motion. Richard amended his second to the motion. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. SCORING Jasmine then did her scoring and had to leave. The meeting was turned over to Roger. Commission then did scoring. MOTION Roger: I move that we accept these scores subject to audit and on that basis forward to Council for allocation subject to conditions #1 and #2 of Planning Office memo dated 1990. We also recommend allocation of 1,200sqft of net leasable of the 1989 Commercial GMP. There will also be an allocation of 1,641sqft of net leasable from the 1990 Commercial GMP. And further recommend a multi year allocation for the Asia project so the Asia Office Building can be built all at one time. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned. 24