Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19901204 ~u "'" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS -- PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4. 1990 Meeting was called to order by Vice Chairlady Jasmine Tygre at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Peyton, Roger Hunt, and Graeme Means were excused. Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Mari Jasmine Tygre. Wel ton Anderson and Bruce Kerr arrived at 4:45. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Roger: We have been having problems with the Maroon Creek Bridge as far as trying to get the big move. This weekend I figured out the solution to it. That is if someone were to just happen to run into the lower structure with a bulldozer that would take care of the thing! Richard: Avenue. Last Spring we discussed a home work-space over on Park Is that supposed to be attached to the main house? Kim, Planning Dept: It became attached. It became the expansion to the residence and then bona-fide home occupation within the residence rather than a separate structure solely for the use for the home occupation. "",,>' Richard: The tower on the new library. approved? How did that ever get Leslie, Planning: They came in with an amendment to the approved plan and staff was real concerned about it. We took it before Council. Council thought it needed to make a statement. That was when Roxanne had set up the public projects review group and they really didn't have a problem with it and approved it. Richard: Is it a height variance to get it? Leslie: Because the underlying zoning is SPA, you don't have any dimensional requirements un~erlying the whole Rio Grande parcel. So as the projects come thrqugh that is when we define all those dimensional requirements. It was basically an amendment to the approved plan. I have asked Bill several t:imes to go out and double check and make sure that it is at lieast not over the height that was amended and he hasn't said w~ether it is. Richard: It is certainly noticeable. " "'"'- Leslie: And I also called the architect on the mechanical. Did you notice the mechanicals that are up on top? I have requested that he build a parapet. 1- PZM12.4.90 Richard: It would be good to have a special meeting just to have a brainstorming session about what our objectives are as a Board. There was general agreement. Sara: The project going in right at the bridge on Hopkins st. Some huge boulders came out of that as they were excavating there. They are so huge that it demeans the river bank. I am wondering about--I know the water is so low right now. Kim: They had to get appropriate approvals and permits to do underwater. I understand that they did because they are in the process of seeking their #1 building permit. They got their excavation permits to work during low water time. Sara: However what is going in the replace. about those boulders corning out of there. foundations now and have it cure properly. I am concerned You can't pour Kim: I can't address that question. falling apart that is their problem. If their concrete starts Sara: And the river's. Kim: Well, the river is fine. That was a concern of the approval that adequate measures be taken for erosion. I noticed that a city Engineer went by there a couple of weeks ago. They appear to be complying with all of the conditions of approval that were set forth by this commission. They were supposed to excavate from the inside out and leave a standing natural wall that would be mostly boulders. MINUTES NOVEMBER 20. 1990 Sara made a motion to approve the minutes of November 20, 1990. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor except Richard who had not attended that meeting. HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES BLDG. COUNTY REFERRAL Ellen Sassano, Planning Dept: record. Made presentation as attached in Jasmine: The thing I don't understand is if the road is already below capacity I can't understand why it wasn't on the list of 2 PZM12.4.90 projects. That is the road that serves the hospital. It doesn't seem to me logical that that could be tolerated. Ellen: Apparently it is the County Engineer has indicated that it is discussed in the 5 year plan but it hasn't been slated on the actual roads to be improved within the 5 year plan. Jasmine: It would seem that as a matter of community safety that the road that leads to the hospital should definitely be given priority. It is appalling to me that it not be on that list. Bruce: Well, Hwy 82 has been substandard for years. Jasmine: But that is not under their control. Bruce: I know. But neither is the County road. your comment. But there are lots of roads around substandard that we really can't do anything about. I agree with here that are My question is what would you do with the playground. Would you just flipflop it back over to the valley east side? Ellen: Perhaps. If the building is moved obviously the parking may have to be re-designed and a playground may have to be moved. If it is moved obviously some changes are going to have to occur. The playground would probably be flipflopped. Roger: Can you describe how that building is going to be moved? Ellen: I am only recommending that the building be moved to the north and I haven't looked at any design changes other than the one that if it is moved significantly, then parking is going to have to be re-designed. Roger: What is the rational for that visiter dropoff. Who are you serving with that and who are you serving with this staff dropoff? Ellen: The visiter dropoff is part of a larger scheme to create good circulation for RFTA. RFTA is to come in the entrance that is shown as the improved intersection and come out through the hospital parking lot to drop off at the hospital, corne back through dropoff at the Health and Human Service entrance and back down to pick up employee housing residents. Roger: It looks like a lot of the employee housing residents can use that visiter dropoff area. Ellen: That is the primary intent of having that dropoff. The separate staff dropoff may have something to do with officing 3 PZM12.4.90 that is in the building. entrance for staff. I don't know why there is a separate Roger: I can understand the staff entrance because it serves that staff parking out there but this dropoff seems-- I want to express my dismay because one rational used for that absurd road paralleling Castle Creek for the Marolt Housing was that that intersection was "dangerous and we would have to do something with that intersection". Well, gee, as long as it is a County project, it looks like we are going to do something with that intersection, doesn't it? Ellen: Well, perhaps. If it is approved. Roger: Perhaps? Because we used one hell of a lot of open space for that as far as I am concerned for a rather useless road. I am irked about it. But I was a minority of one or two on this Commission about that. I just find it one horrible bit of planning to do it this way--to have the same City/County staff preach one thing to us about this intersection under an earlier set of conditions and now all of a sudden we have this. And there is finally going to be something done about that intersection. It just has to be done. The volume is there that it requires at least a stop sign on Castle Creek. Ellen: The move was actually--the applicant proposes to move the intersection because as it is proposed the site distance from the curve up the road should be improved. Roger: That makes a degree of sense but at that same token our Planning Dept could have been doing some planning here--co- ordinated across the wall within the Planning Office. It is just very irritating to see that sort of thing There is all sorts of problems along that road which literally has been now created by this poor planning. We have this intersection that is obviously going to be moved. We have another intersection down here for the senior assistance housing. Then on the other side of the road is this infernal Marolt Housing intersection. So we have created a real lousy situation that was totally unnecessary. And I would like that expressed to the County P&Z. It didn I t take much a,ense to see ahead the problems occurring and I think we did recommend that the Senior Housing access should have been through the hospital to that existing intersection. And they chose to ignore that. Jasmine: I think it becomes more unfortunate because they were all "public projects". And therefore City and County government both look sort of silly. 4 PZM12.4.90 Roger: And it wasn't as if they weren't informed about it. That is what gets me. In spite of being informed about the whole thing, there it went willy-nilly. Richard: On the site plan here it shows a dotted line for the existing hospital building. Is it planning to expand? Ellen: Yes. Richard: In condition 18 on page 6--the applicant shall demolish the existing community center prior to issuance of a building permit for the new building or apply for a temporary use permit. Now if the Koch Housing project that is planning to use that site, the current plan is to utilize part of the building. How does that dovetail with this requirement that that be demolished? Ellen: Good question. Richard: That needs to be dealt with. They are just talking about the east wing where the boiler room is and the cafeteria so that the meeting room, the day care and that long hallway there would be removed? Ellen: Thank you for bringing that up. I need to look into that. Richard: I wasn't happy when this was proposed to be moved that far out of town. It seems that that is a tradeoff maybe between a better facility and accessibility that it is now a short walk or a short bus ride and now it is a longer walk and a longer bus ride to get there. That is a human services building. And that seemed to be making some sacrifice in its accessibility by siting it out there. Jasmine: Better in the school for example. Sara: I would like to second that. Especially when we are talking about probably one mistake in the planning of this community was moving the post office so far away from the center of town. So if you want a community feeling and people on foot you don't take away those sorts of facilities. Also how soon do you have to vacate the Community Center? Ellen: What will happen is the County will have to put in an application for a temporary use permit which basically says that upon completion of--there is not necessarily a time limitation. But on completion of the new building typically the old building must be razed. 5 PZM12.4.90 Sara: So all the static from the Commissioners being upset with their P&Z saying "wait for a Masterplan--they can wait". Ellen: There are some other factors involved. There is a grant that the County received which I am sure there is a time limit on. In addition if the community Center is not moved the Koch Housing project is also--or I should say some sort of employee development project on that site is delayed. It is a domino effect and the Commissioners have something that they see as need which should be met in the immediate future. Sara: I don't know who won the architectural design for this but it is not a pretty design. I would like to see it broken up a little bit. It is a big mass. Jasmine: How much bigger is it going to be than the existing building at the Community Center? Richard: I would say it is considerably larger. present one is in the 7 or 8,OOOsqft. I think the Ellen: And this one will be a 7,OOOsqft. -~...~ Roger: I see I am one of the few in this room who had the privilege of dealing with Mr. Williams to get a driver's license in the trailer behind the Courthouse way back when. Now we have to go down to Basalt to do that because there is no place for them up here. Isn't this building an ideal place for that kind of facility? The motor vehicle licensing? It is absurd that we have to drive 18 miles down valley to get a driver's license. Bruce: It also relates to the function of this new building. My sense of the existing building is that it is a place that is alive especially when some of the senior activities that go on there. The only thing I see about seniors is senior services and there is one little office for the director that is shared with several other directors and I am wondering how the seniors plug into this facility. There is nothing designated for the seniors. And we have got half or more of the bottom floor in the day care. But I see nothing on the bottom floor for the seniors and nothing really on the top floor. Ellen: I guess they are only shown currently as shared offices. In addition there will be some conference space that can be used as a facility for senior activities. But in terms of officing-- Bruce: There bottom floor. is one conference area, it looks like, on the That is the gathering room for the seniors? 6 PZM12.4.90 -- Ellen: Well, there l,300sqft of conference space. Bruce: It just doesn't seem to me that the seniors are really plugged into this building. It doesn't show in the plans. The kitchen is shown only in the pre-school day care area and not close to the conference area. That is something which needs to be looked into. Ellen: I don't know what the senior needs are. Bruce: Surely the County should look into the senior's needs if they are going to tear the other place down. Maybe they can go into the Youth Center. They would need it when the youths are in school. Sara: That is a very good idea. Jasmine: I think the comments that the people here have made so far have to do with the fact that you really wonder whether all of the resources were considered before they made this plan or whether people just got the idea of "Hey, let's build a new building" instead of trying to figure out whether maybe some of these functions could be accommodated in other buildings or another location. , ""-' The sense I get from all of this is that not much thought was really given to who is going to be using it and what they are going to be using for and where they are coming from, what kinds of people they are and what kind of programs they are going to have. Maybe this was all factored in there but the building plan as shown--the location--the entrance--the way the space is used all seem to everybody on this commission in one way or another and taking from one point of view or another, to be really just sort of like "Let's build a building"--just sort of like "Hey, let's put on a show". I think that there are a lot of areas of dissatisfaction that every member on this commission has expressed with this project. Roger: How many beds in the detox? small space. It looks like an awfully Ellen: I assume that the number of beds was probably done in cahoots with the hospital. "';''''., Jasmine: That is the thing. We don't want to assume that this has been done and that the seniors have been consulted, that you have spoken to the hospital or you have spoken to the Detox .- 7 PZM12.4.90 Center in Glenwood to find out whether this is in fact the right number of beds. Ellen: This is somewhat a conceptual design. There will be a detailed submission stage where "We will look more closely at architectural kinds of details and building designs. Jasmine: Yes, but if you go on the theory that the building should follow the functions for which it is designed, I don't think that anybody has really made a really firm grip on what the functions of the building are supposed to be. I think you have the cart before the horse and I think everybody else on this commission feels the same way. SILVER CITY GRILL CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING Jasmine opened the public hearing. Leslie Lamont, Planning Dept: Made presentation as attached in record. Jasmine: I remember when of the other conditional uses were periodically ownership would kick in a we were talking about Bon-Thai and some uses that went in and that conditional reviewable and that any change in conditional use hearing again. Leslie: That was something that we talked about when we talked about High Altitude Cuisine. That was a condition of approval that you put on that. Jasmine: I am 99% sure we put that condition on the Thai Restaurant. I think we even talked about putting it in as part of a code amendment that all conditional uses like that would be subjected to periodic review or else would not be permanent uses but would be only granted for a period of X amount of time that there would be some kind of way to make sure that the conditions of approval had any meaning rather than having them go in and like Metzaluna which was supposed to be primarily a locally oriented restaurant and then going in with a permanent conditional approval and so it was my understanding that we were going to do one of several things to conditional uses to make them not open ended like that. To give us the ability to deal with restaurants that came in saying one thing and then turn out to be another and no further action be possible. Leslie: Phil has provided me with all the information on the numbers of employees and the numbers of seats in this space. What I was attempting to do is establish that as a base line. The space limits itself. If Phil were to want to expand into the '..".,... 8 J'.." PZM12.4.90 - quilt shop then we would have that mechanism to re-evaluate the increase in employees. There was discussion regarding number of employees. Phil weir: I am coming before you for permission to have sit- down seating. I am allowed to have take-out with as many employees I want. What I am trying to do is open a restaurant in Aspen that is affordable to local people. My prices are $3.25 for a 50z hamburger, $3.75 for a cheeseburger, $3.75 for a ground turkeyburger, $3.50 for a ground chicken burger, $3.75 for the salad bar with all the salad you can eat. French fries, milk shakes at $2.50. Malts, smoothies, non-fat frozen yogert smoothies and apple pie. I am trying to provide something that I hear every day that is not here--an affordable place where you can come in and quickly leave. I am trying to do it as a service to the community. Also to make money. But I am trying to keep the prices low. Everything under $5.00. There was much further discussion (sometimes heated) in regard to mitigation of employees. Roger: My concern is does this space have separate direct access to the alley? It is a restaurant. It better have separate direct access to the alley. Ellen: alley. This space you have to go down the ramp and onto the The ramp is parallel to the alley. Roger: alley? There is ramp access directly from the space to the OK. I guess this one I can live with. Jasmine: What we are talking about now is what this business is actually going to generate. I think the employee generation figures that are used for housing mitigation, I don't think are adequate. This is a perfect example. Mari: It looks to me like 6. Jasmine: What we can do is establish 6 as the base number of employees and say that under the circumstances we are not going to require him to mitigate for anything at this point. If we approve this we will allow him to have 6 full-time employees and that anything above and beyond that would have to be mitigated. Mari: I think 6 is a reasonable compromise. It would allow him to do what he wants to do. It wouldn't cause him to have to mitigate for things that his predecessors didn't have to mitigate ....~ 9 ,A"-"';'.,. PZM12.4.90 ,-- for and it would set a level where if he did expand he would have to mitigate. Roger: We would like to kick in that this operation should be reviewed yearly. And it is primarily because the applicant has established he is a locally oriented restaurant. We don't have any standards about that. Leslie: How about "A yearly review of this operation shall be required to determine that use has not changed". Mari: You can't think about just the particular owner that is before us because there is a potential that this could be sold to someone else still operating under the same conditional use. Roger: Let me review: Condition #5 establishes the 75bsqft as the base square footage. Leslie: I was going to establish Condition #4 where we talked about the seats. Jasmine: So a base line operation of 6 full-time employees, 24 customer seats and set 100sqft. Mari: Just to keep the language consistent. It is always "full- time equivalent". Jasmine asked if there was any public comment. There was none and she closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the Silver City Grill Restaurant at 308 South Hunter Street with the following conditions: Condition #1 and #2 being exactly the same as Planning Office memo dated December 4, 1990 (attached in record) Condition #3 will be the same as that memo except the number of full-time equivalent will be changed from 9 to 6 and the word employee will be changed to equivalent. In Condition #4 of that memo again the figure 9 shall switch to 6, employee shall switch to equivalent and after 24 customer seats the insertion of 750sqft or whatever the exact number is. And then Condition #5 "A yearly review of this operation shall be required to determine that the use has not changed. Bruce: Where in here do we put in language about making sure that it is staying a locally oriented restaurant. ......' 10 PZM12.4.90 -.... Leslie: The yearly review of this operation shall determine that the use does not change, the type of restaurant as presented shall not change as it was presented as a locally oriented type of restaurant and the number of employees does not increase. Richard seconded the motion with everyone in favor. 1000 EAST HOPKINS Jasmine opened the public portion of this hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. Rick Neiley, Attorney for appl icant: The way this settlement came about was when we submitted our original application after the adoption of Ord 47 about 18 months ago we had prepared certain plans which were consistent with what the city was requiring at that time. When we began to discuss this settlement our objective was to use those plans to the greatest extent possible. What you are seeing as attachments to this application and what were submitted to the Planning Office are the same plans for the free market units as originally conceived in design and originally submitted. Part of the purpose of the settlement was to preserve as much of what we had done in the past as we possibly could. We knew we had to add an affordable housing component. We knew that they had to be units of at least 750sqft. It wasn't clear, given the constraints of the site, how we were going to be able to accomplish that. It wasn't clear how much parking we were going to have to give up in order to incorporate those units. Some of the things that were requested in this application such as the rear yard setback variance and the 2ft height variance are designed to increase the desirability of the affordable units but we had to build effectively for additional units into this project and one of the conditions that we dealt with when we deal t with the settlement through the Attorney's Office and in front of the City council was an objective of maintaining the integrity of the design which had already been completed and simply adding these as additional units. When we focused on this and you see in the memo that it says we would be entitled to approximately l5,OOOsqft, we knew that we had to have approximately 3,OOOsqft of employee affordable housing. We didn't know how that configuration was going to work, how much of it we could get above grade, how we were going to adjust the parking and that sort of thing. And when we created this memorandum we just took that figure and figured we ''-'''' 11 PZM12.4.90 ""~ were going to have four 750sqft units. The balance was going to be free market up to 1.1 to 1 FAR ratio. It wasn I t specifically intended to say you couldn't go over 3,OOOsqft. In fact the plans were already in which subsequent calculation shows to be 3,OOOsqft each. I just want to emphasize that the purpose of all this was to preserve as much of the original project as we could because we had already spent tremendous amounts of money on design, architect planning, etc. And this was a compromise. Jasmine: Then why does the settlement specifically mention the 3,OOOsqft? Neiley: 15,000. housing Because we knew we were entitled Approximately 3,OOOsqft was going and that left approximately 12,000. to approximately to be affordable Jasmine: No. 3,OOOsqft for the free market units is what I am-- Neiley: That is what I am saying. We knew there were going to be probably 4 units. We knew that approximately 3,OOOsqft was going to be attributable to affordable housing and that the balance was then going to be free market. We didn't know at that time exactly what the square footage was. We didn't know exactly how we were going to be able to fit things onto the site. We hoped at all stages that we would be able to preserve the plans that you see which are our original plans. That was the intention of the settlement from the outset--that we would be allowed to use as much as possible what we had originally submitted to the city. When the 3,OOOsqft figure comes up it comes up because we subtracted from the approximate total square footage of 15,000 sqft--the 3,OOOsqft that was attributable to affordable housing. Then you take the 4 units and it comes out to 3,OOOsqft each. Sunny: There is another way to look at it. That is the allowable FAR which we agreed to under the settlement would be 15,OOOsqft FAR. The only other requirement that was placed upon was a minimum, if you read the settlement agreement, of 750sqft units--3,OOOsqft. If the entire project were built above grade then that would leave 12,OOosqft for the free market units or as the settlement agreement says approximately 3,OOOft per unit. The settlement also provided that up to the maximum of 50% of the employee housing units could be placed below grade because they had to go at the rear of the site to take advantage of change in grade. We were able to re-design the basement portion of this project such that 50% of the employee housing unit is below .- 12 '>",-. PZM12.4.90 - grade. From a total square footage there is 3,OOOsqft of employee housing. From an FAR point of view there is only l,500sqft of free market unit. And when you subtract 1,500 from the total 15,000 it explains the increase in the size of the free market unit. Jasmine: So in other words what you did was put the employee housing in the basement which would not count in your FAR and then expanded the free market units. ~"............ sunny: We didn't expand. It turned out to be the same size as it was in the original application. Neiley: In fact we didn't put the affordable units entirely in the basement. We pushed out the back of the building as well as far as we could out to the constraints of the site. There is a maj or sewer outfall that goes across the back of the property. So what we did was we had to preserve a certain amount of parking on site. And that has to be underground parking. So we pushed the back of the building out solely for the affordable units. And the calculations being slightly different than what you see there the main reason is nobody knew exactly what the calculations were going to be going into it. We knew that we were going to just take our existing building, raise it up so that we could increase light and whatnot for the affordable units and push the back out as far as we could on the site and still preserve the necessary front yard setbacks and whatnot. So essentially what we have done is we have raised it up and pushed it back to create those affordable units which under the circumstances that they existed when we got into this project in 1988 were not requirements for this site. So we added the additional square footage to the extent that it is reflected purely as FAR. In our drafting the intention was to get it in front of City Council to get a framework for the settlement and then get into the settlement process. But always to use to the greatest extent possible our existing drawings which is exactly what we have done. Jasmine: The problem that I have with this and I think a lot of other members as well is that we can't really judge this entirely as we would a regular project because there was a settlement in place. And so we have to go by the terms of the settlement. And if the settlement says 3,OOOsqft-- Sunny: That's fine. If you want to narrowly interpret as such because the Planning Office thinks that's what was intended, that's fine. We can pass that recommendation on to city Council. Jasmine: I am just really confused about what--if we have a settlement that we are working with, then we kind of have to stay -,,--- 13 PZM12.4.90 with the terms of the settlement except for certain things that can be there that would not affect the settlement. Sunny: Do you see the work "maximum" in front of the 3,OOO? There is not one. Neiley: The problem is that we did not know exactly what we were going to be able to fit into the site. Jasmine: I am just trying to get you to understand that I am really not concerned about what we can do in terms of what we agreed to. sunny: I feel so comfortable with it that if you want to pass on as part of your recommendation that the settlement agreement was unclear in terms of the size of it and let Council dispose of it, that is fine. I am not concerned that Council is going to come back and say it was a maximum number. And I don't expect you to try and think about what was on the mind of the city Attorney when he negotiated this with Rick Neiley. Jasmine: We are in a situation where we are being asked to approve something that is contrary to the settlement. Neiley: Not really. Because it is a 1.1 to 1 FAR ratio. And I think we are actually below that. But the idea was to allow us to use the site to the greatest extent. Jasmine: I understand what you are saying. commission, have been given a submission that does terms of the settlement. But we, as a not conform in sunny: It says approximately 3,000. Jasmine: That they were to be 3,OOOsqft. Jasmine: I don't want to get the P&Z into a situation where we are causing a problem with this. Neiley: And that is fine. Because as far as we are concerned-- Council knew what the intent was to the extent that it is different from what you see strictly reflected here. We can deal with that. Sunny: There is a way of handling it without getting P&Z into a problem and also addresses our concern. That is to address the subdivision related issues of to state your concern over what the settlement agreement meant with respect to the 3,000. If the Council agrees with you then we have 2 choices. We can either -- 14 PZM12.4.90 take that square footage and put it in employee housing units or we can reduce the size of the free market. We will probably have to reduce the size of the free market because we have no further space in the subgrade ground level to accommodate the housing without giving up additional parking or without going back to square one in the design process which was not the intent of City Council. So I think you can pass it that way. You are consistent with the agreement. Roger: The density FAR is limited to 1.1 to 1. That is the finite thing. And then as a sub to those I am not reading those- -obviously 750sqft minimum--but I am not seeing either a minimum or a maximum in the earlier lines. So if their overall project is below the density limit of 1.1 to 1, which I think you just represented it was, I have less problems understanding where they came from where these totals come out. The important thing is that the total ends up 15,OOOsqft or less. Sunny: 3,OOOsqft of employee housing is still provided. Roger: Well no. A minimum of 750sqft per unit which comes out to an FAR of approximately 1,500. So I think I can deal with that. It doesn't look like we are upsetting the apple cart. Why don't we inform the Council that we have gone on that basis. Kim: The settlement provides that the project be reviewed under the PUD review in order to allow specific dimensional variance in the parking variances. And those are that the rear setback is proposed to be 0 on the rear lotline to allow for the affordable units that project at the back. That was an additional requirement of the settlement. And also because the building was razed to accommodate the lowest level with affordable housing they are requesting a building height variance of 2ft. This actual variance is only to the rear 2/3rd of the building--that area where the units are. The architect assured me that it would be all right by her to reflect in the condition that the height variance only be to the rear 2/3rd of the building to accommodate the affordable units. Sunny: I guess you could recommend that Council revise the terms of the settlement agreement. Is it clear why the 0 setback in the rear is required? There are actually 2 parcels of land separated by a platted alley which does not exist. And that alley looks like part of the back yard of the Valley High but in fact it belongs to the City. Since it is a piece of public property and we can only develop the project on that portion that is zoned RMF which is the front part, we must measure the 10ft setback from that non-existent alley. So Council thought in order to allow us to move the site back and to provide more light ...- 15 PZM12.4.90 ...- and area above grade in the employee housing units that granting the variance from that setback was meaningless because behind that is the 20ft alley and then the depth of the next parcel. So we are way back from the edge of the river and it was a reasonable compromise to allow us to build a better employee unit without sUbstantially modifying the approved architecture. Had they not granted the 10ft then we would have needed an even higher variance in order to get the employee housing 50% above grade. So what it does it gives a better employee unit and it increases the front yard of the project and reduces the overall height of the building and that portion which must have a variance in order for the employee housing to work. Kim: What staff is proposing is, given the intent and the spirit of the settlement, that for rental purposes and sale purposes if the 3 units are broken into 2 being the lower end of the moderate category and the 3rd being the higher end. Staff proposes 3 options. The first being reducing the size of the free market units and applying that square footage to the affordable units. Realizing that that is probably an awkward architectural problem the second option ~s that the affordable units be indexed category one--Iow income to give a boost to the provision of affordable housing. Then as a third option that the Spring market units be reduced back to 3,OOOsqft and allow the affordable units that the middle and moderate category as originally proposed. Regarding the FAR and the density situation giving the RMF zoning designation as the underlying zoning that the FAR and density figures comply with the zone district. Regarding the Stream Margin Review. This is one item that you will specifically be called upon to make a decision tonight on. The proposed structure is pretty far away from the bank--about sunny: 20ft for the alley and 30ft for the-- Kim: water flood goes. We are in a situation--technically within 100ft of the high line. The actual structure is at least ft above the elevation. So we are kind of off the hook as far as that Planning Office does recommend approval of the Stream Margin. .- 16 PZM12.4.90 The Fisherman's Easement is the standard 5ft easement. And also legitimizing a trail by virtue of dedicating an easement that the trail runs along the river bank. sunny: calling it a trail is a little bit of a is a crude footpath that goes up and down this the high water line of the river. It was put Problem Bridge along Hopkins and terminates condominium complex. license. There slope following in from the No down near the Under stream Margin we are required to dedicate a trail. On the Trail's Masterplan that is indicated. as a trail access and as part of the original application. This application we have agreed to provide a trail equal in width to the requirements of the code on an al ignment which is acceptable to the city. It really is not an issue to us. You determine where you want it and we will provide the easement. There has been discussion among staff as to whether a trail as we know it--a paved surface in this case--is appropriate because of the steepness of the slope. That issue is really up to the city as to what type of facility they want down there. The city is interested in acquiring the easement so as to complete portions of the trail network and we are happy to provide it. The hundred year floodplain is slightly above the edge of the river. Chuck Roth wants the trail out of the hundred year floodplain which means we would grant the 15ft easement from this line back. He also wants a 5ft Fisherman's Easement along the edge which we would also grant. The property gets much steeper as you come up this way. Whether or not the city would elect to construct 15ft asphalt trail along this alignment is questionable because you would have to cut the slope and build a retaining wall there. I think what they wanted to guarantee was continue with pedestrian access along that river. I don't have a problem if it is above the 100 year floodplain or below it. It would seem to me that it would make more sense between the edge of the river and the 100 year floodplain but that is up to the city. Richard: I would second what Sunny just said. It is not necessary not have a trail out of the 100 year flood line and that it is more important to put it where it makes sense rather than at a certain height above the water. Sunny: We have a prohibition against further development of the property. Our only interest would be the minimal disruption of that slope. It is an amenity not only to us but the people across the street who look into the back of our project. "~-- 17 PZM12.4.90 Richard: certainly you would want some guarantee that the trail wouldn't be moved even closer to the building envelope. Kim: We would recommend as a condition that erosion control protection and protection of the vegetation be implemented. The next category is subdivision review. Basically this application conforms to the general review standards for subdivision review. The PUD framework for review is an additional layer on top of the subdivision review. So those particular PUD review requirements go almost hand in hand with subdivision review standards. As far as the subdivision creating duplication of facilities or unnecessary public cost the Sanitation Dist has mentioned that there is a certain line repair that needs to be done in conjunction with supplying this project. They call for that cost to be incurred by the applicant. This is reflected in the condition of approval. The Fire Marshal has indicated that this is a new multi-family structure of a certain type occupancy level that it must sprinklered with a certified alarm system. It does not have to be plugged into the fire station. The Engineering Dept as well as the Streets Dept will require a drainage plan to be submitted to insure the historic increased runnoff not go into the streets or into the storm sewer system. The scheduling of construction--Sunny indicated that they are looking at construction next spring. That is kind of a function of the market activity at the time. But the project is seeking 3 year vested rights. They understand that within that 3 year period they either have to get their building permits and proceed or the development approval will lapse. Sunny: The development approval doesn't lapse. We are just no longer immune from changes in the regulatory process. We still have approval. Jasmine: That is for the Council to decide anyway. Vesting of the rights is a council action. Richard: I would like to put in a requirement that the present building not be demolished this year and then the new project started 2 or 3 years down the line. Demolition of the present units be immediately followed by replacement seeing as how those are affordable units--the 22 units that are being used right now. 18 PZM12.4.90 Kim: The parking situation: You need to make a formal recommendation on that. RMF zone requires 1 space per bedroom which would be 20 spaces for this project. The settlement declares that 12 spaces as a minimum must be provided. Those being 8 for the free market units and 4 for the affordable units. In discussing the variance as proposed which you still could impose more than 12 as you see fit. I have asked that a condition of approval that be on the plat that certain parking spaces are designated for each unit and those be noticed on the plat so that no one buy the unit assuming that they have 3 bedrooms and 3 parking spaces. Proximity of the development to the commercial core and public facilities: This is about 5 blocks from the center of downtown. So it is reasonable to assume that most everyday short trips will be reduced because of the short walking distance to town. The other 2 items that will come down the road to Council are the growth management exemption for reconstruction of employee units and construction for deed restricted units as well as the vesting of development rights for 3 years. #12 in the conditions of approval gets to the question of the size of the free market units and the different options that you might want to recommend to Council if they seek a strict interpretation of the verbiage of the settlement memo. I think Planning would recommend #12 the first choice to be the first one mentioned that the applicant reduce the floor area of the free market units to 3,OOOsqft and deed restrict 2 units to category 2, 1 unit to category 3 and the 4th unit to category 4. Sunny: I would like to point out that this was negotiated based on the Housing Authority guidelines in effect at the time. The applicant has relied on those as a basis of entering into this particular settlement agreement. The fact that the guidelines have changed at this point is irrelevant. If you wish to recommend this--the change in the free market, etc--that is fine. We would carry that condition forward to the City Council but our proceeding under the terms of this agreement are based on a recognition that we can rent it and sell it under certain guidelines and that we can construct a certain amount of free market square footage to recoup the cost in this particular project. I think Council will recognize the discrepancies between the guidelines and the units when they have entered into the settlement. We have undergone 2 years of delay. We wish to use the same plans that we originally submitted and we want to take into "- 19 PZM12.4.90 .- account the fact that we are incurring additional cost as result of this particular solution. So we are not going to argue with you about which one of them is appropriate. As far as we are concerned we are in compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement. We will debate that issue with City Council. But it is our understand that the terms in place at the time of the agreement were those which we have gone with in this project. Neiley: with respect to the levels of deed restriction whether or not we call them middle, category 1, category 2 or whatnot I think is less relevant than focusing on the dollar amounts that were approved by Council. When we deed restrict these units we are going to start out at a particular level and there is going to be appreciation factors and whatnot as are approved by the Housing Authority. Our expectation is that we are going to start out at the present dollar amounts that are contained in the settlement agreement regardless of what income category you call it. Sunny: Those incomes or permitted a meeting of particular litigation. Sara: You are suggesting that the staff has no business saying what guidelines because the settlement tells you what you can sell the deed restricted housing for? those rental prices are the basis which the minds on the settlement of this Sunny: We are at P&Z for recommendation on subdivision review and Stream Margin Review approval and a consideration of the 2 variances under the PUD requirements. The guidelines were another part of the settlement agreement which I don't really think P&Z is reviewing. But if you want to comment on those because of the complexity of the 3,OOOsqft issue on the size of the free markets, that is fine. Roger: I would recommend changing #12 basically to put that on the Council's back. Jasmine asked for public comment. Norma Dahl: I live in the neighborhood at Riverview Condos. I represent a lot of the neighbors. We are very concerned about the parking. I am trying to understand how much parking--you just said something about 2 spaces per unit for the short-term people? 20 ,,~'.... PZM12.4.90 ,-......~ Sunny: There are 4 free market condominiums that contain 3 bedrooms each. They are 6 month minimum lease and each one of those units has 2 designated parking spaces. The 4 2-bedroom affordable housing units each have 1 designated space. The thinking on behalf of Council was that it was quite possible that the free market units might be absentee owned and the likelihood of having a person in each bedroom with a car was not there. You can drive through the Aspen Club, the Gant, anyplace you want and the parking lots are empty. There is a Cherokee or Range Rover in the garage but there are 3 blank parking spaces. Norma: Well there is a real impact on that street as you all are probably aware. It narrows down and they are going to put a large complex across the street from this. And there are people that are parked on that street. There is a girl that lives the other way across the bridge. She has been there for 3 months. We have called the police on it. In Riverview which is the older building that we have had for 15 years--at that time they just required 1 parking space per unit. Most of ours are either 2 bedroom units or 3 bedroom units. Most of the people that live at Riverview are permanent people like us. Just about everybody I know has 2 cars and there are some that have 3 cars. So we are very concerned about the impact of the parking. We feel that there is not going to be enough parking spaces. I don't know what is going to happen in this neighborhood and I don't know if the City is going to address widening that road when they put in this other development. So I don't know. It sounds to me like that there wouldn't be adequate parking with it set up this way. Also you say there is going to be underground parking? Sunny: Yes. It is all underground. Norma: We have the Snow Queen Lodge. Across the street they have that apartment building. That is underground parking and if there is any parking on the street people will park on the street. They don't even use the underground parking particularly in the winter time. ~ The other thing in the winter time that we are worried about is when the snow plow goes through that road is so narrow that I don't know how they are going to get out or back out or trucks to go through to that end. That is why I am here representing a lot of the neighbors. I feel like there is going to be a significant impact on that neighborhood because of all of this housing that is going in--which is OK. But I think that this really has to be addressed that there is plenty of parking that goes along with all of this. - 21 PZM12.4.90 r....:'~ "~ It is not reality when people think that just because it is close to town and that it is long-term people there that they don't need to have cars. Everybody I know has at least 1 car to go down valley or whatever. It just doesn't make sense to me not to have enough parking. Jasmine asked if there was any further public comment. There was none and she closed the public hearing. Bruce: In connection with the parking: I know it does disastrous things to the front of the units and the open space requirements. But is there not room for any surface parking? Neiley: You can't count parking in the calculation of open space. We can't push the building back any further because of the sewer outfall. The other aspect of it that we really should see a significant improvement in parking down there. Right now we have 22 bedrooms and almost all of them are occupied by people with cars and we have got.probably fewer real parking spaces at the site right now than we will in the future. Because we are creating a driveway going into the site under the new plans whereas the whole front of the lot is open right now, we will actually be picking up probably 3 parking spaces on the street. Now we can't use that as a credit for us but as a practical matter you increase the number of parking spaces while really we will be reducing the number of cars. So the situation should be improved down there as opposed to aggravating it. Sunny: We are required to come in and put curb and gutter and sidewalk. A portion of the site is the extension of the street in front of it. It was vacated years ago so there is no curb and gutter. It just sort of spills out into everything. Bruce: You would estimate there is 20 cars there now? Sunny: counting junkers? Neiley: Despite our efforts. We have had cars towed. It is tough to get anybody to do anything down there. But probably in the lot itself there is room for 14 cars. Bruce: I am talking about the residents. Neiley: The residents have probably 20 cars. And probably 6 or 8 of those end up on the street at anyone time. Some of them are permanently parked on the street. MOTION .- 22 PZM12.4.90 "- Roger: I move to approve the stream Margin Review of the 1000 East Hopkins project with condition, the final plat, condition #1 of this motion shall be condition #3 of Planning Office memo dated November 26, 1990 (attached in record) and condition #4 to be changed that the 15ft trail easement will be dedicated on the plat subj ect to Engineering and Planning review and approval. And the new condition #3 shall be old condition #13 of the Planning Office memo. The new condition #4 shall be old condition #14 on the Planning Office memo. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the Subdivision review of the 1000 East Hopkins project subject to the following conditions: Condition numbers I refer to here are from Planning Office memo dated November 26, 1990. They include condition #1, #2, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #16 and a new condition #17-- that demolition shall not occur prior to issuance of a building permit for re-construction. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. variances in PUD Mari: It is hard for me interior spaces in the minimum requirement under justify a variation in height when free market units are more than the code. the the Jasmine: I agree. Mari: It looks like they could get those 2ft back if they just lowered the ceilings back to the minimum of 8ft. Sunny: There is a way. We requested a variance of 2ft. The settlement agreement talked about a variance over the rear half of the building of 2ft. In redesigning the project, we felt we needed variance across the entire building and I submitted the application, I believe, that way. Gretchin has subsequently clarified with Kim the rear 2/3rds. If you think it should be just the rear half because it could be accommodated through changes, you can make that recommendation or you can agree with the 2/3rds. Neiley: Our choices in order to preserve the plans was to sink the affordable units deeper into the ground. We could sink the basement deeper which eliminates light and air to the affordable 23 PZM12.4.90 "'-',", -.-- units or we could raise it up that 2ft. When we sat negotiated this with council and the city Attorney the to raise those affordable units out of the ground more. that we simply raised the back of the building up. down and idea was By doing Gretchin: It is going to accommodate mechanical system. So that 9ft is the minimum that we can have those ceiling spaces to accommodate mechanical systems that we are going to need in that ceiling space. And that was part of our original plan. After further discussion on this, a straw poll showed that Mari was a minority of one on this point. Regarding the 0 rear yard setback a straw poll showed no one had a problem with that. Regarding the square footage of the employee units and the parking: After discussion on this: Jasmine: So we have a division on this situation with Richard, Mari, Sara and Jasmine wanting to make a recommendation to Council on this and Roger and Bruce not. Let's go on to parking. In your motion, Roger, you would just put condition #15 as the parking and you would go along with that? Roger: Yes, I would. Mari: We have had it represented to us a number of times that these free market units have empty parking spaces that are going begging and yet we are talking about designating certain spaces for each unit. And I just wonder if that is the best program. Why not have 8 permits issued and have 8 designated free market-- know what I am saying? Sunny: As a practical matter after living there a while the pattern is going to develop. Unit A is an absentee owner and they are here once a year and you are a savvy employee you are going to avail yourself of what is down there. Mari: What I was going to suggest is that we allow 8 permits issued to the employees in excess of how many parking places there actually are. It would be like a hunting license. Roger: Or the way airlines book space. - 24 PZM12.4.90 ,-->.,- ",- Mari: I just think that it is more of a crisis for the employee units than it is for the free market. Sunny: I think you are right. Every time we approve a project in this community we make them do 1 per bedroom for free market. And as soon as we do an employee housing project we make them reduce the number of spaces and auto disincentive. Roger: And they are the ones with the autos. Mari: My recommendation would be instead of having designated spaces for each unit would be to set a number of permits which could be parking permits which could be issued. And I would say 8 parking permits for the employee units and 8 parking permits for the--there would be more permits issued than places but that is not unusual. It is on a first come, first served basis. Kim: Why do the permits then? Mari: Let's say you have 3 cars. You would not have the right to park more than 2. But it would be on a first come, first served basis. There are lots of condominiums managed that way with underground because most people if they can find a space on the street, they are not going to go underground. '-~-' Sara: Sunny, I don't think you are gong to be able to sell a free market unit without a parking space written into the sale and they know exactly the space that they have. I live at Midland Park and I know exactlY my space and it is written into my deed. Sunny: In terms of the agreement say that we will provide 4 spaces for employee housing and 8 spaces for free market. We probably would have to tell someone when he buys his unit that he has 2 parking spaces. Bruce: I was going to suggest that we allow them to designate 8 of the spaces--one for each of the units with leaving 4 of them first come, first serve so that each free market unit has 1 that has their unit # on it. Jasmine: I think these are all very helpful suggestions but when it comes right down to it what you are talking about is 12 spaces and I think that the project manager is going to have to deal with the problem as best he can. I don't know that we can come to an agreement on the ideal parking management for this situation and therefore I would tend to leave the Item #15 the way it reads in the conditions. - 25 ,..... PZM12.4.90 ,"'....' Kim: The way the condition is worded is that there shall be assigned parking. So you are saying take away the assigned--Kim and Mari were both talking here so I couldn't hear either one. Jasmine: When we talk about all of the things we can't police, certainly this is one of them. Mari: I would be in favor of just changing it to say there should be 12 spaces. Jasmine: Does that seem reasonable to everybody? Mari: My main objection was to telling them to do it this way. Why tell them it has to be done that way? Sunny: The bottom line is we must make 4 spaces available to employee housing units in terms of the agreement. Mari: Why don't we just say 4 for employee, 8 for--Iet's just say 4 being available for employees. Kim: How about the parking variance is recommended by the Commission as being 12 spaces--4 of which are allotted for affordable units and not requiring signage. Jasmine: Apparently we have come to agreement on 3 of the 4 PUD variations. Sunny: I suggest on the 4th one--I think that the applicants in this case believe they made an agreement based on certain facts, a place and a time. If you would like to recommend to Council that you believe that because of the size of the units that those units should be more appropriately designated as low or whatever the category is, that is fine. Council will either try to get us to change our agreement-- Richard: Just taking the last clause from the Staff's condition #12 and say the 4 affordable housing units shall be indexed to the housing guidelines for category 1 occupancy. Jasmine: What I would like to see there is it tied to the fact that the free market units shall be as represented on the plan and that we do not recommend reducing the free market units in size but to balance that the Commission recommends that the free market units be allowed to remain as presented at 3,325sqft or whatever it is and that the affordable housing units shall not be increased in size but therefore shall be deed restricted to the low income or category #1. - 26 ,-'"'.... PZM12.4.90 - Richard: Is there a minimum percentage of the floor area that has to be the affordable? Or is that only in the Affordable Housing Zone? Sunny: We have to replace 50% of the bedrooms. Bruce: Let me just make a point about this square footage. 345sqft times 4 is 1,375 to l,400sqft at a market value of $500 a square foot. We are talking about dollars somewhere in the neighborhood of $650 to $700,000. So don't minimize the value of that 345sqft per unit. It is a real value to these guys. They have been very creative in taking the settlement and back into that 1,880 number to come up with FAR and I applaud them for that. But don't minimize the value of that 345sqft per unit. It is a real potential dollar value. Jasmine: That is why I think it is reasonable to have the employee units be at the low income level because I think it is a reasonable tradeoff. Bruce: Council is going to decide it. "--' Neiley: It is not a tradeoff. The figures here are not expressed as necessarily fixed figures. For instance the 3,OOOsqft of affordable housing minimum, that is 3,000 of net liveable space which is required under the code. The net liveable space requirement doesn't translate over to the free market but we probably have got 3,000 of net liveable space in each of the free market units as well. If you start playing with FAR and then start trying to it around the project you come up with the 3,340sqft. is not the net liveable space of those units. We increasing what was originally proposed under this. distribute But that are not Jasmine: I would like to suggest wording for #12. The applicant shall not be required to reduce the floor area of the free market units to 3,OOOsqft to conform to the terms of the settlement. In exchange the 4 affordable housing units shall be indexed to the current housing guidelines for category #1 occupancy. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the PUD type variations specifically height variance of approximately 2ft, 0 rear yard setback and parking space variance of 12 spaces--4 of which are to be allocated to the affordable housing units and--- Jasmine: And the applicant shall not be required to reduce the floor area of the free market units to 3,OOOsqft to conform to 27 -".... PZM12.4.90 the terms of the settlement. In exchange housing units shall be indexed to the current for category #l--low income occupancy. Roger: That's my motion. the 4 affordable housing guidelines Sara seconded the motion. Bruce: I might vote in favor of that motion if there were some kind of language put in to indicate that the applicant has represented that there was a context in which this settlement was made which we are not privy to and had represented that this was the deal and we don't know what that context was that therefore we are making this recommendation based on the fact that we don't have that context. Roger: I would be happy to include that. Richard: I consider that implicit. There was general agreement. Jasmine: Why do you want that in? Bruce: Well, they have represented to us tonight that there was a certain intent that is embodied somehow within the settlement and we don't know whether that is the actual facts or not. It is up to Council. council knows what it's intent was. We don't know that. It may very well be that Council really intended that 3,000 be the max on the free market units. And we are telling them "It's OK with us to go to 3,345". That may not be OK with Council. I don't want to go beyond what Council's intent was at the time they entered into settlement with these guys. And it almost seems like we have done that. Roger: I would like to amend that portion of the motion because none of those were conditions. Those were all part of the motion. I would like to include a preamble to that 4th category along the lines of what Bruce has stated for the 4 variations. I am talking about the 4th variation which is this 3,000 or 3,345 and included in that is where the affordable housing falls. I would like to indicate to them--and I really agree with that because if it was the council's intent that it be 3, OOOsqft I would like not to recommend 3,345. But indicate to them that this is something that they are going to have to determine. ","',0,..- Sunny: Something to the effect that your recommendation with respect to the deed restriction of the affordable housing units is based on your understanding of the terms of the settlement agreement. And since it appears that we have exceeded the size - 28 .", PZM12.4.90 "'-' of the free market units as specified in the settlement agreement you think that the appropriate action should be to change the deed restriction to the affordable housing units to category #1 as opposed to requiring us to reduce the size of the free market units. Roger: I so amend my motion. Sara: I amend my second. Everyone voted in favor of this motion and amendment except Richard. Meeting was adjourned. Time was .,..,....., 29