Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19910305 ~)<C/ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 5. 1991 vice Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Sara Garton, Graeme Means, Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr, Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. Welton Anderson was excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roger: The valley planners at their next meeting are going to discuss the idea of a valley-wide planning & zoning commission. I would like your thoughts on this kind of commission to deal with valley-wide issues. The meeting is 7:30 in the morning. Jasmine: I for one would like a little more notice in order to put my thoughts together on this before responding. Graeme: I have a conflict of interest with one of the projects in that I worked on one of the projects that is going to be submitted tonight. I have decided that I think I am going to have to resign totally from the Commission. I am sure this one project can get through without me although there is some points of it that I think I have more expertise than the other people involved in it. So I would like to be able to participate. I am sorry it came up so quickly but I have been under the impression that if I weren't the main one presenting something I could at least participate to some degree. I guess there was some confusion about that and we had the City Attorney rule on that. He ruled that basically I couldn't participate in any way. Again it is not just this one project but there might well be other things in the future and so that is what I have decided. Jasmine: I am sorry to hear it. Graeme: I have got to say I have enjoyed working with everyone here. And it is not without regrets that I am doing this. Roger: I have got some comments about this. How have we transitioned over apparently time to the point where someone in the business of what they are doing be it architectural or what have you--cannot even participate on the other side of the table. This isn't the way things worked when I first got on the P&Z. We realize it is a small community and that there are going to be cases where people are going to be on the other side of the table by the very nature of the Commission because there is no way the city Council can find an architect who from time to time is not on the other side of the table. PZM3.5.91 Something is very ridiculous. Another case in point is going to be the trolley. Where I have been very active in the trolley thing I don't have a financial conflict of interest. But I have been looking at it that "Hey, I am part of the city and want something good here" and that has been my participation. I have donated a lot of time to it but I am not going to get penney one out of the whole thing. But I suppose technically someone will want me out of the room for the presentation. And that is ridiculous. Jasmine: No. They have always taken a very narrow view of conflict of interest having to do with financial interests rather than emotional interests. Kim: Well, from what we are getting from the new city Attorney is that it doesn't have to be any financial implications. It was decided at this time to have the city Attorney come in for this discussion. Jed Caswall, City Attorney arrived. Jasmine: Would you explain to us what our situation is regarding the conflict of interest. We have had a member of the Commission who has just resigned because of involvement with a project that is before us in which he feels that it is important for him to be able to present information on behalf of the applicant. Jed: Is the resignation effective immediately? Graeme: I would like it to be because there is a project here tonight that I would like to participate in to some degree. And I didn't mean this to come up in a crises situation but I had been under the understanding that I could participate to some degree if somebody else basically presented the project. I guess you ruled yesterday that I couldn't and that is why it is such a timely thing. Mari: I was totally surprised by this. I thought that our ruling was that a member of the board should not be presenting too many- Roger: Yes, too many. Jasmine: That is what I thought but we have the city Attorney here who is going to give us the rules. Roger: What has changed? Mari: This has never been a problem with P&Z. I remember we discussed this when we did the code and we all agreed then that it wasn't really a problem with us. As long as the presenting member 2 PZM3.5.91 of the Board stepped down from that particular item--you can't be on both sides. Jed: As I understand the question we had a present member of the P&Z wishing to present or participate in the presentation of a development application before the P&Z. And that that member of the P&Z also has a pecuniary interest in the development application in that he is being compensated for his work on developing the development plan. Roger: And you might as well expand it as well because it is coming up with me on the trolley where I have no financial interest in it at all. I have donated some time for the benefit of the city yet the trolley is going to come up. Does that mean I cannot participate on the other side of the table? Jed: Can we take it one at a time. The applicable ordinance which has not, to my knowledge, ever been codified--that is it is not in the ordinance book but nonetheless it was a duly enacted ordinance as Ordinance #50 adopted in 1979. And it is called an ordinance defining conflicts of interest and requiring the declaration and removal of a public official from any legislative administrative or discretionary act when such a conflict exists. A city official under this ordinance is defined as "Any member of a board, authority commission or other body appointed by the city councilor Municipal Court JUdge". So clearly a member of the P&Z meets the definition of a City official under this. When they talk about conflicts of interest, interest as defined under the ordinance means and includes "A situation where a substantial pecuniary benefit may accrue either directly or indirectly to a city Council member or a city official as a result of a contract or transaction which is or may be the subject of an official act or action by or with the city of Aspen excepting such contracts or transactions which by their terms and by the substance of their provisions confer similar benefits to all persons or property similarly situated". For purposes of this ordinance an indirect interest occurs when the City council member or city official #1 is related in the first degree by blood or marriage to a person who has a direct interest or #2 is an executive officer or director of a business that has a direct interest or #3 controls or has a strong voice in the control of a business that is a direct interest or #4 has a substantial contract or series of contracts on a continuing basis 3 PZM3.5.91 with a person who has a direct interest. It seems to me the relevant question here is Graeme's interest in the particular transaction before this Board. "Interest means and includes a situation where a substantial pecuniary benefit may accrue" is what it says. Now, what he is disqualified from is a person under this is disqualified from engaging in an official act or action which means or includes any legislative, administrative or discretionary act of the city of Aspen whether by the City Council, a board, commission, court or city employee. So I would say that clearly is in evidence here. We have an official act or action by this Board in approving or not approving the conditions of a development application here. Now the specific provision that has to do with City officials. There is a provision that then talks about the city Council and then there is another separate provision for City officials which we have already determined is applicable in this case with dealing with a City official. The applicable provision is Section 3-B which says as follows: "A City official may appear on his or her own behalf or by him or herself or, through a firm, represent another on a City transaction before a board, commission or authority of the City with the exception of the board for which he or she is a member." So this provision says that if you were going to appear on your- -you can appear on your own behalf in front of any board in the City except the board upon which you sit. So if you are going to appear on behalf of yourself, you can't appear before your own board. That is the first restraint. And then it says after that sentence: "A City official may appear on his or her own behalf before the board of which he or she is a member provided he or she declares his or her interest and removes him or herself from the position of influence over the transaction including abstention from voting thereon." That appears at least initially to be contradictory. It first says that a City official may not appear on their own behalf in front of a board upon which they sit. It says that, period. But then it says you can appear before a board on which the person is a member provided he or she declares his or her interest and removes him or herself from a position of influence over the transaction including abstention from voting thereon. So that kind of says that if you disqualify yourself from any consideration or influence in regard to the transaction, the city 4 PZM3.5.91 official can appear in front of the board upon he or she sits. Graeme: On their own behalf is what you said there. Jed: Right. Jasmine: In this situation he is appearing on behalf of a different applicant. Jed: Right. And he is getting compensated for that. Roger: The important, I think, Jed in this was that they are supposed to declare the conflict of interest and identify it so we all recognize it and so that person can go on the other side of the board and present the case as the presenter. As a presenter he is not taking the legislative action that was in the first part that you said. Mari: could board The very first paragraph that you read said that that person not act. It did not say that person could not be on the any more. It just said they could not act on that case. Jed: It is his decision to resign. It is based upon the fact that the interpretation here is that a city official may appear on his or her own behalf. He is not here on the behalf of himself. He is in here in representation of a client. And he is getting paid for that. So based upon this he may not appear. If he was here on his own behalf--if he was building his own home and he was seeking approval for that then as I read this it says that you can disqualify yourself from your official position on the P&Z and present his own development plan for his own home. But he is not here doing that. He is here being paid by someone else and so I believe the interpretation of the ordinance is correct and that he cannot appear here today in front of the board and make this presentation so long as he is a member of the P&Z commission. He has decided that he would prefer to present the development application for which he was evidently hired to do--he would prefer to do that as opposed to sit on the P&Z. Roger: All I can remember is when we went through this beforehand we realized the circumstances where there would be occasional conflicts of interest because the very nature of this board is that it has professionals from the community and the community being such that there are small businesses--one-person businesses and things like that that from time to time in effect the rolls are switched. Well, big deal, the rolls are switched. We can give Graeme as much hell as anyone else is our attitude about it. And 5 PZM3.5.91 that was our attitude back then. Now somehow or another if it got written that way at least you are interpreting it that way. Something is happening that we certainly didn't anticipate when this thing was written and it went through the circuit back in '79 because I don't think any of us on this board have a problem with a member going on the other side and present his case. They tend to keep it as minimal as possible but nevertheless they are allowed to be in the room and they are allowed to answer questions if that is applicable. I just don't see this. And the whole preamble of the thing--that first paragraph you read says that a person having a conflict is not allowed to take action. That is fine. That is action on the board. That is not when he changes rolls and gets on the other side of the table so to speak. Jed: The first part that I read was the definitions. The operable part of the ordinance was the last part that I read. And the last part that I read is pretty clear. "A City official may appear on his or her own behalf or by him or herself or through a firm represent another on a City transaction before any board, commission, or authority of the City with the exception of the board of which she or he is a member." Then it says "A City official may appear on his or her own behalf before the board of which he or she is a member provided he or she declares his or her interest and removes him or herself from a position of influence over the transaction including abstention from voting thereon". He is not here on his own behalf. He is here at the request of a client and he is being paid for that. And these ordinances are intended not only to eliminate actual conflicts of interest but to eliminate the appearance of conflicts of interest. And certainly if you have a city member of the board of P&Z who is being paid by a client to make a presentation before the board upon which they sit, I can't imagine a more gross appearance of impropriety if not an actual conflict of interest in doing that. As I read this ordinance this is prohibited. Mari: My understanding was that we codified this when we re-did the code. And I think it would be in the section of the code that deals with the P&Z. Roxanne: Mari is right. The By-laws were amended for P&Z back early in '89. It embodies some of this language. Bruce: Number one I don't have a problem with whether Graeme has a conflict of interest personally. I think Jed's interpretation 6 PZM3.5.91 of the law is correct and also I think there is a state statute as I recall when we went through that discussion 2 years ago there is a state statute that is perhaps even more restrictive than the city of Aspen's ordinances which we are not fully in compliance with. Basically what we did 2 years ago as I recall was we kind of made our own little policy and perhaps amended our by-laws and said "Well, we don't really care too much what the ordinance says, but we are going to go ahead and operate this way anyway". I think when we did that outside of the scope of our authority and responsibili ty. And I think Jed is in effect saying "You guys went too far 2 years ago". Unfortunately Graeme has gotten caught in the whole thing. Richard: From what Jed said, and it does seem to be the proper interpretation, and I raised that same issue with my opponent in the County Commissioner's race last Fall in that he was being on both sides of the table. In Graeme' s case I don't have any personal problems with it. I think it is not a good precedent to set. Sara: Yes. I agree with Jed's interpretation. I want to re- iterate I feel the same way. I have no problem as a board hearing other board members but we have to represent the citizens. That is why these ordinances are written. And my experience in any public meeting when there is a conflict of interest the person gets up and leaves the room. And that is Jed's point. He cannot be in this room presenting it. So I agree with Jed. As a member of the Commission, he cannot present any other project. If he wants to stay on the P&Z he has to leave the room for the presentation. Jasmine: Rather than get into any further argument about this we have the City Attorney. He has given us a ruling on this which obviously is based on published ordinances. We don't have any choice at this point but to go along with this. What I would like to suggest for the members of the Commission because I agree with all the members of the Commission that I personally do not have a problem with Graeme's ethics in any way and certainly would not have a problem with his presentation. And, Jed, if you would look back on previous records I think that you would find that members of the Commission have if anything been really been rotten to their fellow members when they get up to present. But that is not the point. And I think that we have to observe the proprieties. Graeme has expressed his preference, although I am sure it is a reluctant one that since he has to feed his baby, he would like to resign from the P&Z. We do hate to lose him as a P&Z member. 7 PZM3.5.91 I would like to suggest that this resignation be not necessarily a permanent one while we research the situation further. And if it turns out that we can legally retain him as a member of the P&Z afterwards we could put that into effect. Graeme: I would certainly be interested in taking a look at how it works. Jasmine: But for the purposes of this meeting I think it is clear that we cannot allow him to, based on what the city Attorney says. I think you get the general idea that the Commission is not really all that pleased with this ordinance. Because of the nature of the community in which we live and the desire to get a balanced occupational representation on the Board which we feel is really important as we are an advisory body as well as an enacting body. MOTION We like to have the variety of oplnlons that people from different backgrounds can bring to the Commission that it might be worthwhile putting into motion some way of re-evaluating the ordinance. It may be time for the ordinance to be revised. Roger: I will so move. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor except Sara and Bruce. This made 4 yes and 2 no. STAFF COMMENTS Kim: You will recall Nordic Council's request and approval last meeting for lighted night skiing. Mark Pearson has submitted a letter prior to going back to Council for their part of the hearing and there are 3 items he wishes to address coming out of the approval last week of P&Z. The first one is relatively easy. One condition from George Robinson that an electric meter be installed. George has since then re-thought that and has given permission to omit that condition. The night sweep: The Nordic Council is still concerned about having that be a condition because they are worried about that precedent being set for the entire Nordic system. Planning Office is still proposing to keep that. The third item and what Mark says here is that by the time we get out of Council with an approval if they so see fit there won't be 8 PZM3.5.91 any winter left. We are already losing snow very quickly on the Golf Course. He is proposing switching this trial time period to the Fall-winter season next year. The City Attorney feels that in keeping with the trial basis that if the Council saw fit to change the dates of the trial basis he did not see that as a big problem. We are bringing this back to you to see if you had any feeling about this. Council will be hearing this next week. staff has talked about it and is willing to propose "From the commencement of the season to December 31" as the trial period. Then requiring them to come back to either seek permanency to their approval or not. And we are also proposing that in order to not go through this 2 step process the Planning Office is offering to do an in-house review based on any public comments we receive in order to technically amend the PUD rather than bring them through this 3 month process again. Jasmine: Your recommendation seems to be very sensible. Bruce: The action we took was a PUD amendment. So in effect what they are wanting to do is amend our approval before it goes to Council. And so final approval is by Council either way. Kim: I don't have any problem with that. Richard: I don't have a problem with what Kim suggested. Mari: I think it is reasonable. Jasmine: It seems to us you have taken a very sensible approach to this problem and you can convey to Council that you have discussed this with us and we are in concurrence with your recommendation. Richard: I would further comment regarding #2--"Expressed a fear that people would want a sweep of the whole Nordic trail system." I would make a suggestion that we include in our recommendation that that be intended for the lighted portion of the trail only. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public. MINUTES FEBRUARY 5. 1991 MOTION Roger: I move to adopt the minutes of February 5, 1991. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. 9 PZM3.5.91 SWEENEY CORD USE FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Jasmine opened the public hearing. Leslie, Planning Dept: Made presentation as attached in record. I need to change #2 in the conditions of approval. On #2 instead of 682sqft that should be 611sqft. Jasmine asked Sven, the architect, if he had any problems with the conditions of approval. Sven: I work as an associate architect with Welton Anderson. Jasmine: The name is familiar to us. Sven: We did lower the main ridge of this so that now it will be 4ft higher than the existing structure on the site which is minimal considering we are adding a second floor. We did increase the separation between the 2 buildings. In tailoring it more to Roxanne's points we went for more compatibility with the existing building. We are not changing the footprint--just adding a second floor. The setbacks are unchanged. Roger: And there is no change to the parking as it exists right now on the alley side of the building? Sven: No change. Technically we are adding 1 parking space because we are creating a garage. Roger: I have been contacted by the Sweeney's next door neighbor, Elsa Fisher, and she has no problems with this. She feels that it will be hidden behind her already existing garage. Jasmine then asked for public comment. There was no public comment and Jasmine closed the public portion of this hearing. MOTION Mari: I move to recommend the Sweeney conditional use with the 2 conditions as amended in the Planning Office memo dated March 4th. Roger seconded the motion and clarified the amendment was to the 2nd condition--611sqft. Bruce: I am going to vote in favor of this but I am concerned about the fact that we have an accessory building that is higher 10 PZM3.5.91 than the principle building. I think in this case the circum- stances are such that that is OK but I think we need to understand that we are not setting a precedent to do these accessory units higher than the main buildings. Jasmine: That is an excellent point. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. HOLDEN/MAROLT MINING MUSEUM FINAL PUD. SUBDIVISION GMOS EXEMPTION AND REZONING TO PUBLIC Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim, Planning Dept: Made presentation as attached in record. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request to Public. And the Planning Office also recommends approval of the subdivision and final PUD with several conditions. And I would like to add 2 more under PUD. Jasmine: There were 2 items of the lengthy approval which I think are not necessarily dependent on the details of the PUD. One of which is the rezoning from R-15A to Public to allow the use which is implicit in the voter approval. The second of which is the subdivision which is also part of that and which is not really dependent on the PUD itself. It might be advantageous to just get those out of the way beforehand. Roger: My only problem is it has to relate to the highway and I think that has to be answered because the way I am seeing it the way this is drawn out a portion of this property is going to have a highway through it. And if that isn't a conflict, I don't what it is. Roxanne: One of the conditions Kim hasn't gone over with you yet deals with that. Kim: staff proposes a condition #18 to read "The highway ROW must be added to the PUD plan. Pending final ROW decision by city Council the PUD may need to be changed through the technical PUD amendment process". #19. Planning staff recommends that the Commission have a condition to recommend deferral to the City Council all issues regarding the highway ROW. P&Z further recommends that the ROW be moved far enough to the north to lessen the impacts to the historic site without adversely affecting the Castle Creek Bridge and the Villas of Aspen or the Aspen villas. 11 PZM3.5.91 Roxanne: Those conditions were basically were out of the resolution that you had approved. Basically that you recognize that there is an historic site here. And there is 2 things going on--the Villas over here and the historic site and the way to shift and move things around so that neither are impacted as much as they could be. Roger: Is it anticipated that the highway is just going to go over this site? That the site is going to stay fixed in this form and then the highway ROW goes over it? Or is the site going to be modified to include the highway ROW? Roxanne: Those are issues that the Historical Society is certainly going to have to take into consideration with all of this. I am not sure that at this meeting we are going to be able to solve any highway issues. In my opinion the highway issue is going to go on for a very long time. Jasmine: I was just hoping to get the non site-specific issues out of the way. For example--rezoning to Public is not necessarily site specific. Roger: Except you have metes and bounds in that area. Jasmine: Yes and that would have to be amended according to PUD. Al Blomquist: I am with the Parks Association. The highway meeting last night, City Council selected this base drawing. The base drawing puts the highway fence 3 inches from the barn or 30ft. The pavement is 60ft. And then the resolution says that the bridge is going to be lowered into the ground. The elevation right here is exactly the same elevation as the flat land on Main Street on the other side of the river. So it is lower through here which then means cut slopes which then means that the buffer that they have between the pavement and the fence based on the 125ft ROW can be inadequate for the cut slope so the cut slopes can go someplace and nobody has that information at this time. A cut slope can be several hundred feet in width rather than within the 125ft. So what I am saying is you have got problems because this is the existing legal plat adopted by the Planning commission and they were vacated. This is the old Marolt Ranch plat. And you have to vacate that plat or amend that plat to include this plat. And as I understand it City Council told the administration to vacate this plat at one time. But it was never done. So this plat is legal. It was the basis for Parks Association lawsuit against the Housing Project. So everything is totally screwed up. All I want to say to you is that at the Planning Commission--please do a plat of the entire 12 PZM3.5.91 city ownership requires that this subdivision be a part of a subdivision of the entire City ownership. Clear up the Thomas Property. Clear up the Marolt property. But then you have got to clear this up. Now in an attempt to do that--I will show you how little the change is required. This is the drawing that was used at the election and this is what the Council said last night. All they said was "Let's go with what the voters approved exactly". That is this one. This is 60ft to the edge of the pavement. And then they can put the 125ft ROW fence on this. Then it is within 30ft of the barn. Now if you cant the bridge approximately 6 degrees then you can get a ? line and a ROW line that would be 100ft from here and 100ft from the barn for the ROW line comes out right here. So our paved trail is within the project. The highway fence would be here and the essential understanding of the voting public is maintained because that curve is--in other words the public was voting on this as a corridor demonstration and you could wiggle it a couple of feet either way to if you had a foundation problem--whatever you might have. In this case you are moving it away from the lixiviation works and the museum. Both of which were discovered and became official after we went through the 16 different alternatives that we went through in the old days to get to this alignment. So this is a condition that occurred after this original selection and so if you had those considerations at the time that we were doing the 16 alternatives for the highway I think certainly we would have said sure 6 degree change to save this complex. Heidi Hoffman: I went to look at this alignment because I was aware of the Museum and I talked to the highway representative here in this room. I asked them if we vote for the straight shot, will we have the opportunity to assist you in the final design and location of that highway and he said yes. Roxanne: Probably in '85 or so when a lot of this alignment stuff was occurring no one really understood the historic significance of the site at all nor did they understand about federal section 106 nor 4F. These structures were going to be demolished and the thought was that the barn was going to be picked up and moved to the back yard of the Historical Society. In '88 the EIS was being developed. And it is required that up and down the whole corridor that a study be made of any potential site that is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places to determine impact mitigation. There are a dozen sites all 13 PZM3.5.91 along the entire highway corridor of which this site was one of those. Being eligible for the listing on the national register carries with it the exact same clout and criteria and standards as an actual landmark district. There is no difference. It was the state that actually did this work and had this determined eligible. Now when this boundary was determined a group of 15 of us said the corridor is basically this but could it shift approximately one ROW width north. And the highway dept said "Yes we think that you can probably do that without really changing corridor". The corridor is the same whether you are shifting it up or down to bypass a historic resource. We don't have a problem with that--not thinking and there was absolutely no intention that by shifting the ROW that it was going to create a problem in any way for the Villas. So what we have done now and Council has gone back and said "Let's just go with this" probably out of frustration. And we just took and shifted this bridge 6 degrees. What might happen with this? My question to the Highway Dept is the idea of a curve was to slow traffic down and perhaps the highway a little more attractive. Instead of having it curve down could it curve up and come in this way and avoid this but still not impact this. And that was our understanding all along. So if in fact this idea applies with shifting it slightly it will still impact and there is going to have to be some mitigation. The Historical society is going to have to come up with vegetation criteria and some ideas to give the Highway Dept when they come in and say "OK we are impacting this National Register site and therefore we are required by Federal law to mitigate. What might that be?" The Historical Society is going to have to be the one to come in and do that. Richard: Is there planned to be pedestrian path or vehicular access underneath the highway on the west end of the bridge? Roxanne: The idea is to continue the Castle Creek corridor clear from the confluence of the Roaring Fork all the way up to the MAA student housing at the Marolt and past. So it will go under. Blomquist: It might be over if they are doing the big cut through the hill. We don't know any of those elevations. But your joint resolution said there would be trails on both sides all the way to the Airport and that there will be crossings. Sara: How can we precede with any of this till we know the boundaries? 14 PZM3.5.91 Kim: We could establish the boundaries as we know them now and- Roxanne: And they may want to table. Kim: The tabling for how long? Roger: I don't think that will be necessary if we condition it on that the northern boundary will be ultimately coincident with the boundary of the highway. Roxanne: I think that is far too open. I think language could be that you recommend that this would be the absolute minimum distance of ROW width between the barn and that you might include some language in here that a further ROW to the north be continued to be studied through Council and the Highway Dept. There are a lot more people involved at much higher levels than just us. There is the Colorado Dept of Highways and they are required to do their 4F statements and work with the state Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council and Historic Preservation. Those 3 have to come up with a memorandum agreement plus the 4F statement that also deals with riparian, heavy metals in here and some other issues. So there is a whole lot of issues with this entire thing going on right here. Hoffman: Isn't it true that if their EIS comes out it may push that alignment north? Roxanne: It certainly has every possibility to do that. Blomquist: It would depend on this commission. Somebody has got to take the initiative. Bruce: I feel like what would we have done had just the Music Associates come in and said "We want to build the rehearsal hall here". We would have sent them back to square one and said "You have got to plan this whole parcel. We want a masterplan for the whole Meadows". I feel the same way about this parcel. I am all in favor of this museum and doing the right things with this property. But I am not in favor of just piecemealing it and having one applicant come in now and say this is what we want to do. We have got to worry about the highway. We have got to deal with the parks and what they may want to do in the future. I really feel uncomfortable trying to deal with this on a piecemeal basis. Kim: This summer I will be working on a Marolt masterplan. There was a conceptual SPA plan that established the basic users and right now my job will be to take those users that are now in place including the museum because it has identifiable lease holds for a part of the parcel. with that process one of my chores-one of 15 PZM3.5.91 my givens-was the housing parcel and the museum parcel. Bruce: I think #1 needs to be the highway. Everything falls into place after that. Roxanne: There has been a suit filed with the secretary of transportation from the Marolt Park Group. So it is anticipated that we might not know for a very long time what is going to actually happen there. Jasmine: I really am lost on the procedure here. This is getting much more complicated than I thought it was going to be at the beginning. Graeme: The basic users and the basic uses have been set out at a conceptual PUD process for this parcel. In terms of planning and how cities and towns develop you can sit there and ideally say let's plan everything out right now. But if you go and look at those cities that are done that way, they come out very inhuman often. And in fact it does not come out with the best result very often. I think past uses and pressures in a sequential kind of way often determine what the final result is. And I think it often results in a better plan. That is the way most of the cities in the world have developed. If we wait for the Highway Dept to figure out where the road is going to go. As far as I am concerned I don't think the Highway Dept should have the power to just put everything else on hold. Rick?, President of the Historical Society: One thing that hasn't been said is that we need to consider is that we are dealing with a structure that is 100 years old and is in need of repair and restoration. Kim: In order to be creating the museum it has to be a permitted use to get permits to do so. Roger: I don't have problems going ahead with the zoning and the rezoning and the PUD and the subdivision at this point with the acknowledgment or recognition that the northern boundary of the property may change when and assuming that the highway comes in place. And at that time that we would have to modify those to take into consideration the highway. Bruce: What I don't want to do is place another roadblock in front of the highway. We have got enough of them already. I don't want to be a part of placing another obstacle unnecessarily in front of the highway. Richard: I would support that we proceed. 16 PZM3.5.91 Jasmine: We all agree that it is important to preserve and allow the museum to maintain and improve itself and there is no conflict about the creation of and maintenance of the museum. There is no problem with using the rezoning to allow the museum to be within this parcel as a committed use which is what the zoning is going to accomplish. The subdivision follows as a natural result of that. The problems that we are going through have to do with the specific PUD. I don't think that we can at this session resolve to our satisfaction a lot of the issues that are specifically related to the PUD. I think that we may have to table the PUD portion of this approval but allow the historical society to go ahead with the preservation maintenance of the museum through the mechanisms of the rezoning and the subdivision. But we will obviously have to amend the language of the approval for the rezoning and the subdivision in order to allow this to happen. I don't see how we can give PUD approval at this meeting. But we can go ahead with the other 2 portions of it if we can come to a closure on the general approvals. Sara: In addition I would like to take whatever clout we may have to suggest moving that highway a little bit. Carl Berger: I believe it was at a former P&Z meeting where it looked like the ultimate solution of this highway was so-called curved bridge. What happened to that? Roxanne: Last night the Highway Dept showed a drawing of a curved bridge. Roger: I think we can proceed on the PUD. Mari: I do too. I don't see what issues in the PUD are seen as not resolvable. Jasmine: I am not sure that I feel that as part of the PUD that we should make a specific roadway alignment. I think that is really not a part of--this should not be part of this PUD without considering other elements of adjoined parcels and other areas within the historic district and within the entire Marolt parcel and the other potential users and how they are going to be affected by the highway alignment. And what happens to the other side of the highway? We have heard what happens over on this side and how wonderful it is but we haven't heard what happens over on the other side. Kim: I think that is where the masterplan effort would allow that discussion to take place. I think by leaving your trail linkages 17 PZM3.5.91 established knowing that something is going to be going up and down Castle Creek to the west and to the east and connecting with the existing pedestrian bridge--we could be talking for months about the masterplanning when that happens. Jasmine: This says final PUD. Kim: within the confines of the site and any final PUD can be amended either insubstantially with the planning director or staff level sign off or if major, come back to P&Z and to Council. At one point you have got to establish your base line and allow for any future amendments. MOTION (zoning) Roger: I move to recommend Approval of the rezoning request to Public of the Holden/Marolt Mining and Ranching Museum parcel with the one condition being the same as on Planning Office memo dated February 26, 1991. (attached in record) Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine: I think you have to define it somehow because we are rezoning it. Bruce: I raised the point a while ago about the fact that there is no existing plat for this site. It might not need to come up on this zoning question but also when you are going to rezone something you have got to know what the boundaries are. Now if Kim has in her file the actual metes and bounds and description of it- Kim: It is described there. Bruce: Then you can just refer to that, Roger. It always can be amended later on. Roger: OK and then I am going to have to include in that the fact that it is recognized that the metes and bounds may change in the future depending upon the final alignment of the highway which would define more or less the northern boundary of the parcel. So I am going to have to include that then in the rezoning. Richard: The ROW is a ROW. It doesn't change property lines. The Highway Dept becoming owner of the property or does it still belong to the owner? Kim: They buy it. Richard: We have got to establish the property before they can buy it. That is not an existing condition in any way. So that becomes 18 PZM3.5.91 a complicated question. Roger: Well, no it is still city property. Yes, the city has agreed to lease a portion of this City property to the Historic Society. My point is that I don't want to throw another impediment in the Highway ROW issue and that impediment would be now by virtue of the Historic Society being a leasehold the Highway Dept has to deal with some other entity. I don't think it was the intent of the City to lease property that was going to become highway. Mari: Rezoning doesn't change the lease hold. Richard: We can't change the bounds of the is what the obstacle you are afraid of is. are gaining anything. leasehold. And that So I don't think you Blomquist: What did the legal notice of this public hearing say the boundary was? It seems to me you are bound by public notice. Mari: I think it is just redundant to say we may change this. When we change it we will change it. Why do we have to say we might change this? Kim: (referring to public notice) It is described as the l.9 acre Holden/Marolt Ranching and Mining Museum parcel. Blomquist: I would just say do the rezoning. Then they are perfectly free to go ahead and start the museum. They don't need this other stuff at this point because they are a legal stewart of the parcel with all their rights given by the city Council which is the owner of the land. So why do they need the PUD and the subdivision at this time? Jasmine: I certainly don't know. Kim, Al is suggesting that from the point of view of the Museum that they can proceed on the basis of the rezoning. They do not require the subdivision and the PUD. Kim: I would say that they could probably by virtue of their rezoning do whatever structural improvements to the building. I am questioning the ability to work outward on the site and be addressing landscaping issues, circulation issues that are specific review standards within PUD. Blomquist: There is no PUD with those standards. The one that says parks is what our PUD says. That is all that is on the recorded PUD. Jasmine: But the parcel is already a PUD. Kim: A PUD is an overlay. It would be my opinion that there is 19 PZM3.5.91 a difference between the building permit for structural safety issues and the improvements thereon and then going ahead and developing the rest of the site without having PUD approval. Richard: The PUD is already there. And establishes a certain criteria that design proposals have to meet. Kim: But without approval of that and forwarding that through Council-- Richard: They can't proceed with exterior work. Kim: That would be my opinion today. Jasmine: I am sorry. This is getting ridiculous. We are going to have to make some kind of decision on this. We need some advice on how to proceed with this. Kim: I would suggest that you consider the whole package as presented with the statement that a statement of future intents that Roger's concerned with that any change of the ROW will affect property lines, PUD, plans etc. And whatever applicable amendment process should apply to those specific categories be followed through by the applicant at the time that decisions are made and the lot lines are laid--the ROW lines are laid and the new--you can actually look at something and plot it on the ground. We could be talking years out here and that would give the opportunity to-- Roger: That is basically my approach. Kim: But it called for just considering PUD, subdivision, rezoning and making your recommendation for Council. Roger: My motion was to zone the Holden/Marolt Mining, Ranching Museum parcel to Public. And that was conditioned on #1 being the same as on Planning Office memo date February 26, 1991. Mari: That was what I seconded. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. MOTION (Subdivision) Roger: I make a motion to approve the subdivision as submitted. But on this I am going to add a condition #7 that it is recognized that the northern boundary of the parcel will probably be adjusted in the future at which time the subdivision will have to be amended. 20 PZM3.5.91 Roger: I move to recommend approval of the subdivision as presented for the Holden/Marolt Mining and Ranching Museum parcel or subdivision. Conditions being the same as Conditions #2 through #6 on Planning Office memo dated February 26, 1991 with an additional condition #7 to read "It is recognized that the northern boundary or boundaries in the future may be changed or modified to accommodate the highway alignment. The subdivision plat shall be amended at that time. Backing up to Condition #4 delete the word "designated". Bruce: I will vote against this for several reasons. #1 as his argument pointed out there is an existing subdivision. I don't know what we are doing here. Secondly I think by doing the zoning which allows them to get their program started, Kim has said that she is undergoing this masterplanning process this summer. As I look at the time table that was submitted by this applicant they are not planning to be open for business anyway until the summer of 1993 and it seems to me we have got plenty of time for them to fix up the barn or whatever they have got to do to preserve this structure and still masterplan it and work out these technical details about this plat that already exists, the subdivision that already exists, how does this fit that. I don't know what we are subdividing. Kim: We are legitimizing a lease hold interest that by Ordinance definition constitutes a subdivision. But it only goes so far and actually doesn't create a lot. There is a difference between a lot--the definition of a lot and definition of a subdivision don't jibe in the code. Bruce: So we are approving the lease is basically all we are doing because the lease created subdivision by virtue of the lease. Is that what you are saying? Kim: We are not approving the lease. The lease stands on it's own. Bruce: But we are not subdividing a parcel of ground. already been subdivided. It has Kim: Well, we are creating a legal description of the lot. Bruce: But there are already legal descriptions of lots. What you are saying is defacto by virtue of the lease that throws us within subdivision requirements of the code. So the effect of what we are doing we are not approving a lot. We are basically approving that lease because it creates a subdivision under the definition of subdivision in the code. But I don't see that any of that is necessary at this point. I think we have got plenty of time to let 21 PZM3.5.91 them go ahead and start under the zoning to do whatever they want to do to the barn and then work out these details later and get the program in place. Get the long range formal plan for the whole Marolt in place this summer and we have still got the next 2 summers to go ahead and complete their project. Jasmine: Good point. Roger: I would like to agree with him and if there is an overwhelming argument that we should continue on with this I would like to hear it because I would be willing to withdraw the motion. Kim: I don't think there is an argument on my sake other than if you are approving PUD I think we need to also get a subdivision taken care of. Bruce: I would like to hear from the applicant. If I am wrong in my assessment-- Graeme: I would think the Historic Society would be reluctant to put $100,000 into fixing up the building not knowing if they are going to be able to get a PUD approval on the property. I think if they knew they were going to be able to get a PUD and then they might have to amend it, they would feel a lot better. Also while you say they are not intending on being open until 1993, the realities of fund raising and what not are that you start to show some progress. You put the cupula on there. You start to create a momentum for a fund raising effort to get the project done. I don't think you could raise a total amount of money without doing any work. I also think the Planning Dept has basically come up with 2 conditions. The #18 and #19 that basically respond to all of this. I think they have thought it all out and I think maybe you should listen to all of those again and vote on those because this PUD can be amended. Hoffman: I would like to add about the site work as well. It would not be isolated to just the barn. It would be the salt shed as well. We would like to get going on that as well and landscaping. Roger: I do not wish to withdraw my motion. Mari: I do not wish to withdraw my second. It would be reasonable to go ahead with it. It can be amended. Jasmine: Good. I call the question. 22 PZM3.5.91 Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Bruce and Jasmine. Motion carried. Blomquist: Be sure the record shows that a copy of the Marolt plat was present at the hearing and a part of the record. MOTION Kim: #18. The highway ROW must be added to the PUD plan. Pending final ROW decision by the City Council the PUD can be amended. #19. The P&Z recommends deferral to City Council all issues regarding Highway ROW. The P&Z further recommends that the ROW be moved far enough to the north to lessen the impacts to the historic site without adversely affecting the Castle Creek Bridge and the Villas across the bridge. Sara: You just contradicted yourself. You just said we refer everything to the City Council and then we made a recommendation of where it should go. Let's take out the first sentence. Kim: What it does it says we understand that Council has the ultimate decision making capacity. Mari: Why don't we just say we recommend-- Jasmine: I agree. Otherwise it is too confusing. Mari: On condition #12 do the other members of the Commission agree with me that it makes no sense to leave the goat path, which is the path that everyone uses, undeveloped. Kim: There were some issues coming out of the Parks Dept whereby they ask that that remain undeveloped unless certain issues could be resolved. The liability for that path and the design issue of what type of path to put there, pavement, the slope that it traverses was of concern and so it hasn't been addressed in this PUD other than being called the goat path. Graeme: It is not on the property. Roger: I move to recommend approval of the final PUD of the Holden/Marolt Mining and Ranching Museum parcel conditioned on the conditions #7 through #17 of Planning Office memo dated February 26, 1991 with the addition of conditions #18 and #19 as read earlier by Kim. Graeme: We have a problem with one other condition. #15 talks about the pathways within the museum grounds shall be reduced in 23 PZM3.5.91 number and shall be considered permanently located in order to limit the disturbance to the vegetation. The PUD plan shall specify what material will be used for the paths. We feel that this, especially since this highway thing complicates it further, we feel that we would like to have flexibility for a number of reasons. Jasmine: We understand the need for flexibility. Graeme: We would like that deleted. Sara: Delete it. Richard: I say delete it. It seems unnecessary. Kim: staff would be willing to work with that considering the new developments with the highway. Jasmine: OK. So delete #15. Roger: OK and I will amend my motion to delete condition #15 on Planning Office memo dated February 26, 1991. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor except Bruce and Jasmine. Bruce: For the record: I am voting no because of the process. I don't think that the process we are using is right. I have no problems with the program or the idea of the Historical Museum or even where it is located. But I think we are going through the process the wrong way so therefore I voted no. Jasmine: I would like to say that I concur and that's the reason for my voting no as well. ART PARK/TROLLEY/SNOWMELT CONCEPTUAL SPA MOTION Roger: I move to table the Art Park/Trolley/Snowmelt Conceptual SPA to date certain of March 12, 1991. Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. BRADEN STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Kim made presentation as attached in record. Sunny Vann: Went over site plans with Commissioners. The original building envelope which we proposed is dictated by the limitations which already exist on the site. This boundary survey was done by the City at the request of multiple ownerships because of a variety 24 PZM3.5.91 of disputes over their mutual boundaries. So they came out with a replatting of the property which created this particular parcel. There is a disclaimer on the plat that it did not take into account existing locations of some of these buildings. They have been here forever. Ralph Braden was granted this additional little piece to accommodate the encroachment of his existing house which was there at the time. It used to sit right here and subsequently been demolished pursuant to a demolition permit. This grant of parcel 8 to Ralph carried a stipulation that at the time this structure was demolished then this would revert back to the City to Herron Park. Parcel #7 is substandard. It is only 13,OOOsqft in this 15,OOOsqft zone district. It is also encumbered by the garage and a portion of the residence of the neighboring property itself. There is a steep embankment that drops down the full portion of the property and it has been heavily landscaped with mature Evergreens and other shrubs to hide this particular house. The 100 year floodplain encompasses all of this property. No development can occur there as well. There is also an access easement which is basically Queen st that encumbers a portion of the property as well. So the envelope which we proposed is outlined in yellow. There is a 10ft side yard setback on this side. We put an 18ft setback on this side so that these trees will not have to be removed. We established the 97ft contour as the elevation on this side. Kim's concern was that the proximity of the envelope to this side might adversely affect Herron Park. I think it is the other way around. The applicant may be affected by activities which occur in Herron Park itself. If we modify the envelope as Kim has suggested we would lose almost all of this vegetation that is marked in green here whereas the original envelope would only eliminate this particular small stand of Cottonwoods and would require the relocation of this one Evergreen. He then showed pictures to the Commissioners to acquaint them with the site as regards vegetation and slope. The problem was created by the City when it placed the boundary in this location. The other extenuating circumstance is that when he voluntarily took this house out of the flood plain and back from the river and proposed to build it here. Now this additional land area which made it a conforming lot went back into Herron Park. So he is being penalized twice. He moves his house and builds it here but he loses the land on which the city granted him an encroachment because of the problem it created with this new plat 25 PZM3.5.91 and now he has to subtract out this square footage from the house as well. Jasmine: I think that is more of a Board of Adjustment problem. It is not a P&Z issue. Sunny: It is to the extent that you have a certain ability to interpret what your zoning regulations say. And this is not clear- cut in our code. It says if I grant an easement that easement must be subtracted. Nothing requires we give the gentleman across the street an easement but they are forcing me as a condition of approval to grant an easement. Kim: I don't think we would require an easement but doesn't it make things kind of sticky for a title mortgage? Sunny: portion license It shows as an encroachment and they of the property. They want us to which would grant an easement to the will not insure that get an encroachment adjacent property. Kim: I think regardless whether an easement is dedicated or not, Drueding, when it comes down to building permit, is going to either decide either to stick with his interpretation--recommended approach or go back to deducting the easement from the lot area. Sunny: Then the approach that would be helpful to me would be not to have you require us to grant the easement because in that case automatically the code is very clear. If it is a surface easement it must be subtracted from the lot. If you don't require the easement then I can take the issue to Board of Adjustment and say should this count with this house or should it count with this house and here is my extenuating circumstances. Jasmine: I really think it is a Board of Adjustment problem. Sunny: I am happy to do that but it is mute if you concur with staff recommendation that an easement be conveyed. Kim: I personally don't feel any strong direction on this. After further discussion on easement and FAR: Jasmine: We can just strike #3 altogether. Sunny: That would be my preference. Then #2--this easement appears on the survey that the City prepared and as far as I know on the title policy this lot--it inures to everyone in this area. I cannot unilaterally retitle it to be a public trail easement. If it is, in fact, an easement which benefits everyone, the City has whatever rights for a trail that exists across that ROW. I 26 PZM3.5.91 can't grant a trail across somebody else's. We will have to get everybody's approval. Kim: That is correct. Jasmine: So we strike #2 then also. Sunny: I don't have a problem with fishing glven up arguing about fisherman's easements. bore you with that argument again. I would like to revise #4 to reflect our original building envelope for the purpose of maintaining this vegetation and reflecting the actual site characteristics. easements. #1 is OK. I have I won't Kim: I am in concurrence with having seen the site and the size of those trees. sunny: There is a condition that all trees outside of the building envelope all vegetation be maintained. This is a condition of this approval. That is fine with us. That is #8. Then how about "All vegetation between the building envelope and the river and those trees as shown on the survey on the other boundaries". Jasmine: So we are going to revise #8-- Sunny: To be worded "No existing vegetation shall be removed between the building envelope and the river and none of the mature trees shown on the survey between the envelope and the remainder of the property boundaries shall be removed". I think #5 is OK. #6 talks about mitigation during construction which is fine. #7 talks about moving around the building envelope with heavy equipment. #9 is just to re-seed these areas that get disrupted. #10 is fine. Sara: Now if an accessory dwelling unit happened, where in the world would it be? Sunny: It has to be within the building envelope. would be attached to the principle residence because enough physical room to build a detached unit. It probably there is not Kim: on'4 are we omitting the language about the building envelope to read liThe site plan showing the fisherman'S easement shall be filed with the county Clerk and shown by affidavit. MOTION 27 PZM3.5.91 Roger: In condition #4 you have 18ft setback on western side. Sunny: That is the one Staff is proposing Roger: What I am planning to say in condition #4--the site plan showing the fisherman's easement and the building envelope as shown on the application shall be filed. Roger: I move to approve the Stream Margin Review of the Braden property conditioned on conditions #l, #5, #6, #7, #9 and #10 on Planning Office memo dated February 26, 1991. (attached in record) Conditions #2 and #3 of that memo are to be deleted. Condition #4 to be modified to read "The site plan showing the Fisherman's Easement and the building envelope as shown on the application shall be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office and copies forwarded to the Planning & Engineering Offices". Condition #8 to be modified to read "No existing vegetation shall be removed between the building envelope and the river and no mature trees between the building envelope and boundaries shall be removed" . Mari seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine the adjourned the meeting. Time was 7:25pm. 28