Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19910702 (Xli ,~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION JULY 2. 1991 vice Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were David Brown, Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS MOTION Roger: I move to request the Planning Office to draft a resolution along the lines that at least some of us on the P&Z Commission recall a representation by the Ski Co. concerning the parking issue of the Little Nell Hotel that they indicated that one of the reasons for the parking was that their skiers would be handled by the skier shuttle which they participate in. Traditionally we have had the attitude that the ski areas should handle their skiers and that includes shuttling to the ski areas. That is where it all built up from way back when. Sara: But that is what they are going to do with or without RFTA. Roger: But that is not what they are going to do without RFTA. Sara: They are contracting with Aspen Limo to handle it. Jasmine: But that is not going to be a free shuttle. Richard: The one with the Little Nell Hotel was approved there was an argument of how many parking spaces they should provide or pay for and one of the reasons for providing as few as they did was because of the shuttle. Sara: I propose that the resolution should Commission's dismay then because a free shuttle was the time of application. Roger: Right. And indicating that the philosophy in reducing the automobiles in this town is dependent on services to the skiers. express this represented at Richard: And when you approved the Little Nell PUD and the parking element of it were you assuming that the free skier shuttle would continue. Jasmine and Roger: Yes. Roger: If a private company is going to operate a shuttle it is OK for them to use Rubey Park but they should take care of the cost involved in their using Rubey Park. That is a shuttle for profit PZM7.2.91 and that facility was put there with tax payer's money through 7th penney. That has traditionally been in support of RFTA which operates the shuttle for free. Now that a profit making entity is coming in there we should recoup the equivalent costs of that kind of operation because we are having to pay for it through the ticket. Jasmine: I think we should start with what we originally stated and not get too confused with these other issues which may cause more problems down the road. This is the part that we had to do with and I think this is the part we should talk about now and then if it turns out that it is beyond hope as far as getting the Ski Co to assume it's responsibility and we can't document it then I think we have to take a position as a land use planning issue on the use of Rubey Park. I would rather see this go through just as it is for the time being. There was general agreement for this. Jasmine: Roger has made a motion that would have the Planning Office draft a resolution, strongly seconded by Bruce, to the City Council which has to do with the fact that when the Little Nell PUD came before the commission, part of the reason that there was a reduction in parking allowed and this particular circulation pattern allowed was because of the representation of the Ski Co that they would continue to provide a free shuttle service for skiers lessening the need for parking spaces at the Little Nell Hotel. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Jasmine: The Castle Creek Trail on the east side of Castle Creek is marked on the trail map as a proposed trail. There always was a trail there on the east side. It didn't go all that far but it went down along the creek on the east side. It has since been blocked off. I was interested as to whether we have easements for that or is it just one of those things where people don't want people going by there so they just say "Closed. No access" no matter whether they have a right to do that or not. This is up 7th Street--7th st goes all the way till it turns into sort of a dirt road and then there is a little house toward the end and they have put up this big gate right across the road at that point. I guess it is in the County. I seem to remember going on that trail a long time ago. A friend of mine and I went to take a walk there yesterday--the house there was recently sold and I have a feeling the new owner decided he didn't want people walking by there. Maybe they have a perfect right to do this but on the other hand '0"'0... 2 PZM7.2.91 maybe they don't and they just put up a sign to see if anybody would challenge it. But I want to know what the situation is. Roger: We are nearing the time where we need some sort of overall transportation committee which might include City and County so we can integrate everything from the soles of our shoes up into complexity as far as transportation. We have somewhat of a beginnings of it with the Pedestrian/Bikeway Plan. We are getting to a point where someone has to look at all of those modes of transportation and try to integrate them all at least at this end of the valley. Roxanne: You might want to have a joint work session with the County P&Z with what is going on right now. Roger: One of the issues right now is roller blades where should they be and where shouldn't they. Roxanne: with the Police Dept it is a safety factor. But you all are not really looped into it in a planning point of view. Roger: I would be happy to take on the transportation committee. STAFF COMMENTS Diane: On July 10th at 6:00pm Roxanne has scheduled a video on Seaside, Florida. You are all invited. We are planning on July 16 to do a presentation to Welton after meeting that evening and have a party as a thank you for his years of work on Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT There were none. MINUTES APRIL 16. 1991 Roger made a motion to adopt minutes of April 16, 1991. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. BELLINA CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Kim, Planning Dept: Made presentation as attached in record. Roger: The Engineering Dept response mentions construction in the ROW. What is that construction ROW we are dealing with? 3 PZM7.2.91 Kim: What they are referring to there is that in areas where there are no curb and gutter and obvious walkways established that people are doing major landscaping in the front of their homes which goes up to the edge of the pavement. So what the Engineering Dept wanted to make the applicant/owner aware of is that any work in the ROW has to be cleared through the Engineering/streets Dept and to take into consideration to leave open the pedestrian-way in case any pedestrian access is developed on this street. Roger: They also mention the roll curb. Was that to be at the existing edge of the pavement? There is no curb there now. Kim: I think that what they are talking about is if and whenever curb and gutter goes in then the installation of rolled curb vs- -I think they want to alert anyone who is considering doing anything out there. Roger: I didn't pick that up as being a future thing. Kim: I don't think that it is a requirement that that actually be installed. Roger: problem because I would like Engineering to clarify that because I had a with the rolled curb was to go to the existing pavement that is not where we generally want the curb. Sara: Roxanne, why did the HPC grant a variance that combines side yard setback? Roxanne: The proposal as originally designed--(from here on she spoke ~ softly.) Jasmine: Do you have any notion from your client as to whether that accessory dwelling unit is planned to actually be occupied at this point. Do they have somebody in mind or have they said anything about their intentions as far as the actual use of that ADU? Cinderella: I am sure if there is somebody that needs to rent it they would be willing to rent it. Roger: One of the things that concerns me--I have not seen a kitchen yet unless it is that L area on the NW corner. Right now it just looks like a room attached to the main dwelling that happens to have a front exterior entrance. cinderella: It is meant to be a studio mumble____small kitchen. Roger: I am just concerned not seeing kitchen facilities in it 4 PZM7.2.91 identified so it leads me to question it. The trash is, I assume, in the alley. access to the alley from this unit. And there is no direct cinderella: other than to walk around here or to go through the garage. Roger: Is there going to be an established walkway around that side of the house? Cinderella: It is going to be green. There is a parking space here and this will all be green and there are some Lilac bushes in the back here at this time and we are going to move them behind here so it will be like a yard. Roger: The problem I have with it being a dwelling unit that is separable from the main residence, it becomes without alley access. It loses it's independence from the main unit if it is-- Kim: We could propose an additional condition that would require the architect to provide a pathway around the side of the house or an installation of an additional doorway at the rear. It you don't think that would create too many openings in the wall whereby you would have a hard time sitting a table and a couch. Roger: I understand the constraints you are dealing with. I don't want to make it a condition that they must have-- Kim: How about a choice then. Either the pathway or the door. Roger: Flagstone, gravel. Kim: Do you want the plans to show that and that be required as far as the construction and final inspections because if rented comes down the road and there won't be any way to enforce that at that time. Roger: At this point it should be designed into the project so either pathway or an additional access closer to the alley. David: Reading through the requirements for the variances--or setbacks the code talks about hardships-- Roger: Not for historic structures. Kim: When it is historic it is a separate category. David: I still did not understand the need for a variance of 6 inches for the setback requirement by this little accessory dwelling unit. 5 PZM7.2.91 Diane: The variance was 6 feet not 6 inches. David: I also am concerned in this area that the--especially having gone to the community planning meetings that a lot of people in the west end feel severely constrained by the bulk massing and lack of setback enforcement. Kim: That would have been an issue that HPC would have discussed at their public meetings. David: Does that mean this is your rubber stamp board for the HPC? Kim: That this is? David: This board is just rubber stamp for HPC. Kim: The actual structural dimensional quality were reviewed by HPC. And I don't--I think that at this point it is not really the P&Z's issue to rehash the variance process that was already discussed at HPC. David: So if it is an HPC structure the variance under article 10 does not apply for P&Z's review? Roxanne: Not an article 10 if it is a variation does not become a variation from HPC. And they make a finding for character compatibility and they review it very, very strictly. And they take in all of the concerns of the neighbors and it's design. Specifically those concerns. And P&Z doesn't review except for detached accessory dwellings and then you have the ability to go to the 0 lot line and within 3 feet of the side yard setback. Roger: We sort of abdicated slightly our responsibility for side yard setbacks but by the same token what we wanted to do was for historic structures because there are usually setback problems. I think we initiated it in the code to get it into the HPC purview so that they would be able to vary it with setbacks so that they wouldn't have to go through the Board of Adjustment process. David: I don't have any problem with the accessory dwelling use at all. However, given the fact that it is an accessory dwelling unit and there is a likelihood that someone else in the future-- to further Roger's comments on direct access to the alley I think that direct access to the sidewalk or hard surface path of some sort be part of the condition to the front sidewalk so that a guest to this unit be able to access the unit directly from the street as well as an off-street parking space. This is right next to a church and I think on-street parking at certain times of the week would be a hardship for the neighborhood. 6 PZM7.2.91 I didn't notice a site for the dumpster. Kim: That is something that the architect will need to get together. The Planning and Engineering just locate where the trash cans will go. And I don't know where they are on site right now. Cinderella: Right now the existing building goes from the front of the building there all the way to the alley and a little to the right of that is the dumpster. Diane: And they are actually not even required for a studio one bedroom to provide parking. You don't have to. Richard: I think it is an important issue that we aren't just getting people with additional bedrooms. Jasmine and Roger: But that is what we are doing. Jasmine: That is what happens with all of these accessory dwelling uni ts because they are not required to be rented out. And what you have done--what is happening now is that we are getting additional bedrooms tacked onto houses that are being credited as attached accessory dwelling units. They are not accessory. They are going to be used as an extra bedroom for somebody, increasing the bulk of these structures and it is not providing any additional housing for long term residents unless they happen to be relatives of the people who own the house in which case they would be taken care of anyway. We are being placed in this really hypocritical situation. We are not approving this structure. We are approving the use. And we are approving it for something that it is not going to be used for. And it really sticks in my craw! Roxanne: It is time to re-visit that. We are going to actually go out and take a survey as to who is living here. And we are going to find out, Jasmine, if what you are saying is true. You might be right. Jasmine: If we have nothing to say about it except that it is OK to use it for this and it is not going to be used for this, doesn't it seem like a big waste of everybody's time? Why not just let people build whatever they want? Kim: It is just that the owner does deed restrict the property. And in some cases that has turned applicants off to where they have gotten approvals but not actually followed through with constructing the unit. That burden is placed on the property and if they want to use it for a guest room, that is fine but the 7 PZM7.2.91 property is restricted. Jasmine: Yes, but the restriction is meaningless. Kim: Correct. But it does affect the future. Bruce: It is when they want to turn the property--- Jasmine: Except that the new owner can do the same thing. The new owner doesn't have to rent it out either. Kim: That is true. Diane: I think one of the things being rented and how many are not. to find out when we do the survey. Jasmine: It just seems like a very silly thing for this Commission to be reviewing a use that is not a real use. When we start talking about all of the problems of bulk and absentee owners etc it becomes obvious that we are in this situation where we are spending a lot of time on this and it is certainly not accomplishing what we thought it was going to. And it is adding to the bulk of the neighborhood. we don't know is how many are That is one thing we are going Roger: It is not the fact that it is rented but that it is occupied by a local resident which was the purpose of this affordable housing unit. I would like to see it occupied by a local resident. I don't care necessarily if they are paying rent. Jasmine: But it is definitely related to the bulk issue. Because people are given the opportunity to have a larger house by virtue of an accessory dwelling unit which is or isn't being used. Would anybody like to come up with a particular revised wording for the condition having to do with the access for the ADU? Roger: It would be a condition H. And I think that condition H should include the front access as well. Sara: You do? I don't know if I agree with David that there ought to be a path all the way across the yard to the road. Richard: My feeling is that would be nice but as long as there is- -What I am concerned is that there be a private entrance to the unit that works--whether it is the front or to the rear. Roger: This is a good point. Maybe the location of the access should be oriented towards the alley. 8 PZM7.2.91 Sara: Good point. And forget this front door. David: I thought about that and I think that the south side entrance is really good from the sun aspect in the winter. Richard: And the problem with the pitch of the roof is that if you put a side walkway there and the snow comes right down into that. cinderella: There is a porch that wraps around up to the edge of the ADU and goes along ____. Kim: Maybe the sidewalk could connect in here somewhere along the deck area and-- cinderella: I don't see any reason why a person couldn't--if they came in from the south side--walk up the porch under that covered walkway and go into the ADU even if they went in to the bike room and went into the ADU. Roger: That is really why I prefer re-orienting the entrance so that the access is to the alley. It is a northern exposure but by the same token that is the parking space right there and you are going to have to accommodate the snow in that area. Roxanne: Why don't you just require that the applicant restudy the issue and provide for access and then bring it back to staff. Roger: That is fine with me. Jasmine: So the condition H will say "Applicant will be directed to re-design the access of the ADU to the satisfaction of the-- Roger: Because it is certainly nice having that doorway to the green area. Roxanne: That the applicant shall re-study the access to the ADU and submit revised drawings to staff for approval to provide for either a north access into the ADU or a hard path surface to the south door. Roger: OK. That will be my condition H of my motion. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the conditional use for an attached accessory dwelling unit to the Bellina residence at 716 West Francis with conditions A through G being the same as Planning Office memo dated July 2, 1991. (attached in record) Condition H being that the applicant shall re-study the access to the ADU and submit revised drawings to staff for approval to provide for either 9 PZM7.2.91 a north access into the AdU or a hard path surface to the south door. Richard seconded the motion. David: I am concerned about just the addition of and/or a pathway to the alley. Roger: I will reword my motion--if a curbing is ever installed on site that a rolled curb shall be installed at the edge of the street paving in accordance with the west end plan. Richard amended his second to the motion. Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Bruce. Bruce: My vote is not against this project. The purpose of this is to make a point against continuing to approving larger houses. There was general agreement with Bruce on this point. Jasmine closed the public hearing. 645 NORTH MILL STREET CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR A SATELLITE DISH MOTION Roger: I will move to table this hearing and continue the public hearing--645 North Mill street Conditional Use Review--to date certain of July 16, 1991 at the request of the applicant. Sara seconded the motion with everyone in favor. RED BRICK SCHOOL SITE Diane Moore made presentation as attached in record. Entire information from this packet from Planning Dept is attached in record. This was a planning item. glad to do these minutes. If there is a request for it I will be (Tape 2, side 2, 19:00 to tape 3) After planning discussion meeting was adjourned. Time was 6:55pm. ~ 10