Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19910820 ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20. 1991 vice Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. David Brown was excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Bruce commented on the degeneration of the sidewalk at the parking garage. Jed, City Attorney: There is someone on top of that. There has been correspondence back and forth with the contractor's bonding company. We are probably going to have to go to court on this. Sara asked regarding the latest on the Ritz Carlton. Jed: The Ritz Carlton, as you may recall, the extensions granted by Council in terms of their construction schedule had certain deadlines. The most important deadline in my mind is coming up here at the end of this month. By September 1st they have to post $4 million dollar security for the demolition. They have to get the building permit and pay all of their fees. Those are the 2 big issues. There is a number of milestones that attain prior to that which they have. pretty good. they had to successfully They have been up on them Diane, Planning: They are actually ahead of schedule. Jed: Yes. And I can report to you that the most significant thing to me was the bond. They put up $4 million dollars--that, to me, was pretty good indication that they are going to go forward. Or if they don't, at least we have got $4 million dollars that we can use to level the place if necessary. We have been faxing back final drafts of the instrument for a bond. So it looks at least as of this date that they are going to go ahead and post it. I checked with the Building Dept today and the Building Dept is ready to issue their #1 building permit. So it looks, for lack of a better word, better or good right now. But every time I talk to their attorney in Los Angeles, he just loves to throw cold water on everything. Any little ray of optimism we may have about the project going forward he always says "Now we haven't made up our mind yet. And we are still trying to pencil this thing out". I think they are just trying to decide whether or not they let $75 million dollars go down the drain or do they somehow go forward and finish it and save as much money as they possibly can. And maybe get a buyer for it--I don't know. PZM8.20.9l But right now I am cautiously optimistic that they will post the bond and that they will get their #1 building permit. I checked with Bob Gish today who has been regularly going over to the site and said "Bob, does it look like they are geared up to do stuff?" And he seems to think that they are. And it looks like they are actually going to do something. When they actually sign the document and the $4 million dollars is on deposit, that is when I will breath a sigh of relief because I know at that point in time if they change their minds, we have $4 million dollars. We will probably have to get into all kinds of litigation to try and get that no matter what the agreements say. We won't actually have it. It is going to be held by a bank in escrow and what we are finalizing right now is the terms of the written agreement under which the City can access the money. There is enough time involved the way it is structured during which we would try to get the money, which would allow them to go to court. It is intentionally structured that way. They don't want the c~ty to arbitrarily somehow make all of these decisions to start to tear down their building. So it is going to be--let's say they went into Fall--there is a minimum of 75 days before the city could actually get the $4 million dollars during which time I suspect we would probably be in court. Assuming they post it we are a lot better off then than we have ever been in terms of what will happen on the site. " My greatest fear has been that they just walk and there is $75 million dollar hole in the ground and abandoned building there. And there is not a whole lot we can do about that other than wait until it reached such a level of deterioration that we could declare it a public nuisance. But then we have to spend tax dollars to go in there and remedy it. And I don't think we want to spend $4 million dollars to level it. Sara: If they default, what happens to that land? Jed: They own it. The land stays with them. Everything stays with them. The bond just allows us to go and demolish. We have to demand that they abolish if they go into default. They have 30 days then to demolish or at least take steps towards doing that. Then if they don't then we go to the court and make demand for the money. Roger: If they don't post the bond then where do we go from there? Jed: Then I would--I can't speak necessarily for Council on this but it would be my recommendation that if they don't post bond then we start administrative proceeding to revoke all of their approvals. That is the only leverage we have got. 2 PZM8.20.91 We structured this agreement that they and we entered into several months ago and specifically said we don't have to go through a whole big huge hearing process again to determine that you have failed to do this. Everybody is going to know whether or not you have posted this bond. And if you haven't--we are not going to have a hearing to determine that. Roger: And I suppose the city has absolutely--if the City has revoked everything at that point, what leverage does the City have of getting someone interested in purchasing and completing proj ect? Jed: Probably the interest would be less than it is now because there would be no land use agreements. There has been one party that has shown interest to the extent that they have been up here and have had attorneys come up and do some reviews. But we have not heard anything further on it than that I know that they have been here and have retained local council to assist them in exploring the options and they reviewed the land use approvals. I just can't help but think these people have got $75 million dollars in this project and I don't think they are going to get $75 million for it because it doesn't pencil. We will have a good idea in less than 3 weeks. Bruce: Is there any linkage between the Ritz and the Meadows or are those severed of each other. Jed: It is still Savannah in terms of who owns and controls the terms of the agreements. To develop one and/or the other there is no formal linkage between them. As a practical matter I don't think there is either. Savannah is made up of 2 partnerships. One controlled by Al-Ibrahim, the other by Mr. Hadid. Mr. Hadid is basically out--he is history. He is there in name but he has no control. Al-Ibrahim kept a number of people that Savannah had employed who were hired by Mr. Hadid. Perry Harvey is still there and Ferd and R.J. All of the people that I dealt with are still involved. And Sarpa. Sara: How about the land transfers? Jed: They are supposed to happen before final plat. They are supposed to happen simultaneously with the final plat. To my knowledge they have not yet happened although I know that the Institute is coming in to make a final request of the City Council and the City Manager to allow them to start processing of their building permit even though all of the approvals have not been finalized. 3 PZM8.20.91 STAFF COMMENTS Leslie: The co-housing group that has been working with the Board of County Commissioners to buy the Community Center site. They are proposing to tear the Community Center down and rebuilt to AH and they thought that they had set up a date--they will be here at the end of this meeting for a work session with you. I thought they should give you a look at what they are proposing and then we will schedule a formal work session with them. Last Thursday city Council had a work session on the Rio Grande property. We organized a site visit for them. To help them, to give them a little more guidance Diane and I gave them a broad masterplan scheme. We will take all the work that we have all done so far on that--the trolley, the art park and kind of broaden that. And that will give Council an opportunity to become familiar with past studies that have been done and all the past work that has been done on the property. It will give them an opportunity to look more closely at the entire trolley system and it will be a city sponsored masterplan. We will use the applications that we have so recommendations and will then bring you the rail and river work that people want to do and pull all of that take it back to you all. far, your all of the in and then Friday at noon Council is having a work session just for themselves. They want to discuss among themselves what they view as their goals for the Rio Grande. Monday night at their regularly scheduled meeting I will provide them with a list of some of the short term decisions that they have made. For example after the Theater people came out of P&Z and right before they went to Council, they realized that they were way far off as far as raising money for a permanent building. What they need right now is they need to buy a new tent. They want to buy a new tent and they want to have a sort of shed and some combination toilets. I think that is something Council can look at. Jasmine: Office to ourselves That seems like a very sensible way for the Planning proceed. I don't see anything we should do except make available for the joint work session. Roger: I would have problems with going ahead with approvals piecemeal even though the Council may want to do that. To me either you masterplan the thing and get everything in place or you allow it to go piecemeal which is what they don't want to do. So I have no problems with approving agricultural development or 4 PZM8.20.91 landscaping and that type of thing but anything that is more significant I have problems with approving. I would like to keep this on the front burner and keep everything progressing. And the theatre is the squeakiest wheel at this point and I think that should be an inducement to everything as a squeaky wheel and let's get on this thing and do the masterplan. Jasmine: It may very well be that they just want to make themselves more familiar with what has been going on. They just may need to be educated of the background of where things stand exactly now--what has been approved and not been approved. Leslie: Some members of Council are ready to make decisions right now. other members are not. So we are trying to pull things together in a way that doesn't take the applications that we have all worked on so far and toss them out the window and say "Now we are going to masterplan this area". I think the idea to look at some of these short term things. There are things that they felt could be approved right away like we can get going starting work on the river bank and some of the river issues. ,~' They wanted to start work with the Engineering Dept and City Managers office. Basically your recommendation to deny the continuance of the snowmelter got those guys going and they have analyzed about 15 sites in the area and what it means to switch the snowmel ter to there and taking it away from a pure economical decision and making it more of a quality decision and trying to get the snowmelt facility out of there. That is something that Council can direct to be pursued right away. And then the tent-- .-'..~""' Roger: That is as good an example as any. OK--because the tent may--if a particular rail system goes in there the tent space may be competing with the trolley for a location. And if that is the case I don't want to see anything approved significantly there that could prevent the Council of having a choice of do they want a tent or do they want a trolley barn. That type of thing. Leslie: Why would the tent be competing with the trolley barn? Roger: If the RR station--You can come up with a RR scenario that would knock out the location of the trolley barn. That would actually be Randy Parton's proposal. Diane: That tent is a temporary use. Roger: I realize the tent is. But if you start putting more and more permanence to that type of thing, that is the problem. Jasmine: Which is the problem with the tent in the first place. 5 PZM8.20.9l I think Leslie is aware of our sentiment and can convey to Council that anything that they might approve now in regard to something like the tent would be with the understanding that this is a temporary situation only and that no permanent approvals would be given--that is the recommendation of P&Z. No permanent approvals for individual applications be given until the Council has signed off on the entire masterplan. Leslie: You all are going to be involved either from a subcommittee perspective or you will be involved in any masterplan that we do and come back to you first before it goes to Council for ratification. You will see that. At the work session with Council and P&Z, Council could benefit from your knowledge. Roger: And so we can benefit from their direction too. MINUTES MAY 7. 1991 Richard: I move to approve minutes of May 7, 1991. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. COLORADO INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK SHARING AGENCY (CIRSAI MOVIE Jed Caswall, City Attorney brought P&Z is members up to date on CIRSA and showed the tape on conducting their affairs as City Officials in order to avoid legal liability for the City as well as themselves. KREBS CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Diane, Planning Dept: This is the item where the hearing was continued because of improper notification. And in order to make sure of proper public notice we are asking that this item be tabled to date certain of September 3, 1991. MOTION Jasmine: I would entertain a motion to table this application and continue the public hearing until September 3, 1991. Roger: I so move. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. 6 PZM8.20.91 ASPEN VILLAS PUD AMENDMENT CC!tE-!oJ Diane: Richard gelliR was here at last P&Z meeting. He did speak to Council on August 12 and he is meeting with the Engineering Dept in order to work out some kind of an encroachment license. He is requesting that this hearing be continued to date certain of September 3, 1991. MOTION Roger: I move this hearing be continued to date certain of September 3, 1991. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. BLOCKER CONDITION USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Jasmine opened the public hearing. Leslie: record) Presented an affidavit of public notice. (Attached in She then made presentation as attached in record. I would like to change language of condition #7 to say "The applicant shall review with the Engineering Dept. potential storm water drainage". Bruce: The only problem I have with this condition is that the burden is on the applicant to go to the Engineering Dept and talk to them. The Engineering Dept says "Hey we have got a real problem with the drainage here". And Sunny says "So what I can't even talk to you about it". The condition is met. Leslie: It is staff's recommendation and Rob the City Engineer feels comfortable with this language. I discussed this with Rob and he didn't have a problem with it. Bruce: So future applications are going to have this same language until we get something into the building permit process. Leslie: That is where it should be whenever anybody wants sa building permit. People build the duplexes and then they come in to condominiumize which in subdivision review is required-- drainage and runoff. Then it is so silly because they have already built. That should be part of the building permit. Sunny: I don't necessarily have a problem with addressing drainage concerns. I think the requirement that is retained in subdivision records might be a bit stringent for every vacant single family lot that is located in the community. It is designed to address multiple lot subdivisions. 7 PZM8.20.91 I would like to discuss the language change on #4. Leslie: I was suggesting if you would like to insert that applicant may seek a variance from the Engineering Dept". insert that. "Or the We can Jasmine asked for public comment. There was none and she closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the conditional use for an attached dwelling unit at 1230 Mountain View Drive with the following conditions as on Planning Office memo dated August 20, 1991. Conditions #1 through #3 being the same on Planning Office memo dated August 20, 1991. Condition #4 as with the inclusion of the phrase "Or applicant may seek a variance from the Engineering Dept." Condition #5 and #6 and #8 being the same as Planning Office memo. And #7 shall read "The applicant shall review with the Engineering Dept potential storm water drainage issue". Richard seconded the motion. Bruce: Is the Engineering Dept empowered to grant variances or give approvals? I just want to make sure we are not putting on a condition that is not able to be fulfilled. Leslie: I would suggest it be changed to "through the Engineering Dept". Roger amended his motion to reflect this change. Richard amended his second and everyone voted in favor of the motion. Jasmine then adjourned the regular business portion of the meeting. Time was 6:30pm. The Commissioners then continued with a work session on the Koch Housing project. , Jan' 8