Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19911008 x.V ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 8. 1991 Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, David Brown, Sara Garton, Bruce Kerr, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. Richard Compton was excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Sara: The Plaza: The wonderful plaza now has been formed with Library and Courthouse parking garage. The back of the employee unit that belongs to the Central Bank--I think a mural or something should be painted on that. Maybe there could be a contest--the highschool or the Art Museum. It is an eyesore now. And it is a focal point now as you look at the back of the building. There was general agreement that Sara I s suggestion should be followed through on. Jasmine: In view of the things that have been happening now with the cash-in-lieu because of the City's financial crises--I would like to have us take another look at cash-in-lieu. Housing in particular, maybe parking also. One of the concerns when we are having these endless debates about the virtues of cash-in-lieu was that you weren't going to get timely production to mitigate the impacts. But #2 was that once the money disappeared into the funds of the city that somehow they would get used for things other than having production. At the time we were told "No, no, no this can't possibly be because these are going to be earmarked specifically for housing production". Now, being used for housing administration is not necessarily as bad as being used for something else even though the other thing may be worthy. But in that case maybe we haven I t factored in the cost of administration and maintenance in our cash- in-lieu figures. There are certain costs to the city in doing this. Even if we have the money, part of it is the ongoing deal with this and so I think that is something we might want to take a look at. Kim: So a clarification from the Housing Authority? ...........~ Jasmine: Yes. Supposedly we have the option of requiring either production or cash-in-lieu. It may very well be that in upcoming GMP situations where employee housing may be a requirement that until this whole thing is straightened out it may be appropriate for us to say that during this period of time the applicant must provide the housing because the city just can't do it. Or maybe that is not the right way to go about it. Maybe the right way to PZMI0.8.91 go about it is to continue cash-in-lieu but at a higher rate. I think it certainly is appropriate now to take a look at it because of the fact that it has been in place for a couple of years and one of the things that we were worried about that we thought would be a negative has in fact come to pass. Sara: Could we find out where the cash-in-lieu is? Is it in an escrow account? Is it placed in CDs? Is it placed in bonds? Does it earn interest? STAFF COMMENTS Leslie: The Flying Dog Brew Pub: They have brought an application to us as an insubstantial amendment to the conditional use. They are proposing to provide take-out for their beer. They are in the process of changing their State liquor license to reflect that. It would be plastic containers with sealed tops. It would not increase their production of beer. They are only capable of producing just so much beer. They would not have to hire somebody else. I checked the resolution and conditions of approval and it was not a condition of approval that they could not do take-out. Roger: I seem to recall that they represented that they would not be doing a take-out type of system. Leslie: Yes. That was part of the discussion that it was for consumption on site and would not be a take-out situation. And I thought that that was part of the condition of approval but it was not in the resolution. Roger: It was probably not a condition because they represented it would not be sold as carry out so it didn I t need to be addressed. Leslie: That is why I conditional use approval. to you. view this a an amendment to their We haven't done it yet and can bring it Sara: As I understand the State law on brew pubs it states that they can also package it. Leslie: They have to amend basically their liquor license. They are in the process of doing that to do take-out. Sara: I think upstairs is the Grog Shop retail liquor license. They have somehow become a retail liquor-- Leslie: That retail is an allowed use. It is the zone. You are 2 PZM10.8.91 right. There may be a conflict between the people upstairs. This would not be an operation that they would be wholesaling for distribution to other restaurants--like do a keg and sell that to other restaurants. It would be purely on a per-customer basis. It would not be where you could take your bottle back and they could refill it. The majority of the Commission gave the OK that this be taken care of at the staff level. Diane: Asked to set a date for orientation with Planning & Zoning Commission and the city Attorney on Land Use Code. A date of November 26 was decided upon. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. MINUTES MARCH 5. , SEPTEMBER 17. 1991 Roger made a motion to adopt minutes of March 5, 1991. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. Roger made a motion to adopt minutes of September 17, 1991. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. ASPEN VILLAS PUD AMENDMENT Jasmine opened the public hearing. Roger: Is it time for this to be re-noticed. I am afraid people are losing track of this whole thing now with all of the tabling it has gone to. Kim: I will get in touch with the City Attorney on that. MOTION Roger: I move to table this hearing to date certain of December 3, 1991. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. 328 (100) PARK AVENUE SUBDIVISION PUD GMOS EXEMPTION Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim, Planning Dept: Made presentation as attached in record. 3 PZM10.8.91 Sara: To Chuck Roth and Rob Thomson of Engineering Dept: Why did we not know this was a collector street at the first meeting? Chuck: I don't think the ROW width was labeled on the plat whereas the other 2 ROWs were labeled. Roger: Is this the only place necked down? What is happening along the rest of the street along this line? And what seems to be practical as far as acquiring a ROW? We may not be able to get 60ft or whatever. But what is reasonable to expect on that street in the future? When it comes down to trying to acquire a ROW, it makes no sense to pull 13ft of ROW from them if we are never going to be able to accomplish what is necessary with that 13ft. We have to see what is happening with the rest of the street as well. I can't tell at this point. Jasmine: When we are doing ROWs I don't think we can just consider ROW in isolation. It seems likely to me that a lot of properties along Park Avenue are going to be re-developed in the future. And so it would be nice to have a standard policy that says that we have established the correct ROW for various engineering road, traffic, bus concerns. All projects will then have to conform to this ROWand that is the number we should have to use for this project. But I don't know that this project should be the determination of what the correct ROW should be. I do think we need more information about this. I think it would be very foolish of us and unfair to create different sets of ROWs depending on what a person's project looks like. It seems to me that whatever we decide as the appropriate ROW is the appropriate ROW that this applicant and all other applicants that are going to be doing any kind of development along Park Ave should be subject to. The question is what is the right amount? sunny: All of the conditions are acceptable to the applicant with the exception of the ROW issue. We went back and tried to address the concerns we heard from the P&Z at the last meeting with the exception of the concern which you expressed regarding the ability to convert the so-called multi purpose space in the unit to a third bedroom. While there is the potential for that happening there is nothing in our code that says a person can't build a 2 or 3-bedroom unit with a den or studio or anything else. There is also nothing that precludes someone who is inclined to convert it from doing so. But the zoning regulations provides for enforcement and requires 4 PZM10.8.91 somebody to remove it if it becomes a problem. The planning Office has said they want to take it a step further and put a notification on the plat and subdivision improvements agreement to put the purchasers on notice. That is fine with us too. But my client is disinclined to remove what is a legally permitted space simply because someone in the future might try to convert it. If they do and a neighbor objects the mechanisms are in place to remove it. First of all I am concerned about the issue of when this applies. Second what the appropriate standards should be. I can agree that in this particular case an additional ROW would help the City in the future. It would eliminate the so-called fence issue in the perception of it being private. When we did the application the pedestrian plan--there was no requirement for sidewalks in this area. We .did it because we thought it was a good idea. But I think the bottom line on this particular application is regardless of what you decide to send to recommend to Council regarding the width of the ROW we are not in a position to comply. Kim was also mistaken in stating that it has no effect on the FAR. The land which would be taken for the driveway must also be subtracted from the project's FAR. I think she is correct in stating that at a 4-unit complex there would be sufficient land area to accommodate those 4 from a density point of view. So while I am sympathetic to the Engineering Dept exaction here, I am a little concerned abut the lateness of the hour. I am concerned about the fact that it is a regulation that has not been uniformly applied. I have processed subdivision applications for Stream Margin Review in Oklahoma Flats. We have done the Volk lot split down there in which ROW issues came up and which the solution was to reserve for future dedication to eliminate the need for condemnation on behalf of the city a ROW so that the property owner was allowed to enjoy his property rights. I am concerned that we are trying to impose a standard which was designed for raw land on the original Aspen townsite. Tim: I think that this project needs to be re-designed. The outline of the house right next to the proposed design is my immediate neighbor. I live in the next house. I have lived there 22 years. This intersection and this stretch of street where it bottlenecks down and where it narrows is dangerous. The bus traffic through there is totally unpredictable and that makes it even more dangerous. Especially coming from the south to north direction. All of the traffic comes from the south and down Park Ave along this project and then it narrows down again and then turns a blind corner. This is a bottleneck and this is one of the 5 PZM10.8.91 rudest parts of having a bus come down this street is that cars and bikes and people--people walking dogs, people pushing baby carriages etc cannot pass. They stop and get off the street if the bus is coming. I think that we should have the maximum ROW here. If that dictates that the density of this project has to be reduced I think that is even in more fitting standard with that neighborhood. I sympathize with the purchaser who wants to maximize the return on their investment. But this is one time where I have lived there for 20 years and I can tell you that I think the pUblic's needs come first and I think the people who need to use that street as a collector street so that they can get down the foot bridge, so that they can get down to East Hopkins or down Hopkins st the people who are going out to cooper or Route 82 so that they can go up the pass or back down towards city Market--this collects people from other housing projects that are up behind this and people are coming from allover Midland and there are some dense areas, some family areas up there. I think that the ROW is very necessary here and I think the City should do everything to acquire the maximum amount of ROW that it can get. And I can tell you as far as Roger's point of view which is very important there are a lot of projects that are going to be turned around in this neighborhood. And the acquisition of this maximum amount of ROW in the future is going to be feasible. Dr. Whitcomb's property is on the other side. That is a duplex lot that has already been torn down. The house next to that is under contract to be sold now. At the corner of Hopkins st where Paul Johnson's house is there is plenty of room there so it can be taken off and there can be ROW extended there so that that is not a blind corner. So if we set the standard and strictly enforce the City's and the pUblic's needs here we will be able to acquire more ROW as that area gets more and more developed. When I saw the transition between 28, 18, and then I come in today and it is automatically 13--I can see that there has been a pressure to progress this in one direction. And I can assure you that I want to see it go the other way. And I want to step it back up and go back to the reasoning of this. This is such a vital artery because of the transit system that a lot of people use. In the winter time when people are going skiing in the morning those buses are full. And there are people standing on the sides of Park Ave waiting--maybe 6 or 7 people at a time waiting to get on those buses to go down to go skiing or to go to work. Kids come out in the morning and wait for their school buses at that Hopkins st corner and in front of my house and the school buses stop along that street. 6 PZM10.8.91 If the school buses stop and a car comes from cooper st and comes around that corner by Hopkins st, it literally has to come to a stop. I am going to lobby for the ROW whether it disrupts your density at 28ft or 13ft. I really think you have got a problem there. Roger: I think we really should determine what should be the logical roll that Park Ave is going to play here. We should determine whether it is going to be a collector or can we get away with it as being a local street which would be a vast improvement over what it is. We need to determine this ROW for the entire neighborhood. We get that in place and wherever that falls with this project, that is what we recommend to city Council. At this moment we don't have sufficient information. David: What is the normal protocol for this type of situation? Kim: The problem is that we don't have the benefit of an SPA overlay. And there is no other mechanism for a property that is not an SPA. David: It sounds like you all are looking at least on this side of the street. physical needs? 8ft of actual pavement. Roth: We don't have an overall plan for that neighborhood. My particular needs and purposes were more pedestrian focused to have space in the ROW for pedestrians. Not to say that we don't need pavement improvements. for 8ft more of pavement Would that satisfy the Tim: I think because of the nature of what it does collect from with Midland Park right behind it and the bus comes right past centennial and past Hunter Creek and a lot of those people use that to get up the pass on their bikes. David: Sunny, what would it do to your project if--without an ROW exaction and without reducing the actual lot area would it be possible then to move forward with the project by providing an additional 8ft parking lane and a 4 to 5ft sidewalk without the ROW exaction? Sunny: We looked at the possibility of adding 4ft of pavement which would get it up to 28ft plus adding sufficient area to accommodate curb and gutter, a grass strip, a sidewalk. It sounded like 50ft. That is the 50ft ROW. We laid it out. Physically we probably could accommodate it because the area that is being talked about is where we already have the sidewalk right now. David: So you could accommodate the physical improvement without the dedication to the city,. 7 PZM10.8.91 Tim's concern isn't going to be solved by a total exaction. My guess is that the City would not go through with an exaction unless this came forward in a subdivision process. So without this going through a subdivision process you won't get it widened and I have got a feeling it might be the easiest way to move forward with an easement ROW exaction and just have an easement so that way you get the sidewalk, the 8ft parking strip and it is just not an exaction. Roger: Can we get away with a setback on their western property line such that in the future if we do require whatever ROW as necessary that at least it will not be a building in that ROW? By acquiring the ROW it may create a non-conforming setback in the future but that I think can be lived with. Sunny: There is a mechanism to do that. Our code defines that setbacks are made from the property line. So it becomes very clear that if it is a reservation we earmark a line for future acqui- sition. The city might not even take the full 13ft. So long as the buildings were set back out to it it would not affect how we measure the setbacks for the development. Roger: So can we develop a set of setbacks now that are sufficient at least to get structures safe from a 60ft ROW arbitrarily? Sunny: Conceptually it works. Kim: What would end up being non-conforming even if setback issue- -if the City did take the ROW dedication whether it is reserve or outright the non-conforming that would arise at least at this point would be FAR density including the open space. Right now a lot of the green space along there is what contributes to their required open space. Roger: But that creates a non-conformity in the future. That is basically a problem. But is that a problem we can live with with this specific development. Bruce: I think David's proposal may be the way out of this immediate application. It is very clear to me that we must go back into the code and come up with some kind of standards that we apply to things that aren't subdivisions of raw land. David's proposal is the logical way to proceed. If we pick up 8ft of pavement on that side and set it up as an easement, we widen the street. It is probably 15 or 20 or 30 years ahead of whenever the City would get around to doing anything with that street anyway. And we have answered some of Tim's concerns. Jasmine then opened the hearing for public comment. 8 PZM10.8.91 Terry Hubbard-Schiff: I want to know what happened to the gym originally that they were going to put underneath these units. Sunny: There is still a multi-purpose space that is not a bedroom in each of these units. Terry: That was one of the things that we were talking about turning into another bedroom. We are all concerned about it and there was a way around that of making that space only 4ft high or 5ft high so somebody couldn't walk into it. And then it could never go into a bedroom. Kim: We recognize the concern. That was one of the concerns that were revisited earlier. And staff recognizes that the Land Use Code does not preclude that kind of accessory type area within a home. We are still maintaining the recommendation that the plat in the subdivision agreement which are filed in the courthouse have a statement on there that that exercise room/den is not to be converted to bedroom use without prior approval processing through the Planning Office. We can't require the applicant to remove that space from the structure itself. We can only try and give advance warning to anyone who might consider using that as bedroom space. Terry: My feeling on that is that we are going to end up with more density. I live on Midland Ave and go around that street all the time and there are sailboats, trucks, garbage dumpsters and buses. It is an accident waiting to happen. We know the street is going to be fixed back there one day. We have got to do something. We had really be very careful with what we are doing back there. I would love to see it cleaned up because I live there. It is a grave concern to me. Sunny: As a practical matter we have provided sufficient on-site parking to accommodate one space per bedroom. There are 2 spaces for each unit underneath the unit with sufficient area behind each unit to accommodate 2 more plus the on-site parking. Much of the cars that you see in that area now are a result of the housing that is there--the existing multi-family project and the toys associated with it. This project's parking would be self contained. There is sufficient parking to accommodate guests and other situations as well. Jasmine asked if there was any further public comment. There was none and she closed the public portion of the hearing. Bruce: What is the status of the land to the north--what appears to be the property line between the property line and Regent st or whatever? 9 PZM10.8.91 sunny: If Chuck is correct with the 50ft ROW then the pavement is skewed to the far side of the ROW. Jasmine: Kim, in this conversion question--the conversion of the bedrooms, what would be the mechanism that would trigger an enforcement? Kim: A complaint or a permit application to make conversion to it. It would be routed through zoning and Bill Drueding would stop it. Jasmine: But it could be used as a bedroom without any construction being done. Sara: I am the neighbor on the other side and I do walk this all the time. I like that you have provided the sidewalk and I want to comment that when we do look at ROW in the east end--Midland Ave is so narrow--and I would hate to see it become big boulevard throughout the east end. I would rather see signage of "No Parking" on certain streets to make it safer for pedestrians. It is certainly a collector street with what is going on and even now the Rubey development. That is total employee housing now all up on the rise above us. I think we have to consider the charm of the neighborhood too as well as safety. I don't want to see huge ROWs. But I think this might have to be re-configured a little bit just for safety. It is a real danger there. You are at the bottleneck as you know. Roger: That area is the bottleneck. And one way of taking care of that bottleneck area is getting the pavement 8ft wider right now. And if the applicant provides that additional 8ft of pavement and assuming the pavement right now is centered then an additional 8ft of pavement that would significantly reduce that bottleneck right there. I would in addition like to see if there is a sidewalk there. Again it is on your private property. If the city comes in the future and needs to get ROW it is obvious where it is going to be taken from. It may make non-conforming setbacks but I think that is less of a problem to deal with in the future than the problem we have right now. That is the type of compromise I am willing to sit with. At least we get what is necessary to open up that street at least on this property's side of the problem. sunny: That is a solution that works for the applicant. Jasmine: If you had to re-design this project so that you only had 4 units because of the ROW, you would also solve your density problem and I wouldn't be concerned about the other bedrooms. Four 2-bedrooms with a bedroom that might be a 3rd bedroom does not 10 PZM10.8.91 create the same density as 5 convertible 2-bedrooms that are going to have the same density. It would reduce the density of the site and would make the whole project a lot nicer. I am not necessarily that much opposed to the conversion of the unit. In thinking about it being able to use that space as a 3rd bedroom might make it possible for a local family to buy that. Roger: It is time to do that whole street. Someone had better initiate it and we had better start looking at this thing and from a planning point of view see what these streets have to do in our overall plan. Tim: I think we should go froward and correct the problem. I think to tell the developer that he can't do what he wants to do will allow the street to remain a bottleneck and perpetuate the problem. I would like to work with the applicant and also work with the engineers. I still think that the long range needs for safety and for this being an even more traveled collector should be addressed before the economic needs of the applicant. I think that if there is any compromise it might be down to this plan attachment D which will allow it to be still a kind of community street. If we don't plan for it now we are not going to have a chance to plan for it. We need a formula that is going to allow for the needs of this collector street in the future. I think what we have to do is make a recommendation to City Council that the Engineering Dept come up with a compromise plan. If it is 18ft and they draw that up and superimpose it on this project and it goes with this project to City Council so that we tell City Council that we can't approve it as it is but we can't hold it up any longer and it is their final decision as to re-aligning Park Ave because it now is a major collector street and has this as a roadblock. I was disappointed to see the steps that in the paperwork took us from 28ft down to 13ft in a matter of 3 different workups. Jasmine: I agree with Tim. We should go for what the Engineering Dept thinks is the right ROWand either the applicant can work with or not work with it. I think procedurally that that is the right way. Roth: 50ft is what we had said we would think would be a minimum. I don't know that 60ft isn't a better number. 60 means that everybody who fronts on the 50ft section from that property down to Hwy 82 could potentially lose 5ft of their front yard to ROW in the future which isn't really an onerous problem for anybody down there to widen that ROW to 60ft. What I was looking for more than 11 PZM10.8.91 paving was pedestrian accommodation. Sara: I like the 60ft. Roger: I would like the motion to include that you create a setback from their westerly property line and then the rational for that setback is to reserve approximately 18ft along the westerly property line for future ROW. I would prefer the 60ft at this point. MOTION David: I make a motion that we adopt all the conditions of approval as stated #1, #2, strike #3 through #5. And #7 through #18 being the sam~ith the further conditions being that the fence be re-Iocated on the building side of the sidewalk. The second additional condition that a reservation for future ROW be made within the 18 most westerly feet of this property. (Conditions attached in record) Roger: That this be accommodated by a 19ft setback from the westerly property line. Jasmine: That would replace condition #16 which says 28ft of property must be dedicated. So you have to delete #16. Roger: Replace #16 with that condition. David: Basically it is everything as written given all of the overstrikes. Adopting as stated with the deletion of item #16 and replaced by 2 additional conditions. The first condition is to relocate the fence on the westerly property line to the eastern side of the sidewalk. The second additional condition that there be a 19ft building setback from the western property line. However there is an 18ft reservation for future ROW. Roger: I would just couch it saying that this is required because of the anticipation of a possible 18ft requirement for ROW in the future. Roger then seconded the motion. Bruce: Have we considered all of the alternatives such as making Midland a one-way going north from Hwy 82 and looping around and having Park Ave being one way going south? I don't know that what our code says the standards ought to be for these streets is set 12 PZM10.8.91 in concrete and that we have considered all the alternatives of how we are going to circulate traffic in that area. And by going with this proposal we may be saying "It is a done deal and we are going to go 60ft and we are going to say Park Ave is going to be 60ft ROW. Diane: The Transportation Subcommittee for the Comp Plan--Roger sits on that and I am the staff person and your suggestion, Bruce, is a really good one. I am sure Roger and I will bring it up. Roger: I looks to me like the 60ft would be the maximum necessary in the future. And if that is the case at least there would be no building destruction. There are non-conformities created but I think we can live with those. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion except Jasmine. Jasmine then closed the public hearing portion of this application. UKRAINE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. Rob, Engineering: We will probably insist on the 1 curb cut and not allow 2. Public notice of mailing and mailing list was presented and is attached in record. 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 of an accessory dwelling unit at Lot 15 West Aspen Subdivision with conditions #1 through #6 being the same as on Planning Office memo dated October 8, 1991. (attached in record) Bruce seconded the motion. David: I would like to amend that to include Sound Transmission Co-efficient-STC 50-or greater be provided between the accessory dwelling unit in the main living area. It is basically double wall construction. Roger: I will add that as my additional condition #7. 13 PZM10.8.91 Bruce amended the second to include this. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Jasmine adjourned the business portion of the meeting. The Commission then continued the meeting with discussion of the overview of Development Review Committee. Time was 6:55pm. 14