Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19930216 ,-- , r "'-. /"':...-..- -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16. 1993 vice Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Roger Hunt and Bruce Kerr. David Brown and Jasmine Tygre were absent. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Sara: Asked regarding the Dr. Rush and Zaluba project. Bruce: I hear the contract fell through. If the contract fell through the letter of credit is worthless. It would have been contingent on the contract going through. Tim: So they now do not have an 8040 Greenline. Bruce: We threw it into staff's hands. It is up to Jed. And if the documents weren't acceptable to Jed then it was a done deal. The 8040 Greenline has gone away as I recall. Leslie: Everything up until the closing date was completed and satisfactory. Jed reviewed the letter of credit, signed off on it. We accepted it and we were supposed to get the letter of credi t at the closing. If we don't get it at the closing everything is gone. And what I heard is that that is the case. Sara: So then the Greenline is revoked. Leslie: Yes. Roger: We don I t have a pedestrian path in the corner island at the northwest corner between the alley and the bus staging area. I think it is time that we give up and put a path there. Why don't we just establish it and get the Park's Dept to look at it. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie: will bring P&Z up to date on the possibility of a work shop in combination with County P&Z and Snowmass. This is the state chapter of the American Planning Association. Information is coming. We have also scheduled a P&Z and HPC work session for March 9th. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. PZM2.16.93 MINUTES NOVEMBER 17. 1992 DECBKBER 15. 1992 FEBRUARY 2. 1993 """, . '-....J',. Roger made a motion to adopt these minutes. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. TEXT AMENDMENTS Bruce opened the public hearing. Kim Johnson and Francis Krizmanich of Planning Dept: presentation as attached in record. Made GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION FOR COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE INCREASES NET LEASABLE AREA UP TO 500 SQUARE FEET Kim: We have had several projects in the last 3 years which invol ved expansions of structures which increase net leasable commercial area anywhere from 51sqft up to a little over 400sqft. What we end up bringing to P&Z is a description of square footage, the calculation of parking and employee generation and simply state what the mitigation requirements are. And P&Z typically nods to those without much discussion and signs off on it and the applicants pay whatever they are required to do. So in an effort to reduce your work load we would make these administrative sign-off. After discussing this with staff and the City Attorney what we arrived at is someone did not feel obligated or agree with staff on the mitigation requirements that rather than exemption they go through growth management. It actually would end up being the same as if they went through full GMQS anyway except that they would have the option of perhaps discussing it at P&Z and council level. This would probably reduce your workload by 4 or 5 cases a year. "'" -....'. Krizmanich: The other issue that came up when we were looking at should we have an appeal for the P&Z I couldn't get that to exactly jibe with the way the code is written currently. When you do a growth management exemption there is not an appeal to Council for your decision. If you turn it down, it is turned down. Without changing the appeal procedures in the code, what we have got is the Board of Adjustment which we didn't feel was an appropriate body to hear a growth management quota system exemption. So without changing the whole appeal procedure in the code, Council is only used to appeal decisions from the Planning Director basically as for zoning designations and that sort of thing. So it is kind of an odd duck to come back to the Planning Commission 2 """'" - PZM2.16.93 with an appeal to what should basically be a fairly--our thought was to keep it simple. Try to keep it at staff level and see how that works before we get into a fancier, more involved procedure. I feel that we should start at least trying procedure at the staff level with administrative review and if that doesn't seem to work, we can always go back and work on appeal provisions at the Planning Commission. Bruce: The procedure that we follow on text amendments is we recommend to City Council that the code be amended as we propose? Leslie: Correct. Roger: I view Planning staff on those as basically an arm of the P&Z. I am really a supporter of at the staff level someone feel really grieved that they should come to where they would have had to go in the first place. And that is here. I don't agree with eliminating an appeal to P&Z. Kim: Actually they would have to come back before you. And you could re-enforce your bel iefs on staff I s recommended mitigation requirements. It is just that it would have to go one step beyond Council. ~ Roger: If the appeal process through the Council includes P&Z-- fine. I have no problem with that. Kim: It does. So actually Council would be receiving your recommendation--not staff's recommendation. Full growth management process is 2 steps. P&Z and Council. The exemptions that one receives from P&Z, or in the future--staff, is an exemption from the competition. It is not exemption from mitigation. But if someone feels like staff's calculations are wrong. currently we would present them to you. You talk it over and so it is not an appeal per'se. It is just that if you don't like staff's requirements for mitigation then you have to go through the process. Sara: Don't they also have an opportunity to do cash-in-lieu? Kim: certain zone districts do allow for cash-in-lieu. Krizmanich: Parking has to be provided one way or the other. Tim: Where did the number 500 come from? Krizmanich: That is the only change to that wording is Planning Director may approve it. So the 500sqft is what is in the existing code that P&Z may do right now. Kim: 500sqft is considered more or less just fairly small addition -- 3 -- PZM2.16.93 to a building without creating new structure by itself. been on the books for years. Tim: As the numbers rollover is what I am getting at. And create another employee or another increment of cash-in-lieu. Are they in 500 foot development numbers? It has ,~ - Kim: Per thousand. Krizmanich: I know that the City and County are going to be revising the growth management for the natural area and I don't know what will happen to that 500. So the plan was to leave it the same and when they go through that growth management quota system evaluation they may recommend that it goes up or down based on the whole system. Bruce: In one sense 500 is not very big. In another sense it is as big as this room and that is a pretty good size space. Tim: As the numbers rollover I would like to see if that this number 500 be enough under so that it doesn't land right on what the next increment is and then it becomes a debate. If the number were just enough that if you had to go to the next increment you are really committed by the number. Kim: Cash-in-lieu--Housing and parking mitigations are based on anywhere from 1. for parking 1.5 spaces per thousand to 2 spaces per thousand square feet. For housing mitigation the range in the commercial core 3 and l/4 persons per thousand up to 5 and 1/4 per person per thousand. So to try and choose a number with a break-off that is convenient to both of those categories doesn't work. Plus cash-in-lieu always allows you to pay exactly whatever fraction that is. ~ -, MOTION Richard: I move to allow the Planning Director approval of GMQS exemptions for up to 500sqft of net leasable area. Bruce: Technically what that will involve is deleting section 8- 104(B-IA) and renumbering the rest of section 8-104-1 and revising section 8-104(A-1D) to do what you talked about. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS Krizmanich: - The lot line adjustment is the simpler of the two. Right now it is a subdivision exemption approved by City Council. '""" 4 ""~ PZM2.16.93 - It is basically a convenience item where you have a hardship or difficult access to a lot so you exchange square footage to an adjoining property owner. In the City when you do a lot line adjustment, we attempt to reconfigure the lot line such that they stay pretty much the same size. The criteria is specific enough so that we feel it gives the staff fairly good direction in order to approve a lot line adjustment. We are proposing amendment to the language which talks about a requirement that an adjustment be between separate owners. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Apparently back in '82 a lot- line adjustment was done where it gave the adjoining lot enough land to then come in fora lot split. Bruce: Isn't that covered by that subsection D though? Krizmanich: I think it is. It shouldn't create any more land for development purposes. So I think that was in there plus the separate ownership. I think the separate ownership isn't the issue. The issue is "Are you going to do such a lot line adjustment that you are really going to reconfigure some previously subdivision". I think that is a case where Planning staff looks at it and says "This exceeds the bounds of our criteria here. You must go through subdivision and do it that way". I feel pretty safe that we won't get put into that position because of the rest of the criteria. But I think that separate ownership is rather artificial. In fact in the County we have almost verbatim the same language and in the proposed Land Use Code in the County we have removed the separate ownership requirement also. We have also made it a planning staff sign-off in the County. Bruce: In regard to these lot line adj ustments the Director is not the final authority. Isn't that correct? on to the City council. Planning It goes Kim: Currently it goes to Council from Planning and the memo is always to be approved by Diane. But what we are trying to propose is that after Diane signs off on that approval memo the applicant all they have to do is then make any miner changes to their proposed plat and then submit the milarz back to Engineering and Planning. Bruce: Well then what does that section 7-2003(B) mean where it says "After a determination of completeness-- Krizmanich: In the existing code it has just the City council shall approve a lot line adjustment. So we just put in here "The Planning Director may approve a lot line adjustment. ,....-,...~ ',- 5 PZM2.16.93 So under (B) now you submit an application. The Planning Director looks at it. The Planning Director's recommendation shall be forwarded to City Council which shall approve. So that applies to the lot split and really condominium conversions. , """ ~ Bruce: But the lot line adjustment does not? Kim: Right. The way this new sentence reads is that it specifies the Planning Director may approve the conditions and application for lot line adjustment. Then it sends lot splits or condominium conversions on to Council with the director's recommendation. Bruce: So the Planning & Zoning commission does not look at lot splits or condominium conversion. Kim: Not now. Krizmanich: Or the lot line adjustments. MOTION Tim: I make a motion that we recommend to allow the Planning Director to have the ability to sign off lot line adjustments pursuant to the standards on page #6 item #l-A through E and the following code sections that have to be amended be amended. --,. Richard seconded the motion. - Bruce: Let the record show that both this item and the previous item are public hearings. He asked for public comment. There was none and he closed the public hearing. Tim: Item E under section 7-1003 (A-1)--the important language here that I think it is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the development right or the permitted density of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new lot for resale or development. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. TEXT AMENDMENT FOR TRELLISES IN OPEN SPACE CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 2. 1993 Kim made presentation as attached in record. There was discussion as to what percentage of open space should be in the lattice. (50% to 75%) Bob?: Why shouldn't this be something that will be dealt with at the spe.:ial review phase? '"""'" 6 ",...f PZM2.16.93 Sara: I agree. I think the HPC does too. As long as it is going through special review I am not afraid of leaving it open. Roger: How do we get it across that these structures should be relatively transparent. We are going to have to live with these things in the wintertime too. Bob: Make the applicant demonstrate what this is going to look like all year around. Bruce: The only thing I would recommend is that somehow we include language that whatever this structure is that it doesn't violate the concept of open space. And that is left up to the discretion of the Planning & Zoning commission or HPC or whoever. I think as long as we refer to open space and the purpose that whatever this structure is doesn't violate the principles of open space and leave that up to the discretion of the regulatory body to make that determination-- Bob: Proposed language: "And as applicable in the case of an historic building by HPC trellis or similar overhead structure with supporting members designed to give some protection from the elements may be installed in required open space in conjunction with commercial restaurant uses where the affected area #1 does not appreciably impact the view into the open space from the street or pedestrian level". That is the key to what open space is all about. ,- #2. "Maintains visual relief from the mass of adjacent buildings". That is equally a key of what open space is all about. #3 "Does not otherwise adversely affect the public's enjoyment of the open space." That gives you guys all kinds of discretionary field to work with and ,allows the applicant to come forward with the best case that he can make. But it doesn't hamstring anybody. And what could be wrong if it meets those 3 benchmarks? Kim: Those 3 points could be incorporated into subsection K. Just say "These structures and open space shall have the following effect--#l, 2 and 3." Bruce: conceptually it is fine with me. In order to do a text amendment we need to have some actual text in front of us. Tim: I think we are getting to the heart of the matter here. Instead of saying are we going to call it a trellis or how much light to me it is the actual use of open space. And I think that basically it should be open space so that if it is going to have a temporary use and it is going to have temporary elements that impact the open space we are going to have special review to do that. And I think it should be convertible so that it can be taken 7 ,.-. PZM2.16.93 down. And I think that it should be up for specific dates only. To me it is like the guys who have the ability to go out and have more dining on the mall. It is strictly limited to certain dates in the season when they can de that. And I don't think that we should allow, if it is a commercial restaurant or any commercial building, to assume open space as more net leasable commercial space. Then we are, in fact, losing our open space. I think this is the heart of the matter and this is what the text amendment should be focused on. And when we have the chance to review what they want to do with it specifically, then we could determine what the needs are for that specific use. I think what we are doing is amending a text that is going to allow commercial development and commercial expansion in places where I think it is very sacred. It is open space. Bruce: I am not sure I share your sentiment about that. But what is useable open space varies depending on who you talk to. To me this mound of dirt over here with the rocks with the chicken wire around it is the most obnoxious thing in the world. I am sure that is part of somebody's open space. And it may be visually attractive to somebody but it's certainly not useable to me. But the fact is it is there and it is part of open space and I don't want to unnecessarily tell somebody else that they can't use their open space some other way. I think we have got to leave some flexibility there. Kim?: We are talking here about open space on private property. It is owned by somebody other than the City. I think the special review is important because each condition is different. There may be conditions like there are views of the mountain. It varies as to how much openness there needs to be to serve a purpose. Kim: A specific conversion as from open space to restaurant is covered under special review on it's own. Sara: It is private open space. The open space has really been designed into the building to make it more pleasing for street and pedestrian. Isn't there some way with private open space in this definition that we can attack what I brought up at the work session with HPC and that is that that a statue becomes an architectural element in private open space. That is an intrusion. It is a public taking away from my appreciation of that. I would like to have the work "element" must always come before special review. Kim: That is the stand the city is currently taking. The Building Dept has been enforcing those statues where they have been placed in the public ROWand saying "Get them out". Or if they are in private open space and it happens to say "This SCUlpture is for sale. Contact this Gallery". 8 , """ --' -, """"' -- PZM2.l6.93 Bruce: Under subsection K I would change the definition of open space starting in section 3-101 to say "Open space means any portion of the parcel or area of land or water which is open or unobstructed from the ground to the sky (with the exception of permitted architectural projections). And I would delete the words "above ground level" --I think that is redundant. Permitted architectural projections such as building eaves and like penetrating landscape or garden oriented structures as further described in subsection K below in parenthesis the rest of that to the end of the quotation marks staying the same. Then subsection K would read "Overhead coverage" "Any proposed overhead landscape structure shall be approved by special review pursuant to section 24-7-404 (A-l and 2) Any proposed overhead structure within "open space" shall demonstrate that--and then those little small letters 1, 2 and 3 in Bob's language--shall demonstrate that it does not appreciably impact the view into the open space from the street at the pedestrian level. *2. That it maintains visual relief from the mass of adjacent buildings. #3. Does not otherwise adversely affect the pUblic's enjoyment of the open space. #4. That the proposed structure shall be reversible. Krizmanich: "capable of structure". I question the word "reversible". being removed without damage I would substitute to the principle ?: I think it should be self supporting. Kim: I wonder if we are creating a design problem that doesn't need to be there. One thing we want to do is make sure that the structure looks as if it is incorporated into the space and onto the building. In the commercial core when HPC looks at any addition they will get the impact of what the original materials are, any new connections, where the bolts go, all of that stuff. If there is any hint that there is going to be a problem attaching to especially historic structure, they will make changes and recommendations, requirements. Bruce: I really don't have a problem if we don't have a #4 in there at all. I think #1, 2 and 3 pretty well cover it. Roger: I would like to get into the code because if for some reason there is a human outcry that this just doesn't work in this location that it can be removed. r' Bob?: If special review does it's job then you ought to be able to have confidence in the decision you make. And you shouldn't be so worried about "Well, I made a wrong decision. Let I shave it ripped out". ~ 9 PZM2.16.93 .~ If that is going to be one of your conditions. "I grant special review but if I don't like it when I see it I am going to make them rip it out". That is a tough one. We are not going to be spending an insignificant amount of money doing this. - MOTION Bruce: I would entertain a motion referring to page #8 of the Planning Office memo dated February 16, 1993, section 3-101-- definitions of open space--on the 4th line deleting the words "above ground level" and the beginning deleting the rest of it the same down to subsection K and after the number 2. starting with the following language: The proposed overhead structure within open space shall demonstrate that--and then referring to Mr. Hughes'S letter dated December 4, 1992--#1. "Does not appreciably impact the view in the open space from the street at the pedestrian level." #2. "Maintains visual relief of adjacent buildings." #3. "Does not otherwise adversely affect the public's enjoyment of the open space." staff, you make this good code language. Richard: I so move. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. Kim: Right now HPC has to review any proposal in the commercial core overlay, the Main street overlay or on any out-parcel that has historic landmark designation. Currently any special review goes before P&Z. So by adding this as a special review if the parcel is in the commercial core or has an historical overlay it has to go to HPC for design review and then would be forwarded to P&Z. ~ -- Staff had particular considered. some discussion that in the case of one of these trellises that there are 2 different things to be One is design and the other is function. It is a matter on P&Z's comfort level on whether or not HPC can put on a planning hat and review the technical ,functional issues associated with any of these proposals. And I think that you have a pretty good handle on the special review criteria. HPC can still grant variances at this point to certain dimensional requirements. It has been determined by the City Attorney that if variances are granted by HPC that the P&Z cannot overrule those. That is just a reality that currently exists. Whether or not you want to formally give special review purview solely to HPC where the HPC has the design review right now and ask them to be your extension for technical and functional criteria is the issue at hand. Bruce: If we do what is proposed in your memo all we do is add in "The overhead landscape structure is subject to special review". ~ 10 - PZM2.16.93 Everything else stays the same. We review it by ourselves in some cases and both bodies review it in some cases. Richard: I was supportive of the idea of having the HPC to be the sole review in the area in commercial core simply as a matter of streamlining the process--not because I thought they were better equipped. At present I am most comfortable with this proposal as it stands. Now there are no dimensional requirements for such structures so that I don't see how they could grant a variance in this case. Kim: There are some zone districts which require minimal front setbacks for accessory structures. In those cases the applicant could come forward for a variance and the HPC could grant that variance. Bruce: At the meeting on the 2nd I indicated that I was willing to let staff sign off on this but I am not willing to let HPC alone sign off on it. Part of the reason for that is some of our apprehension about what is actually going to be built and approved. And the way that we are going to reassure ourselves is for us to look at it--at least the first few. So I am for leaving the review just the way it is and doing what we have to do to add the language in that this is one of the things that is subject to special review and leave it at that. I know it doesn't streamline the process any but for now I think that is probably the best way for us to go. MOTION Roger: I move to maintain the process as it presently is which in effect amends section 7-404(A) to read "Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, or when an overhead landscape structure is proposed within an open space area, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. And then those conditions #l and #2 are spelled out in Planning Office memo dated February 16, 1993. (attached in record) Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. Bruce closed the public hearing. \ Janice M. ' ./ meeting. Time There being no further business Bruce adjourned was 6:30 PM. ,~- Clerk - 11 --