Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19930302 A;ol(tJ r RECORD OP PROCEEDINGS PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 2. 1993 Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Answering roll call were Sara Garton, Bruce Kerr, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. David Brown, Tim Mooney and Richard Compton arrived shortly after roll call. MOTION Roger: I move to change the change the order of the agenda in order to take old business first and do a little clean-up. Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. STAPP COMMENTS Leslie: The P&Z and HPC work session is scheduled for March 9. We are going to re-schedule that meeting until after we have our new Historic Preservation officer on board. The 15th of this month is your work session with the City Council. ,. -, At that meeting we will go over implementation of the recently adopted Aspen Area Community Plan. There is a Planning & Zoning Commissioner's work shop in Denver Saturday March 27th. It is $89 per person and we do have money in the budget for that. I got in touch with the people who are putting this on and what they would do is come here and do a work session either in Glenwood or here where we could pull together the planning commissioners from this side of the State. Tim volunteered to attend the session in Denver if it would be held on the opening day of the Rockies. PUBLIC COMMENT There was none. MINUTES JANUARY S. 1993 JANUARY 19. 1993 Roger made a motion to adopt these minutes. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. ZALUBA 8040 GREENLINE Roger: I move to adopt Resolution #93-1. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. ~ PZM3.2.93 EAST COOPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING FINAL pun. SUBDIVISION REZONING '1'0 AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT GMOS EXEMPTIONS AND SPECIAL REVIEWS Jasmine opened the public hearing. David stepped down from this hearing because of possible conflict of interest. ~","""~ Kim: There was an error in the public notice requirement. So this is not a bonified public hearing. What we are going to do tonight is have a brief introduction by the applicant and then try and get through the growth management exemption for affordable and free market housing and special reviews for open space and parking because those are aspects of this project that are not bound to public hearings. Tom stevens: Based on the previous approval of 16 deed-restricted units and 7 free-market lots there was also a condition that we look at any means available to us to reduce the density on the site. What really worked best was actually reduce the numbers on the project. We got rid of an expensive parking garage but at the same time we started to get more of a site opening up and usable as open space. We started to get units pulling back off of Hwy 82. "..- The plan as proposed right now deals with 13 deed restricted units and 6 free market units. Of those 13 deed restricted units 12 are townhomes and 1 is a lot. Access to the project was approved by this Commission at that conceptual--coming off Hwy 82. (demonstrated on drawings) As we started to go through this what happened is that building these units into the hillside and taking advantage of that grade change worked really well. By reducing the numbers we were able to pull it completely off the Hwy. In addition to the parking garage and storage in what is essentially a basement there is also parking and it is oversized parking tandem behind on the road level. At conceptual this parking was really tight and began to infringe on the fire lane. with the reduction of units that has all been able to spread out. Now the units are 10ft by 25ft which is really generous for a parking space. ."r,...... As we did with the conceptual submission fire access can move through here with a gate with what is called a knox box which the Fire Dept has a special locking mechanism that only they can get out. This can only be used in emergency situations. It cannot be used for day-to-day traffic. 2 PZM3.2.93 The access still comes up from Hwy 82. What we have done though is loosened all of this up from the 7 lots which are now 6. We have a deed restricted lot now which has moved down to the lower bench. This lot is 6,600sqft where these average over 9,000. In addition to loosening the density up on these lots we have also provided a 25ft bumper that is identified by prescribed building envelopes that provides a bumper along the Riverside Subdivision. In order to accommodate this we need to relocate the ditch. We talked to the Riverside people. That is fine with them. We have coordinated construction schedules with them. We are going to turn the ditch into an amenity. These units all back out onto this as well as this home, this home and this home. And if done right really can be an amenity to the project. One point that I do want to make is that without the deed restricted component on this thing--this is 2.35 acres. At 15,000sqft lots the zoning allows for 6.8 units. We are asking for 6. The rest of the project is deed restricted. within the AH parameters these are significantly larger than need be. The AH specifies a 3,000sqft lot at minimum. These are over 9,000ft. But we have had to try and match densities with the Riverside Subdivision as best as possible. They would like to see less up there. We can't do less up there. It is that simple. We are not asking for an increase in free market density. What we are asking for is an increase in deed restricted density. For us to go beyond the numbers that we have right here it means- -right now lot and home, we are going to come on the market for $657,000 and that is considerably less than a million two. And the crowd that that has attracted are all locals. They are local working people. If the cost of the lot goes up via the number of lots going down, that crowd disappears and we get in second home buyers. And from day one that is just not something we are interested in doing. ?: If you go down below the 6 lots it becomes much larger homes. And if you are going to put a 3,600sqft house on a 20,000sqft lot it is getting away from what the Affordable Housing Zone District was created for. Roger: I much like how this has evolved. I think you have been relatively sensitive to what we have had to deal with there. I like the project now whereas I had some real qualms about it before. 3 PZM3.2.93 Jasmine: The 25 foot setback from Riverside Subdivision is something I am sure the neighborhood will be very happy about. You have proposed building envelopes for the free market houses. I assume there is going to be some mechanism for actually enforcing that to see that they are not exceeded. Tom: As a matter of procedure that building envelope goes on the plat and then the plat is reviewed against the drawings that are submitted to the Building Dept with the plans. So once this project is approved those building envelopes get platted and that is it. Jasmine then asked for public comment. Doug McCullough: I am a resident of Riverside Drive. I grew up on Riverside Drive. First of all I would like to say I appreciate the efforts the developers have made in trying to reduce the density here. It has been our past argument of our concern to the size of the density. Unfortunately we are dealing with the difference between a 9,000ft lot and a 2,500sqft house as compared to a 15, OOOsqft lot and a 2, 500sqft house as compared to a 9,000sqft lot and a 3,500sqft house. And my concern is where does the house go. It doesn't go out. We are not talking about 3,500sqft single story dwelling here. I think this is going to be similar to what has happened at 1010 Ute. And another thing I think would be the best interest of the Housing Authority would be to take into consideration the unit that was just built on the back of the Cresta Haus. It is a 2,700sqft unit. It is an employee housing unit and multiply that by 1/3rd and then put 6 of those units up in that area. I just think it is going to be a huge development. I know that we talked in the interest of 5 units up there in that area which would expand the size of the lots and give a bigger envelope it might increase the height size. Lennie Oates: I am the owner of Lot #11 and some adjacent property. I agree with Doug. I would like to see you, between now and the real public hearing, go up and take a look at the free standing unit that was built up there as part of the Cresta Haus. He said multiply it by a third and I say multiply it by 1 and 1/3 and get the scale instead of going down to get the true perspective on it and then visualize--or 6 units going in there. From the standpoint of the neighbors I want to remind you that neither at the P&Z level or at the City council level that we object to the size of the employee housing or the affordable housing aspect of this. They have cut back on that area. That has been their own choice. That is not what we have complained about. 4 ,-r"'- PZM3.2.93 It was the number of lots that were the free market lots. They have remained the same. There are 7 whether you call one resident occupied or not. The only restriction on a resident occupied is it requires a resident to live there. And that is the deed restriction and that is it pure and simple. They haven't changed the configuration to less than 7. Also I think given the relative scale and the size of their lots which incidentally if you take the lots they include the road and the cul-de-sac. They are not out of it. So their roads in the cul- de-sac are parented in. You go back and look at Riverside, Riverside's aren't included in. If you add them into the Riverside properties there is a hypothetical, you get a tremendous disparity. Leslie: Any roads or easements--surface easements come out of your allowable lot area for floor area purposes. Oates: I am saying for comparison sake with Riverside--you could make the other argument and say look at Riverside. Each one of these lots has an addition of area that they have shown on the map the area which counts for roads. Pete Stone: I live in Riverside. I think the changes that you have made in the affordable housing portion of the project are terrific. But I have come to a couple of other meetings and have some concerns too about the free market units. I feel very uncomfortable when I hear the developer say that the bottom line is now 6 free market lots, 1 RO lot and 12 units and that is the least that we can go or we are going to go broke. I don't if that is the case or not. But I think that that is putting pressure on you to tend to pass or recommend something that ought to really stand on it's own. And I think that is what you have got to do. I think you have to take a hard look at that. I thought that the object of affordable housing was to create more affordable housing. And my obj ections have been over the free market portions. I feel like what is happening right now is that we have reduced the affordable housing which is exactly what the whole point of this was to develop. And we haven't met really at all on the free market portion. I don't think that when P&Z and City Council talked about reducing densi ty in both the free market and affordable housing I don't think that has happened as much as perhaps it should. ?: I am actually one of the applicants. I would like to address some of the remarks. The model of our development has 2-story free- market units built at the maximum allowable. And if you take a look at the upward visual impact it does not seem any .greater than what is already in the neighborhood. I think addressing the 5 PZM3.2.93 density issue we have reduced vOluntarily the FAR on the lots and what is allowed. We have opened up open space by putting 25 foot setbacks when we didn't have to but that again helps the project. I just think that visually when you look at this it does not seem like an impact like a 1010 ute. I think that is an over-exaggeration. I think there is also 6,000 and an 8,000sqft lot in the Riverside neighborhood also. And across the street there are some very small lots. Jasmine: I think all of us on the Commission are aware of the fact that most of the homes in development of Riverside Subdivision occurred in days when people used to have smaller houses on larger lots. And that is the way people like to live. Especially people who lived here and had children and families. The trend as we all know now is to have the maximum size house on as small as possible lot with very little stuff around the edges so that you can have media rooms and things like that. '-- So we know that that is the case. There are not people who are going to build the way they built Riverside anymore. That is just not the style. I think we have to try to see how this particular project is going to be less like 1010 ute--everyone' s favorite subdivision. It's done a lot of good things for other developers because they can always point to 1010 ute and say "See it is not as bad as that". It would be interesting to see how this does tend to fit in with the other buildings in the neighborhood. Admittedly you are not going to get the same kind of ratio of building size to lot size that you did have and you still have in Riverside Subdivision. Tom: What we need to look at is allowed FAR vs allowed FAR--not allowed FAR vs what is right now. As soon as someone sells out here this could go to maximum FAR. And if history is any lesson it will go to maximum FAR. Maximum FAR in Riverside is considerably more than maximum FAR in here. So to talk about houses dwarfing houses I don't think is necessarily accurate. This map shows 1010 ute. So rather than speculate as to how this project relates in terms of design and density to 1010 ute you can see it. And right off the bat you can see it is nowhere close. So that ought to be a fairly easy reference. We didn't bring up economics because we don't want to talk about economics. We don't want 'economics to be a pressure in this thing. Everybody understands development is driven by economics. And we would rather not review this project based on economics. I don't />" think it is a viable tool in the evaluation of this. - 6 r PZM3.2.93 "",,- Jasmine: We have heard this kind of thing before and we have -- always just put that aside in our deliberations. Economics is somethirig that we just cannot consider. Whether the developer makes a profit or does not make a profit is not something that we have any determination in one way or the other. ?: I live in Riverside too and I am not particularly passionate about the individual issues here. My comments are more an observation on the process that I have seen. I would like to nominate that we name the street Loophole Lane. The reason I would like to do that is it seems to me that he just made the comment "The rules allow. The rules allow". Well we have a community plan. We have a GMP. We have exemptions. We have a petition here to rezone. And clearly frankly the pawn in this little chess game, to my observation, we are going to use the pawn of employee housing to get what we want to get. Now you can develop this property and the current rules that exist subject to the growth management quotas and all the things that go on. But we are asked that we should bend those rules and rezone this and frankly all I have seen and all I have heard and it has been 6 or 8 months is "We will do this and we will do that but we will play the game of using this pawn of affordable housing to get the development that we want". My observation is that this thing has been cut up and cut down. It has been billed as something good for the community. The fact is that we have a group of people that want to build houses on lots. The lots are there. They are zoned. They want to get rezoned. They want favorable treatment. And presumably it is to provide affordable housing. I, for one, am not convinced. Tom: I think we can eliminate all the affordable housing and stick with 6 lots. It is zoned for that right now. The loophole, if you want to call it that, is that the AH provides, if you do affordable housing you are exempt from GMQS. We have followed the rules on this thing from day one to the letter. We are not asking for anything special. Again this site is zoned right now, today, for 6.8 lots. So we are asking for the 6 that are currently available on the site. We are going through the process that is designated for this thing. We are not asking for anything. The benefit to this community is only affordable housing because 6 lots are allowed there anyway. Jasmine asked if there were any further comments from the public. There were none. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Sara: Did you try to build the model of the private home within the building envelope? 7 PZM3.2.93 Tom: Yes, they are within the building envelope and they represent maximum square footage. They are all 2-story construction and conform with the height limit of the AH zone district. That is 25 feet available to 30 by special review. We have not asked for special review. Richard: FAR ratios what is the ratio of allowable FAR to the lot size compared to what you are doing over here? Leslie: On a 15,000sqft lot in the R-15 zone district you can go 4,500sqft of floor area plus a 500sqft garage. Anything below grade doesn't count. Richard: And you are restricted to 35 here? Tom: A little less. Richard: So it is a little larger ratio than-- Tom: Yes. We are at about 38%. The resulting home will be a little less than 1,000sqft less than allowable area. Richard: The AH zone does allow a little larger FAR ratio than the _,_ R-15. My main concern with this--within limits you have volun- tarily reduced it but it still creates a little more bulk for the given area than the adjoining neighborhood. -, Tom: We propose this right now is in accordance with the AH zone which allows a 38% compared with 33% that is allowed in R-15. Leslie: It is based upon the size of the lot. It is sliding scale. Tom: And again some of the lots in Riverside are not 15,000ft. So the maximum allowed FAR on those lots is less than 45. So that is not something we want to try and represent. Some of the lots are bigger than 15,000ft and can expand beyond 45. Tim: Is there a lot in Riverside that is for sale? And what is it listed for? ?: There are no lots in Riverside for sale at this point. I would say that if there was a lot available in Riverside, 14,000sqft, would sell for more than these lots just because it is a larger lot and you are permitted larger FAR. Eventually you are going to see those lots selling for lot value, people are going to be tearing down their houses and building bigger houses. That is inevitable. Tim: I think there is some comparison to the relative value--a lot or a house in Riverside and a finished completed house on a lot - 8 PZM3.2.93 in East cooper free market. I am trying to look for if this is going to distort your property values immediately and create a margin where there is going to be suffering on the part of Riverside homeowners and real estate owners, I don't know if I can figure that out. ?: I see it the other way around. I think it is going to help the value of Riverside. Tim: One of my ideas about restricted covenants is that homeowners may want to consider the word that we throw around a lot is "mass". And do you want very contemporary high-ceiling houses. What we all feel is disturbing us in the west end, are some of the "steve Marcus development houses". They are very ill-created for the compatibility of the neighborhood. But are simply totally created for resale value. I would like to see the mass of the houses kept under control. Tom: The steve Marcus house can't be built anymore because the City changed it's building codes. Something to keep in mind is that the majority of buyers in here are people who are going to live here. And as a result we are very concerned with not having the visual density of a 1010 ute. I think that is a very important fact and we will address mass. It will be done. Tim: We want to do it. I think as a Commission we want to do it. So if you guys are going to do an RO--that's never been done. If you are going to try and do this project as uniquely as you say maybe that is something you can tackle for us also. I can tell you that when I first saw this I went out and immediately ran the numbers on it. And there is obviously profit here. There is obviously risk. So I don't know how to balance that out either. I am very aware of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that can be made in a project like this but I am also aware of the time, the effort, the capitol investment that has to come about in order to conceptualize the thing and really bring it up to what we see now. And I frankly think that venture capitalists should be rewarded for trying to do things like this in this community. with going through GMQS I am not an exemption person. I am a fairly exacting person. I think everybody should march by the rules here. Leslie, if it goes through GMQS it is going to have Ord. #1 restriction so if the affordable housing is eliminated-- ,rr'"'''''''''' Leslie: If it went through GMQS GMP competition they would be required to mitigate 35% of their employees generated. We figure that through GMP we get a 50/50 split in numbers of units. 50% free market units and 50% deed restricted units. That is one of the reasons why the AH zone is 70/30 because our feeling is that we get more deed restricted units for AH than we would if someone '''- 9 PZM3.2.93 went throughout the GMP process. The second element about GMP is that this project meets threshold. You cannot say you have to reduce your numbers of units because we don't like how it looks on the site at threshold. And we haven't had a project in 4 years that has not met threshold. Tim: My point is I don't think we would be creating as comfortable and affordable living space if we required them to mitigate or them to do Ord #1. I think that the size of the spaces, the 3 bedroom configurations are going to give people a place to grow with families in the community. I think that the parking is better than having an ADU tacked onto the back of somebody's house and that AdU having a party one night and 10 cars being there. I think this organizes it better. I think it gives a much more progressive scale of life improvement for people who want to grow in the community. I think that that is our reward for allowing these guys to take the risk. I think that this is a dangerous intersection and I really think that that landscaping is going to have to be unique here. It is a steep hill. People are turning as they come down the hill. I am always trying to creep out of Park Ave. I think that whatever happens in this open space should be very focused on the intensity of the traffic coming down the hill. Bruce: I am trying to get a handle on how to work this project through. I think all of us have similar kinds of goals. The folks who live in Riverside want their neighborhood to stay as nice as it possibly can be. You guys want to develop a nice project that will hopefully get some employee housing. I asked the hard question a while ago--"Is this the bottom line? Is there any more slack to be cut?" I want to ask the Riverside folks a similar kind of question. What is it going to take to get you guys to buy into this project? The reason I ask that question--back early on when we began reviewing this project and we all went on the site visit, I heard very little concern from the Riverside folks about density. The concerns I heard at that time were "We don't want the access through here. We don't want our kids getting run over". And I feel like the developer has responded. So I ask you guys the hard question. What is it going to take to get you guys to buy into this project. Lennie Oates: I don't think that the density issue is a new issue from our standpoint. I think we expressed it to both P&Z and to """-~. 10 PZM3.2.93 the City Council. The City Council in their approving resolution asked the developer to go back and look at his density. I don't think we had a concern about the affordable housing density. The concern that we had was the density on the free market which was then 7 and I still say it is 7 even with the resident occupied. There are some things that we would like to ask them to do. They don't want to bring up tonight things like a vegetary screening and some of the utility concepts and things like that. What would make us happy would be to see this--the 6 lots up above be reduced to some lower number that still allows them to go forward with their project. Bruce: Do you have a number? Is it 4 or-- Oates: Yea, 4. Bruce: So the money we are talking about is--I know we are not supposed to talk economics. But it is a reality. It is a fact of life here. Instead of 6 lots at $400,000 each, we are talking about 4 lots at $600,000 each. And the applicant is saying that changes the mix of the potential buyers. But 4 is the number that makes the Riverside folks happy? ?: I feel a little different about that. My biggest concern was the access and I genuinely appreciate your having solved the access problem. And I say let them develop the property. I am a little bit apart from the neighborhood. I do not have as much a concern about the density as regards our neighborhood. I really think they showed deep concerns for the neighborhood when they solved the access problem and I am happy with that. I would leave the question of density on a more global scale of what is appropriate to the community. I may not agree with all my neighbors. I am not so adamant about the density. I counted on the process. I observe what is going on here--just how little employee housing can we build to get away with this deal. And I would want to make that as an observation. But on the density subject I think that the community scale should dictate the density and not the neighborhood scale. The neighborhood was saved in my opinion when they solved the access problem. Dottie Kelleher: I live in Riverside Subdivision and my comment actually goes back a little way. When I heard an awful lot of locking barns after horses were gone and what terrible things steve Marcus did but he doesn't do them anymore. And how awful 1010 ute is but we are not going to let that happen again. And my concern is just that you think this through very carefully before it gets approved and don't go driving up Hwy 82 a couple years from now and 11 PZM3.2.93 "- say "Oh my God, look at that!". There is an awful lot of 20/20 hindsight type of thinking going on. Leslie: First off 1010 ute was growth management project. It received the highest score of any growth management residential project. Secondly it had a PUD overlay. So because of the PUD overlay at the time it allowed them to trade their open space out of where the development is across the street to the park that is right across from the entrance there. So that is why you don't see a lot of open space in the 1010 ute subdivision. It is all on the other side of the street. And the PUD allowed them--they have 5ft setbacks. There is 10feet in between each of those buildings and 5ft rear yard setback which looks bigger because there is the City property that goes down to the river. Those are 3 things that happened with 1010 ute. So that is really different than the kind of setbacks you are seeing on this proposal and the open space that is required in the AH zone is integrated into this project. Roger: I have a problem with reducing the density of the lot assuming our gain here is to try to get more of the locals to purchase free market property. If we reduce the number of the lots and get it out of the affordability of the locals that is not accomplishing our mission. If we have 4 lots, think of the bulk of the individual units on those 4 lots. Then look at it from the other direction. If there were 1 or 2 more lots added there reducing the square footage of the lots that does necessitate reducing the bulk of the individual building. However the bulk of the whole proj ect would probably increase. But the buildings would become smaller in that project. The smaller lots would probably be affordable by locals. So there is this balancing act we are playing with here. And now that access is no longer in Riverside. It borders on Riverside but it is not a social connection to Riverside. It is a different project than Riverside. I wouldn't have a problem with adding another RO lot in that upper section reducing the size of the rest of the lots so that it stays farther out of the realm of the second homeowner thereby aChieving the goal of finding more residents to be able to live up here. Jasmine: I have been very impressed throughout this process that the Riverside neighbors have not been nearly as concerned with the affordable housing component. And have not started the not-in- my-back-yard, no-employee-housing-near-me thing. This has been very gratifying to this commission. Their criticisms have been restricted to the free market units. , What I have heard tonight is that the Riverside neighborhood has been appreciative of the additional buffering and the change of 12 ,FCc PZM3 . 2 . 93 access which really does tend to remove this project from being <~ such an impact on the Riverside Subdivision. The size of the free market lots would seem to be the big issue. Or that the Commission should consider in terms of the community in general as well as the Riverside Subdivision. I think to that extent Roger's comments about the kind of development that you are likely to get are larger lots as opposed to smaller lots is something that we might want to have some more discussion on. ?: This is not only an affordable housing district wi th many people in this valley who have lived here and worked here for a long time wanting to be a part of these units being developed up front. But the people who are buying the perspective lots in back are all people who live in this valley and work in this valley. They are opening up their units, which are not second homes either, to other people in this valley. So in essence we are creating 6 free market homes for residents and those 6 free-market homes or apartments that they are renting are now available to other people in this town who can afford it. .c"....," ?: I would add that for someone who wants to live there as far as affordable housing goes it is probably one of the nicest projects I have ever seen here. So for someone who can't afford to move into a full house it provides very comfortable living at an affordable price. Tim: I think that the homeowner's association should be focused on the long-term maintenance of what the employee or the affordable section of the development really looks like. Kim: As part of the condominiumization approval that will occur at the Council the applicant could propose any specific line items that their condo declarations will eventually establish. Richard: While I would really like to see more affordable housing that building backing onto #82 is really crammed in there. And on the free market lots I would like you to look at reducing the FAR cap to 3,000. You are looking for 6 locals to buy the lots. You probably aren't going to build them to the maximum so that if it were restricted to a slightly smaller FAR I think it would satisfy my concerns about neighborhood compatibility and be more in scale with the kind of community we want to maintain here. Sara: I think it is much improved. I am amazed at the size of the deed restricted apartments. I hear what Roger is saying. I also understand what Riverside is saying about the number of lots. But unless FAR were completely changed there is no way we wouldn't have very huge houses on 4 lots. That is the economics of the cost of building and the cost of land these days. ~ 13 PZM3.2.93 Tom: One thing that is happening on this thing is when you get out of the second home-buyer market and you get into local's buyer market all of a sudden you are in a buyer's market who is on a budget and is going to be looking at a mortgage on these things. Our conceptual architectural plans have been kicked around already by people that are interested in the lots to see how they could figure homes on the lot that they are interested in. And they are all coming in at about 22 to 25 hundred square feet because that is what their budgets are. That is something that you don't see in a second home market. A second home market is how much can they get on. In this market it is how much can we afford. Sara: On an RO can the RO restriction goes with the deed forever? Leslie: It goes with the land. Kim: The Housing Office is still having on-going discussions about RO restrictions because they are so new. Tomorrow they are going to meet on RO restrictions. Some of the things they are kicking around are size limits to any RO structure, a yearly inflation ~~ count which could affect eventual levels of increased value. Pete: Bruce asked us about how to get the neighbors to buy in. I think the Riverside access was a big issue and we really appreciate everything that these people have done in that respect. I think the idea that a 3,000ft cap, the FAR, I think that that is a giant step. The last question is whether or not according to these October 13 minutes when Council persons Peters, Richards and Reno and also Mayor Bennett all stressed the idea of reducing density. And they weren't just talking affordable housing. I think they were talking about the free market portion of it. I think that is all it takes certainly for me. Gassman: I just want to expand about the housing categories. To get a category #1 or #2 takes a big public subsidy. I think on West Hopkins on the order $100,000 a unit. So there is a big difference. You are getting affordable housing with no subsidy with this project. ,~ . Oates: Basically we would like to see a commitment of no other structures like accessory buildings outside of the building envelopes. We would like to see a restriction against dogs in the affordable housing portion of the project--not the free market but the bigger buildings and a 25 foot setback should be revegetated. We would like to see some sort of landscaping plan since this is the last time everybody is going to get a chance to look at it and an opportunity to comment on that. - 14 PZM3.2.93 ',"".-" I would like to see an explanation of why you would bury utilities which you propose to do right next to overhead power lines which you intend to leave there. Bruce: I don't have any direction to give the developer except to say to the developer and the neighboring homeowners that the roll that I feel I fill at this table is to try to get the best project. One of the residents actually said it himself--is try to get the best project we can for this community to meet all of our common goals. It looks like a great project. And it has come a long way from when we were talking about coming in on Riverside Drive. I think you have made a lot of improvements. Pulling it back off of #82 is a great improvement. Tim expressed a really good concern about the access off of #82 and making sure that that is safe. I like the project but I am not ready to buy off on it right now. One thing I do object to is your calling those free market because it doesn't sound like to me there is a free market. market is already set and the prices already seem to be set. they are not really free market. lots The And Tom: Non deed-restricted. Bruce: But they are not going on the market as it sounds to me. Jasmine: Well, free market is kind of an illusion anyway. Sara: I see that you have applied to CDOT for access but they haven't responded yet. ?: The answer is yes. We have a plan that they have signed off on for access on Hwy #82. Tom: We do have to install a right turn lane coming from town east because that is where they consider the majority of traffic to be coming from. Jasmine: Some of my questions have more to do with what I need to ask the Housing Authority. I am beginning to think that the explanation is more appropriate that this location is more appropriate to have the higher categories. It is more compatible with the rest of the neighborhood and it will blend in better. I think you have made tremendous improvements in your site design. ,r'. I thank the applicants for being very responsive. It has made this whole project a lot less acrimonious than it could have been. And 15 /""-... PZM3.2.93 -- I think we will get a better project out of it for everybody. TRELLISES Tim: I think that in letter K--this is my pet peeve through the whole thing--"such approved structures shall not be considered additional floor area ratio". I think in certain situations in the commercial core specifically for a restaurant it can be considered an asset to their floor area ratio. It is going to enhance their gross, their traffic, their ability to do business, their numbers of staff. Kim: Are you talking about existing restaurants outside or proposed restaurants outside. Tim: Both. Anybody who wants to restructure their patio with overhead structure to me they are creating a building site. They are enclosing it so that it is more compatible with their interior space. And I think it enhances their ability to merchandise their commercial venture. - Kim: I don't really agree with that. If they can have a restaurant outside now currently and mitigated or pre-dated the mitigation requirements having an overhead structure isn't in any perceptible way that I could estimate increase growth--is that the basis to start calling something complete floor area. Leslie: The question is it considered net leasable. And if we start terming it net leasable shall we start requiring mitigation for their increased size as a restaurant which is an issue that when we start discussing growth management and exemptions in growth management process and what we define net leasable you look at the definition of net leasable in the code it is interior space. It is floor area in a structure that is completely enclosed. So this is not considered net leasable. "..." Tim: This is basically enclosed on 3 sides. Kim: All we are talking about is an overhead structure. Sara: I am concerned too. I just think lawyers would have a field day. We would completely have to redefine floor area ratio. A lawyer would take that in and say "There is no way a trellis can be called a substantial building". And a floor area ratio applies to substantial buildings. And there is where a lawyer would grab us and say "You can't do that". David: I think you can easily do it by adding it to a definition "r of net leasable so that it describes seating outdoors. The Cantina does have a not very sizeable outdoor area but at least it is used. ~ 16 r PZM3.2.93 And one of the arguments when this first started was people tend '~ to sit outside in the summer and not use the inside space. But the Cantina in the summer is full inside and outside. So it really does increase in the number of patrons that are there. But it is seasonal. Bruce: Why use the word in Subsection K "Overhead coverage". Because I don't know what the word "coverage" means. You referred above to "Overhead landscape structure". So why not call Subsection K "Overhead landscape structure". The word "coverage" doesn't mean anything to me. Any time you write a new word into the code and it is not defined- -and if we are going to call something an overhead landscape structure and then go ahead and define it then let's title the subsection that. There being no further business Jasmine adjourned the meeting. I"'"