Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19940607 :J { RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 7. 1994 Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were Sara Garton, , Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Bruce Kerr. Tim Mooney and David Brown and Bob Blaich were excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Sara: Asked Leslie and Kim regarding the buffer on the East Cooper affordable housing project. Kim: I listened to the tapes on that. Lennie Oates and Pete Stone, during the course of the final review, came in and expressed themselves as to what they wanted. That being grass and trees, natural as possible between the property lines and the buildings. The applicant had responded from conceptual to final in increasing the setback or where the building could be by from what 10 feet would be allowed under the existing R-15 and then under the AH rezoning they offered to move it back to 25 feet. What I found in my research from P&Z minutes and Council minutes was that none of the review members actually conditioned or furthered that discussion to clarify or either agree with or disagree with the wish list. And we recall that they also wanted to have no dogs in the townhomes. Leslie: Our problem is there was no differentiation between whether everybody thought they were talking about a greater setback as defined in the code or what the neighbors really envisioned when they wanted the buildings moved back. If you recall they wanted the buildings moved back because they thought the buildings were too close to their property. We are goin~ back to Council to ask for clarification. Roger: My recollection is that in increasing the setback to 25 feet had created the additional buffer that they needed. That buffer may not be a full 25 feet of buffer from their point of view but it increased the amount of buffer area available. Basically I think we worked more in the technical terms in trying to create additional buffer by increasing the setback. Sara: renewal again. I understand that the Valley High approval is soon up for for the second time- -the extension. It is about to be extended I hate to see things being extended. MOTION Roger: At staff's request I make a motion to table and continue the Austin conditional use review to date certain of July 5, 1994 because of a defect in public notice. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. PZM6.7.94 STAFF COMMENTS Amy Amidon: I would like to set up a joint HPC and P&Z meeting to talk about creating a temporary overlay over all of town which would reduce FAR while the planning staff and P&Z and Council come to a conclusion about what the correct level would be. We are trying to get to City Council by the 27th of June on this. Bruce: My feeling on this issue is that, yes, there are some things that we really need to do but I would oppose an emergency overlay. This is one where we are going to get a lot of feedback. This is one where we need to proceed cautiously and know exactly what we are doing. And that what we are doing really will address the problems we are going to try to solve. I am not opposed to having a joint meeting to work on the problem. I am very much against fast-tracking some kind of emergency overlay. We are liable to see all kinds of crazy stuff happen if we do this. Sara: I disagree with Bruce because I felt that we were attacking GMQS before we were attacking the real evil--huge house. I find that most of the feedback I get on the street is people just up in arms. The normal citizen just can't believe what is going up. "And you approved that?" they will say. So I think you will get a lot of grass roots support. You will get some organized objection from certain interest groups but not from the citizen on the street. They will be very pleased this went in. They consider it an emergency and it is an emergency measure. Time and date decided for this meeting was June 22 at 4:00. tentative. This was MOTION At staff's request: Sara: I move to continue the public hearing for Independence Place to date certain of July 19, 1994. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. CREEKTREE SUBDIVISION/PUD AMENDMENT Bruce re-opened the public hearing. Mary Lackner, Planning, made presentation as attached in record. 2 PZM6.7.94 Sunny Vann, representative for applicant: application. Gave a history of this Beckwith, applicant: I have been coming to Aspen since 1960. We have owned this place since 1981. I love Aspen. And I appreciate what you people are doing. I am not here to quarrel with your objectives at all. I am here today to ask you please in this case consider substance over process. We are spending a lot of your time and a lot of my money has been spent. That's all right. I did that willingly on the process. But really when you get right down to it if you look at what we propose to do here we have a home that has a dining area that is rather odd shape. Outside that area is a deck. The deck is integral to the structure. It is not just tacked on like a ground deck. It is part of a structure. We simply want to enclose that deck and make the dining area a more sui.table area. The architect tells me to do that and have the best visual impact you should take that addition right straight up to the roofline and that is what we propose to do so there is a slight increase in the master bedroom size as well. Leslie: Sunny stated we are just enclosing the deck. Sunny: It is all in the same footprint. Beckwith: I am not wed to increasing the master bedroom. But for goodness sakes if it is aesthetically the best way to do it then it seems to me that is the way to do it. I am proud of those units. We have done a lot to improve them. We have improved the landscaping. We think they are some of the nicest units around. They are typical 1940's and 50's Aspen. They are not glitzy. They are good solid structures. And they fit in there well. The fact that I come in here and ask for enclosing a deck and next door we have got 12 to 15 units and it is huge! I think it is fine. But if you are concerned about the visual impact--that visual impact is a lot different than the visual impact we are asking for. So I am essentially asking that you really consider the substance here. The reason the carport was enclosed is that when the people built the Ri ver Park area next door, they asked for access to underground parking. We said "OK, that's fine if you will give us 4 units underground parking. So we have underground parking in there. As a result of that we were able, those of us who wanted to, to enclose the carport. It is really more attractive to do it that way. That looks like it is part of the building without a garage door on it. We are not asking for a future commitment. We will stick with that footprint. All of my fellow condominium owners are willing to stick with the footprint. We are willing to be limited to whatever it was. Sunny agreed to 500 square feet. If this is a precedent for anything else, I don't know where it is. This is the most complicated 3 PZM6.7.94 background that I have ever seen. this as a precedent for anything. And I don't see how you can site Bruce asked for public comment. There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. Sara: Sunny's presentation of the calculation because it came in as a whole PUD--do you have a response to his argument that those calculations should be considered in a different way because of the history of this project. Lackner: This thing that he brings us as to the lot area whether or not it is conforming now or not, I think is a valid point. But as far as the floor area even though it is specified on the plat the new regulations that have come in are more restrictive and have made it non-conforming. It is considered non-conforming even though the sub- division plat identified how big those units can be. Vann: I disagree. The only one that is non-conforming is Mr. Beckwith's unit. There is an approval here that says the size of these units can be 2,285 square feet. So there is legal units. If that, in fact, was an FAR it was approved as part of this project. Now Mr. Beckwi th if in fact his garage was enclosed incorrectly is now over the 2,285 which half of the total that shows on the plat, then he did become non-conforming. But we do have the ability to apply for the establishment of an FAR for all of these units. In fact the intent of this was to clear up any confusion for the future so that if someone wanted to make a minor change to his unit it would be a matter of record as to what he could do. If we were to come in today there is an argument under PUD that says we could have taken into account all of this land in the calculation of FAR. Everyone from the staff came up in arms on this statement. Vann: I will show you a provision in the code that allows you when you have a public open space on single family lots the size of the FAR in this case, and I will grant you they are not single family lots. It is a 1 lot with clustered units on it. So had there been an FAR at the time this thing was approved, there is an argument that says the size of the parcel and the park that is being given could have been taken into consideration because it was certainly taken into consideration in the density issue. Lackner: One thing, Sara, I did talk with our Assistant City Attorney on this issue and although the plat specifies the size of those units because __?__ makes it more restrictive than it's non-conforming. Sunny is right--you can ask that that floor area be higher or lower through this plat amendment process which you are in right now. 4 PZM6.7.94 Leslie: However it is the City Attorney's position that at the time they used the park and they used the whole thing as part of their entire PUD plan, that PUD plan was approved, that PUD plan was perfected, the development occurred based upon the variety of actions that occurred because of the PUD plan at the time. The park was created. Another lot across the river was created. So to assume that we could go back in today and pull the park in again--it is John Worcester's opinion that that was done--that PUD plan was done. And we do not have to go back into the PUD and manipulate it however which way we want to manipulate it. Vann: That wasn't my point. I said" If you were approving the proj ect today under the PUD regulations from scratch". I am not asking P&Z to go back and add parking. Leslie: I would point out one thing. Sunny is asking to divide the property into 4 separate pieces and use the FAR as if you had 4 separate lots which in our pre-application conference I agreed to. I was also the staff person that approved Mr. Beckwith's garage and Stream Margin exemption by mistake. I had been here about 2 months. However, Sunny wants to use the single family lot floor area calculations for thi s proj ect. However if you look at the lot area and we were to say "OK, let's create 4 single family parcels on this property, they are non-conforming. But if you look at this lot area and you said "We want to have 2 duplex parcels", it is conforming. So Sunny wants to do single family floor area calculations to make these buildings conforming. Yet if you look at single family lot area and the amount of area that you have, it is non-conforming. Roger: What year did we adopt the PUD regs? Vann: They are in Ord. #11 for 1977. And there was a PUD regulation in there. In fact the PUD regs talked about the ability to approve more than 2 units in a non multi-family zone. And that is how the P&Z said "Well, I want you to do this as a 4-plex" even though it was zoned at the time R-15. So there were regs in effect. Bruce: When I first read the memo I thought "Sure, deny this thing". But after listening to Sunny and the more I think about it I am really puzzled as to why this couldn't have been dealt with as an insubstantial PUD amendment. It matters not to me- -all this technical stuff about whether it is single family FAR, duplex FAR. It seems to me the fact is this is a PUD. The purpose of a PUD is to allow clustering--allow you to do special things with special land situations. And the question 1 have for Sunny is whether part of this application is to have the P&Z buy into any of these philosophies of the FAR or whether this application is just for a PUD amendment to allow Mr. Beckwith to add the 110 square feet. If that is all we are doing I don't have a problem with the 110 square feet as long as I am 5 PZM6.7.94 not also granting additional FAR automatically by virtue of this PUD amendment. Beckwith: I will answer for Sunny. You are not. Leslie: Yes you are. The way the application was submitted and the way Sunny and I originally talked in the pre-application conference is if you recall, Sunny and I started pre-apping this right after we did the Clarendon condominiums. And the Clarendon - -this one person came in in one unit and said "I just want to add a little bit here". And we said "No because if we say yes to you then the next person comes in and the next person". First off we want to know how much additional floor area is there in this proj ect that the entire proj ect can use" . Secondly if everybody uses all the floor area that they have left over, what is this project going to look like? Is it going to be a completely different proj ect than what was originally approved?" . We decided about 3 years ago on PUD not to piecemeal PUDs unit by unit by unit. We wanted to establish an overall floor area bank that people could use. Say this is how you could use it. So nobody ever had to come back in again. They could just pull their building permit based upon the amended PUD plan. That is how Sunny and I started this. What we did with the Clarendon--it is a row house configuration. It is in the R-6 zone district. So I took the land area tried to figure out what the floor area would be and what the density would be. Sunny points out on his application that if you say it was all single family lots, the Clarendon would not be conforming. But if you did it as duplex, there was enough land area to support the density. So that is where Sunny and I started down this road. What this application is asking to establish is what additional floor area would there be. If we go with Sunny's tack, there is 2,900 square feet extra floor area that can be added to this proj ect. As a compromise to our concern about 2,900 extra square feet that could be added to this project overall, Sunny, Mr. Beckwith and the rest of the property owners agreed that they would only add 500 per unit. That is 2,000 additional floor area that can be added to this project. Bruce: Within the same footprint. Leslie: Albeit, it is within the same footprint by enclosing the garage. Mr. Beckwith's proposal is not within the same footprint. What you are being asked to approve is 500 square feet onto each additional unit. It is not just Mr. Beckwith's unit. Vann: All I want to do is amend the PUD to allow the owners to enclose their decks and allow them to enclose their garage should it come up. Leslie: And enlarge the master bedroom. 6 PZM6.7.94 Vann: The issue was how much FAR is there, how much would be added. The net result would be 500 square feet if the other owners were to enclose their garage. They would have approximately 100 to 200 square feet left over to play with on their decks subject to Stream Margin Review approval. But within the existing footprint. This deck is already there. It is in the footprint. My point is if the substance of the request was not a problem. You found a way under the PUD process to approve the Clarendon. In the case of the Clarendon it was to interpret density on a duplex basis even though they were all attached row houses. In this particular case if the FAR is not a problem we are asking you to make it work. And the way you make it work in this case is to calculate the FAR based on a single family. It is a unique case-by- case application. And what it demonstrates was working with the Clarendon was an attempt to solve a real problem--not argue about how we got there. In the Planning Office memo it says "If we had calculated it as individual single family, it is non-conforming. If we calculated it as multi-family, it is non-conforming. If we calculate it as duplex, it is OK". Leslie: But FAR was never an issue on the Clarendon. Vann: Right. This one is FAR. That one was density. Leslie: This one is both, Sunny. This one is--if you calculate it single family--4 single family lots then you have your FAR. But then you are non-conforming because you don't have the land area. Vann: What difference does it make? What possible difference does it make? The issue here is--is this request a reasonable request under the guise of PUD? And it is a reasonable request. I don't think that having a 2,700 square foot unit on this site with a resulting FAR of .33, when there is absolutely nothing around it except multi-family projects of 1 to 1, is unreasonable request. Lackner: Sunny's request is not a big deal in terms of square footage especially with Mr. Beckwith's 110 feet. What the issue is--is there a land use regulation that say on this size lot there is this floor area and that is what it is. And if you go over that you are a non- conforming building. Say the property allows you 1,000 square feet. It may be 100 feet to that 1,000 square foot building. It is not a big deal but the regulations say 1,000 square feet. That is where we are at. If the applicant is at that end. He is at his maximum and in fact the way he calculates floor for a duplex, he is over what he is allowed on this property in the R-6 zone district. That is why when we say 110 square feet, you can't 60 it--it is the Planning Office interpretation because you are non-conforming. You are already non-conforming. You can't make it more non-conforming by adding square footage. 7 PZM6.7.94 What the applicant wants is to have these what we are calling duplex units considered detached single family. That would allow them to add square footage to them because single family allows more bulk. That is where this whole definition of duplex/single family is. Bruce: But isn't it true that they are not when we use the language "non-conforming" it may be that they are non-conforming with the underlying zoning. But because of the PUD, they are conforming. Leslie: PUD does not allow you to vary floor area. Vann: The only request that you are being asked to make here that solves this problem is that this is 4 units that are clustered in 2 structures. That is the only thing you have to decide. And then the FAR is a non-issue. If you insist on calling it 2 duplexes and support using the duplex FAR which didn't exist in 1977 then there is an argument that can be made that they are non-conforming. Leslie: Sunny is correct in saying that it is an interpretation question. But the reason why interpretation is important is because you cannot just say "Well, it doesn't matter how you interpret. We will just use PUD to vary the floor area". PUD does not allow you to vary floor area anymore. You can vary all other dimensional requirements in PUD. But you cannot vary floor area. Bruce: That is dumb. I have fought it. Leslie: If that was the situation we would not have this problem. The question is--the Planning Dept is interpreting it one way, Sunny is interpreting it the other way. Albeit, Sunny is interpreting it based upon a history of working with me in a pre-application conference. However I remind you pre-application conference does not give someone the ability to go ahead and pull a building permit and build. Vann: I agree. Leslie: At the pre-application conference, I didn't know the size of the parcel. Jasmine: I don't really want to get involved into the definition question of duplex/non-duplex. I know this is probably really important and I think I am probably in the minority on P&Z when I just have to say I don't really like people enclosing decks. And to me that is not insignificant. When we talk about bulk and 2 stories. Enclosing a carport may not be as serious or enclosing a garage. When you have an open deck and you enclose it up 2 stories, to me, although it is only theoretically 110 square feet, that is significant. I don't approve of merging lots in order to increase floor area availability--especiallyin this current attitude of the fact that buildings are too big. That may not be true of these buildings but I don't like this process either. I would have less trouble with 8 PZM6.7.94 enclosing carports than I do with enclosing decks. But I really don't want to see all these decks being enclosed anyway. I think that despite the fact that there was no FAR at the time, there were specific numbers indicated as building footprints which meant that even in this pre-history of planning regulations, there was concern about the size of the buildings--sufficient concern that specific footprints were established and specific numbers given. I am really uncomfortable with this application. Sara: I want to second Jasmine on enclosing decks. I was going to bring this up later. And I didn't know it was part of Stream Margin. I know this building well. And I believe that the possibility of all of those 4 buildings enclosing and creating a wall would be a real change in experience for that part of that building. And it is like a canyon against the river. A real block of walls there. Beckwith: Not all the units have decks on the river. It is a question of whether the wall is 5 feet this way or 3 feet that way. Aesthetically really it doesn't have the impact that you are concerned about. I don't consider it to be an aesthetic impact. Sara: I do. And I disagree with the architect on that. I think that it's density and mass is a real concern with what is happening with this building. Beckwith: If there is concern about the mass as going 2 stories high, then I am perfectly willing to take it 1 story. Sara: I also agree w:.th Jasmine--it is too much manipulating and tweeking and screwing around in order to--I agree, Sunny and Mr. Beckwith, it seems insubstantial but I think it is hot within what exists now as far as regulations and codes and I don't want to compromise it that much. I would really be compromising to go along with this. Sunny: You realize that this is going to become an increasing problem because what we are trying to do, we are taking projects and forcing through regulations and demolitions that we have designed to regulate basically new development. You are going to have people who have needs changes. And you find yourself in situations like this where you are trying to figure out how to deal with the FAR. To me it is not a question of manipulation. It is a question of looking at the proposal as to whether or not it works and then trying to adapt our regulations to approve or deny projects. It isn't about trying to make the regulations prevail. Sara: I am not in love with the code. But I don't want to take a square to push it through a round hole. I think then we need to change things instead of keeping adapting and amending, we need to change code and regulations. 9 PZM6.7.94 Roger: What little light I can shed on this is the building floor areas I think was an absolute negotiated process. It had nothing to do with zoning originally. It was a negotiated process that said "Well, in view of all this, this much can be put here". I don't know if that sheds any light on it because for example in that process the fact that there was going to be the park area--all that was taken into consideration that OK this little piece of land was where something could be done in the way of residences. And so this whole process ended up as a negotiation process. My problem is I want to support the new codes yet I would like the Clarendon or the Gant and all of those at that time-frame these were negotiated rather than conforming to any existing land use code, really. That is getting back to the old ordinance #10 days. Or close to it as I recall. I certainly don't consider the 100 square feet of deck next to the dining room terribly significant. I don't know about running it all the way up to the next floor. That may become significant. But if the process was a negotiation process at that time under whatever rudimentary PUD process we had, why cannot we, in effect, negotiate the same thing now? Now that may include having to deal what are the possibilities in the other units. And, like the Clarendon, determine what maximum can be gone out with in the other units? It seems to me we should be able to do something under the process. Vann: We are not trying to maximize the FAR. The units are basically identical with the exception of some nuances on the decks. So what we did is we said "First of all everyone could enclose their garage". This would make them identical to Mr. Beckwith at the moment. That is a certain amount of additional FAR. And that no person would be able to do more than Mr. Beckwith with respect to his deck. The total number worked out to be about 500 square feet. And there was no place to use that other than the existing footprint. In my opinion there is a way to interpret this such that we can approve it with conditions. And those conditions would be within the footprint and that any other land owner who wanted to do anything would be subject to the same Stream Margin Review process to make sure that they didn't come out and do something that was problematic. The only other alternative would be to try to rezone the property. Bruce: It appears to me, Sunny, that we are probably at an impasse. And that almost any motion that were to be made tonight would probably end up in a 2/2 tie. Vann: The staff and we both concluded that in this case the impact is negligible. It is the same as the Clarendon I believe that face Ute Avenue. I think most people would agree that the end result did not 10 PZM6.7.94 impinge the quality of the overall PUD. And that is what we are asking you to decide here today. We are not asking you to say that all deck enclosures are good. We are trying to get you to say that in this particular case this PUD amendment is all right. I think the only other thing that is not on the record is that while this may have been a negotiated issue, Roger, having reviewed all of the minutes, all of the Planning & Zoning Commission memos, there is not a single discussion anywhere that I could find that talks about limiting the size of the building. It just appears as a number on the plat. The only thing I can think of is there were some plans that they showed the Council when this was approved. And they had a certain size. And those numbers were put on here. The buildings were revised however after the final plat was done. And it did not go back to City Councilor Planning & Zoning Commission. It was, I believe, handled in house by the staff and the buildings were limited to that original number. But if it was a major issue of concern it is not reflected in any of the conditions of approval. It is not reflected in the minutes and it is certainly is not reflected in any of the Planning Office memorandums regarding the project. The issue was single family lots vs clustered development, the preservation of the Oklahoma Flats area and the only other issue was the trails. There was a big brew-ha about bringing the trail through Oklahoma Flats and across the river. I think we have a reasonable request. We think there is a reasonable way to interpret the regulations. It is not precedential. Sara: I think that is an unreasonable interpretation to consider it single family units. I don't think it is an unreasonable request. But the way you are going about it is just too compromising for me. Mary: This Commission is recommending action to City Council. So a 2/2 vote here--we can't take that to City Council. Leslie: The problem is, as we have realized before, our single family zone districts--R-6, R-15, R-30 do not contemplate anything other than the conditional ? Roger: Exactly. That is why I say this thing was negotiated. Now we may not have any records of saying "Well, you can have this size building or that size building". But I know that in the process of coming back with the plan for this whole property that that was part of the process. It looks like that area could support so much development. And I don't think it had much to do with the underlying zoning. The whole idea here was that the park are was R-6 I think. Vann: It was R-15. And this is R-30. I can't find where this was rezoned from R-15 to R-6. But it doesn't work under R-15. It is still short. So I am trying to prove it is really R-15 instead of R-6. It doesn't make any difference because the FAR scale is the same in R- 11 PZM6.7.94 6 and the R-15 zone district. Leslie: Roger, you are techr.ically right because there were no FARs at the time this happened. Roger: Yes. It was based upon a negotiation. My problem is it is a PUD and under the present sense--why can we not, because of the history of this and it is certainly a unique history, because it was originally a trailer park, Riverside trailer park, if it was negotiated at that time, why can we not re-negotiate in effect the PUD and come up with some minimal amount to support this 500 square feet per unit? That sounds like an awful lot to me. But a couple of hundred square feet per unit I could support something in that area. Beckwith: Could you support allowing the other owners to enclose their carports and then a very limited amount in addition to that? Roger: Let's say carports plus 200 square feet. That is something I could support. Beckwith: Fine. Vann: That's us. Leslie: The subtlety with this is you want to call it 4 single family for FAR. But if you call it 4 single family, you are non-conforming with lot area. So you call it a duplex, you are conforming with lot area but you are not conforming with FAR. There is no 2 that match up. At least with Clarendon it didn't matter what you called it, FAR was still OK. Vann: But you still had to stretch your code to accommodate what appeared to be a reasonable request. Leslie: I agree. Vann: Which is all that we have asked to do here. Bruce: It would appear to me that we can either have a motion recommending denial to Council with a 2/2 vote. Or a motion doing something like Roger has talked about with a 2/2 vote. Or the 3rd possibility would be to table to some date certain where other members of this body are here and the applicant takes his chances with wherever the votes may fall at that point. Vann requested a 2 minute break. Bruce then closed the public portion of this hearing. WEST END TRAFFIC STUDY Roger stepped down from this agenda item. 12 PZM6.7.94 Bob Gish, City Engineer: Staff recommends that P&Z amend the Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan for 4th Street as a primary bus route with the exception that 1 bus will exit on 5th Street. I would like to make this on a 1-year experimental basis for the duration of this summer and come back to you in the Fall if we are to make changes to it. This is the plan we brought to you several weeks ago. The only thing we will adjust is on 4th Street is rotate a couple of stop signs. We are holding a meeting tomorrow from 10 to 12: 00 in this room to finalize the stop signs and the signs and the alignment of the signs. I think we basically are in agreement with everybody on all of the signage, speed bumps, accenting the walkway experience. I don't think it is a major thing. It is just that use of 4th Street for buses. PUBLIC COMMENT John Doremus: I have attended a great many of these sessions. I did not attend the session where this decision was made. I think there are just as many people who believe it is a bad plan as those who believe it is a good plan- -mixing buses with walkers is just very questionable. The way to get it handled and off dead center is, OK, try it and we will all watch it. Bruce: I think that is true and I think that is probably the feeling of this Commission as well. There was a majority of us that liked the plan the way it was. And you understand the politics of what has happened. MOTION Sara: I move to amend the Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan adopted in April 1994 so that 4th Street is the primary bus exit route after concerts with the exception that 1 bus will exit on 5th Street. Jasmine: I will second it if you make that language about this being reviewed after 1 year more specific. Sara: With the understanding that within the year this amendment will be reviewed. Jasmine seconded the nLotion. To me that is the important part because I don't think this is going to be the answer to the question. And I really don't want to go on record as expressing my support for this particular plan because I don't. But I think it is worthwhile to get a plan in action that we can monitor and as long as it is going to be checked again after a year then I think it is fine. Sara: And I hope no one gets run over. 13 PZM6.7.94 Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. Bruce: We will now re-convene on Creektree Subdivision and Ire-open the public hearing. Vann: As much as I don't want to go this again it is significant to my client and we ask that you table action. I would also like to have the opportunity to discuss it further with the Planning Office to see if we can find a way t':l deal \~ith this. MOTION Roger: At the applicant's request I move to table action on the Creektree Subdivision PUD amendment to the regular meeting of July 5, 1994. Included in this motion is continuation of the public hearing. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. TAKAH SUSHI SPECIAL REVIEW FOR OPEN SPACE Leslie, Planning: Made presentation as attached in record. After discussion 3-top vs 4-top tables-- MOTION Leslie: Condition #l--The use of the open space is for outdoor dining within 120 square feet with approximately 4 3-top tables. Roger: I move to approve the review for restaurant activity in the required open space at 420 East Hyman Avenue with the conditions as amended outlined on Planning Office memo dated June 7, 1994. (attached in record) Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. WEST END TRAFFIC STUDY Jan Collins: We want to follow the SPA. We want to continue to follow the SPA Traffic Mitigation Plan. Jack Reid's recommendation that the street is not adequate- -that street has City ROWand it is time for the City to reclaim their ROW on that street like they do on every other street. The neighbors have encroached into that ROWand there is the space there if they want to as far as 4th Street. So we would like them to go back and reclaim their ROW. The biggest issue is we don't want in the final recommendation--staff recommends that P&Z amend the Meadows Traffic Mitigation Plan. We don't want it amended. Bruce: We amended it only to the extent that 4th Street will be used as an exit for the buses after the concerts except for 1 bus that will 14 PZM6.7.94 exit on 5th Street. The rest of the SPA Traffic Mitigation Plan stays in effect. ?: That was my concern that one bus--the ones that come in 3rd will then go out 5th. And I am willing to try that for the summer but just knowing from experience 1 bus will turn into 2 buses and then to 4 buses because of all the concerts. I don't know that much is going to change on 5th Street. That is why I was opposed to actually amending the SPA at this point until we try it and see how the thing flushes out during the summer. What I would like to see at some point in the future is buses that come on 3rd and still exit on 4th. That may mean picking up passengers on Gillespie at the new path. I really don't want to see this thing getting cast in cement about the buses. Bruce: Our motion took the form of amending it only to the extent that the memo talks about again using 4th Street after the concerts- -1 bus on 5th with also the proviso that this is a temporary situation. It will be reviewed after the end of the season- -not in the sense that the SPA Plan requires the bi-annual review. We are not changing that at all. All we are saying is that we are going to review this plan that we are going to try this summer, after this summer is over. Jan Collins: We want you to know that we are compromising along the way here. And we feel like we are working together with the MAA as it was intended. And that now the City staff, for the first time, is working also to implement what the SPA called for. So we did want you to know that. Robert Harth: Those are positive comments!!! POPPIES BISTRO CAFE REZONING AND GMOS EXEMPTION Mary Lackner, Planning: Made presentation as attached in record. Sunny Vann: The unit goes to the back of the building. We are going to historically designate this. It is a notable structure. And it will be an asset which allows us to maintain this building and to provide housing. It is a very modest addition. The whole issue is FAR. It is 200 square feet at this time. It is the difference between a 1-bedroom unit and a 2-bedroom. The conditions recommended by the Planning Office are fine with the exception of a minor amendment to Condition #3. Discussion regarding vacation of alley followed. Vann: There is sufficient parking available on site to accommodate 2 cars for the unit. There is no official parking now. We could create 2 parking spaces in that side yard setback because on-street parking is used for the restaurant. If we can't do it there, we can do it in 15 PZM6.7.94 the alley. Hull: We do have 2 spaces for cars. Roger: If you had the alley vacated that would provide you the space for on-site parking. Bruce: We are taking this application for re-zoning. And we have a non-conforming use in the existing zoning. We also have a non- conforming use in the new zone. Lackner: No. It is a conditional use. Bruce: But we don't have the conditional use approval in here. Vann: The position th; Planning O~fice took in the pre-application conference was that Slnce there lS no expansion of the existing resident use, the code talks about conditional use review if you are expanding, enlarging or changing the conditional use. The restaurant remains completely unchanged. So it will become a defacto approved conditional use as a result of the re-zoning. Sara: In the request the way it is stated in the first page of the memorandum is to a tenement GMQS exemption for a free market dwelling unit. Later in the memo it says that it is voluntarily deed restricted to RO. Vann: The code says that a historic landmark you may construct one free market unit exempt from growth management. That is the ? that allows us to construct the unit. On the application to Council we were asking for a favorable interpretation. And as an inducement to that interpretation we said we will deed restrict this to RO. When Council said "We would just as soon re-zone it", it was no longer necessary to impose that restriction. Michael's feeling on it is "I know what I am going to use it for and I don't want any more regulations on it than I have to". There is no requirement on it to be an RO unit under this exemption provision. So that is why we did not voluntarily ask to continue as RO. Sara: To think about what we might be approving in the case that Poppies is sold we could have offices downstairs and a $90,000 penthouse apartment upstairs sold to somebody who lives in Chicago. Vann: Technically you could condominiumize it and will an 800 square foot unit off to someone on the free market and say it will be a free market unit. Sara: I want to see a deed restriction on it. 16 PZM6.7.94 MOTION Roger: I move to recommend a re-zoning of the Poppies Bistro property to R-6 to O-Office subject to the Planning Office conditions in the memo dated June 7, 1994 with the exception that #3 shall be changed to indicate that it would be either a Board of Adjustment variance, an HPC variance or preferably an alley vacation. By this change of zoning the restaurant does become a defacto conditional use and will be subject to all conditional use regulations assuming this progresses. Sara seconded the motion. Bruce asked if there were any public comments. There were none and he closed the public hearing. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. There being no further business meeting was adjourned. Time was 6:55 P.M. 17