Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19940705 I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 5. 1994 Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were Steven Buettow, Marta Chaikovska, Robert Blaich, Tim Mooney, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Bruce Kerr. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Bob: With regard to the west side traffic control--that limited access on 4th Street is not being adhered to for the people of the music concerts in the evenings. There is a lot of traffic on that street that is just coming right up there and ignoring the signs. Yesterday people came down the street and blew their horn to get the pedestrians and bicycles out of the way. And they go through the stop signs. It is close to me because I am walking down that street and I think it is very dangerous to people there taking it seriously that it is a pedestrian-way and people in their cars are not taking it seriously. Roger: At 3 o'clock on Friday we are meeting with Bob Gish. This is the issue we are specifically going to be looking at. '" I would like staff to have the City Attorney attend one of our meetings and explain to us what exactly is a Colorado Limited Liability Company. We have one of those things on our agenda tonight. , Marta: I would like to ask staff to ask the City Attorney to take a look at and talk to us about the new Supreme Court case that deals with a business in Portland, Oregon in which a plumbing business applied for a building permit and the City told them they would give them the building permit if they dedicated an easement on a strip of their land right next to the plumbing store for a bike path. There are a lot of times when we have issues that sound that may come under that purview. Leslie: Our attorney is familiar with that case. That is one of the reasons why we no longer require a fisherman's easement for Stream Margin Review. Bruce: We ask for it. Sara: I had a call from a neighbor of Ronnie Marshall on Lake Avenue. The infamous Ronnie Marshall hot tub seems to be very much in operation. The Board at Hallam Lake is aware of it but said that it is a P&Z matter. Kim: I also got a call on this. John Worcester is handling this. STAFF COMMENTS \ Kim: Brought members up to date on changes on the Winnerman project PZM7.5.94 and whether these should be staff write off or come back to P&Z for further review. After discussion-- Bruce: So the plan of staff will be to ask for an elevation to tell them that you are happy with 2 of the changes that they made but not too keen on the deck and depending on their response, staff will either deal with it or if they suggest that they want to come back to us, you will allow them to do that. Leslie: And if they disagree with our suggestions we will make them come back to you. Everyone agreed with this. STAFF COMMENTS Cindy Houben asked members to attend a special meeting on July 26 on Affordable Housing, GMQS, RO with County P&Z 4:00 to 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. ,,"" MINUTES JUNE 7, 1994 ."... Approval of minutes were deferred to meeting of July 19, 1994. KAJX/RED BRICK SCHOOL CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR A SATELLITE DISH Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Architect for applicant, using plans showed members of commission location of dish. Bruce: Opened the public hearing and asked for public comment. There was none and he then closed the public hearing. Roger: Is it a 3 or 3.8 meter dish? Arch: 3 . 8 . Roger: That is 2 and 3/4 feet larger than a 3 meter dish. What is the requirement for this 3.8 meter dish? Coleman: That is the recommendation from National Public Radio. Roger: You state in your application "4 feet above the snow level". Coleman: That's 4 feet above ground level. Sara: Was Hallam Lake one of the neighbors noticed? Arch: They weren't noticed. Sara: Are you agreeable with the condition that it be a dark color? 2 PZM7.5.94 Arch: The dish is of white fiberglass. It can have a covering on it which we will probably do. color nylon. . be painted. It can It would have a dark Coleman: It is a rip-stop nylon mesh shroud. Bruce: Are you representing that the mesh will be part of the initial installation? Coleman: The rip-stop nylon cover? Bruce: Yes. One of the things we ask applicants when they come in front of use is that the representations they make to us at this hearing are part of the conditions of approval. I am asking if that is one of the things that you are representing--thatyou are going to do that mesh thing as part of the initial installation. Coleman: put it on. Yes. Although we might need to run some tests before we can We will be purchasing it. Bruce asked Coleman if he had any problem with any of the conditions in the staff memo. Coleman: There are none. Roger: I fully supported KAJX going int6 the red brick through all this thing. But that was obviously under the misunderstanding that radio discs were getting down close to a meter instead of closer to 4 meters. I am not very happy wi th this because it is big. It is bigger than any other disc that you have seen around here so far except out at Canyon Cable--TCI. I think before P&Z approves this they should go out for a site inspection and see exactly what the impacts of this are going to be. They are not going to be small. MOTION Roger: I move to table action and continue the public hearing to July 19, 1994 so that the applicant can stick up the poles in place at the proposed location for this dish. Also that the applicant will contact Public Radio. I would like staff to monitor this activity to see if there is a solution with a 3 meter or less dish for this usage. Marta seconded the motion. Steve: I am also interest in the color and also the shielding of this. And the possibility of covering it with the fiberglass shield. Bruce: One of the conditions in the existing memo is that they submit a screening plan to the City. We want to see that. 3 PZM7.5.94 Everyone then voted in favor of the motion except Jasmine. 204 E. DURANT GMQS EXEMPTION SUBDIVISION AND TEXT AMENDMENT Bruce: Although I don't think under the technical code requirements and/or State law there is a conflict of interest on my part, I must advise the Commission that I am the closest neighboring property owner of this application. I am willing to step down from consideration of this application at the request of any of my fellow Commissioners and/or the applicant. Sunny Vann, representative for applicant: objections with you voting on this. The applicant has no All other Commissioners stated no objection to Bruce taking part in this hearing. Mary Lackner, Planner: Made presentation as attached in record. Vann: In this case this project works with 4 units, 4 3-bedroom free market units and we have replaced 4 affordable housing units, 3 1- bedroom units and 1 2-bedroom unit. In order to meet the requirements of the underlying zone district which is the Lodge Tourist Residential zone we must have 25% open space requirement. That open space has to be visible from the street. It has a fairly stringent parking requirement. Most of these 3 bedroom homes do not have 3 cars, they must provide 3 on-site parking spaces. And we would try and preserve the existing vegetation which is 4 large Spruce trees. We have to put 4 units of free market units back on site to make this project work. The parking has to go across the back. If any of you are familiar with duplex development in town they meet their parking requirements in the garage and on the parking apron. But because these units attach to each other, the current code prohibits that in this particular case. Therefore we have asked for a code amendment to revise that and to come back and talk about that in more detail. When we originally designed this it became apparent we are going to lose one of the existing Spruce trees. We propose to replace equivalent trees in the public ROW. We will continue to replace or provide street trees as originally proposed along East Durant Avenue and South Aspen Street ROWs. We will provide species which are appropriate. The question for us is whether or not we are going to be able to remove or relocate this one Spruce tree and whether or not the P&Z can recommend we be allowed to do so subject to the terms, of the Parks Dept. Sunny presented notice of public notice affidavit. (attached in 4 PZM7.5.94 Sunny presented notice of public notice affidavit. record) (attached in Bruce opened the public hearing and asked for public comment. Gus?: I would like to know the depth of the apron in the back--the dimension from the alley. Arch: To the bui lding it is about 20 feet. Then he mumbled something. Sunny: It exceeds the minimum requirement for a legal parking space. Arch: Mumbled something. Sunny: There are 4 units. There is a 2 car garage for each of the free market units. There is 1 parking space dedicated to each of the affordable housing units. What we are proposing is to allow 1 additional parking space for each of the free market units on the garage apron. As a practical matter you could put 2 which exceeds the minimum requirement of the code and because these are row houses which each owner owns his own garage and his own apron the ability of stack parking is not different than with a single family or a duplex. Dale Paas: I am concerned about the elevation of this building and the impacts on vegetation. ...~.. Sunny: It is in compliance with the height requirements in the underlying zone district as well as the setback requirements. We are complying with the underlying requirements of the LTR zone district. The units are located within the free market condominiums. At this point we envision, becaUSE of the size of the units, that they will be rental units rather than sales units. Since each free market unit will be condominiumizedI suspect what is going to happen is that the affordable housing units in each free market unit will be condominiumized as part of the free market unit. Then under the Housing Authority guidelines the owner of that free market unit will be obligated to rent that unit under the guidelines that are being imposed as part of this approval. It is the option of the owner to either rent it or sell it. These are separate and not connected in any way to the primary residence. There are no common doors. These are not units that can be used for some purpose other than affordable housing. They are fully deed restricted. All the leases go through the Housing Authority. The sale goes through the Housing Authority. Every time the lease changes over you have to give it to the Housing Authority. And these will be on the inventory as fully deed restricted affordable housing. Lackner: City Council also wants to review the housing package of how these units are going to be divided up. The outcome was they want the free market purchaser to buy the free market house and the ADU. That 5 PZM7.5.94 Tim: Asked regarding the snow shed. Arch: Over the garage space the roof pitches the opposite direction. So it will go off to the side. It will come into a valley to go into a central drain. Tim: Talk about the roof line and how it comes together in the middle right above to AH unit. Arch: Where it comes together this space right here we are going to put a gutter system on this to control the drainage snowmelt of the roof. So everything coming down will run into a drain and then go down into the foundation drain system. Tim: What if it flies off and then it hits the roof that is the AH roof and then it slides off and then hits the ground? Arch: If anything slides it is going to hit the deck in front of those units. But you control that with snow stops and heat tape. Tim: There is no roof above the entrance to the AH unit? Arch: also that keep heat This system will be guttered and controlled. That entrance is recessed back underneath the building slightly. So that anything comes in here by heat taping you catch everything right there to that lower section dry. It all goes in the gutter. You run your tape into the gutter. It controls it all. Tim: I don't believe you. Arch: You are going to have a rare case where it may slide. But that is the best way to control that. Vann: There is a covered entry. some snow on the upper deck of entrance is recessed. In a major the deck. It is possible that you might the affordable housing. But snow you will shovel some snow get the off Tim: Where are you going to put it if you have And the snow comes off the roof onto your deck and it on the ground and t!~ere is a car parked there? going anyplace. And there is a 3 foot storm and there is no room for the people to get in and out a car parked there? then you want to put It is like it is not they plow the alley of that lower unit. Arch: area. You have areas in front of the cars. You also have a planter In the worst case you could put in snowmelt driveways. Tim: Leslie, is there a way--to do a text amendment means that then anyone-- Leslie: You are amending the code overall. 6 PZM7.5.94 Tim: Is there a way we can just limit to this project and not put it into the code? Leslie: The only way P&Z could look at a varied parking situation is through the PUD process where you can vary parking. Tim: It is my theory that the people who live in the AH units are going to park on the street because they don't want to walk around their car. And they are not going to be shoveling that and they are just going to have a narrow path through the snow to get to their unit. And it is going to be impractical to give these spaces when the cars are going to end up on the street anyway. Vann: You can also snowmelt it to reduce the concern of the snow. That is certainly something we can do. Doug Allen: I am one of the developers and here as an owner of the development. What we have tried to do with the affordable housing units is to not ask for an exemption from the car situation. We wanted to have each one of these units to have a place to put a car. Most of the people who own these units will own a car. Bruce: will be do now. If there is not parking for those affordable housing units parking in Dale's lot and in my lot and Gus's back yard. And they will park in the alley. they They Sara: To re-enforce that--I lived there for 12 years and I had to park so far away. I would have been so happy to have a place. Gus: I would point out that the alley there is not a standard width. It is narrow. So this means when cars back out under winter type conditions the possibility of backing into a tourist rental unit is not really out of the question. I just wonder if it will be my responsibility to put steel posts in the ground to protect the rental units which are contracted for all through the winter where there is absolutely no possibility for interruption due to the wall being pushed in or whatever. And what accidents we have had with the building, the trash receptacles they are usually run into and all you see is the dent. It is never reported. No one ever stops to tell you that they have backed into the building. So I assume it will be my responsibility to put in some big 8 inch pipe filled with concrete to preclude the walls being destroyed. Vann: The area next to the alley necks down slightly because the building that Gus owns here encroaches into the public ROW. It was built long before anyone cared about the alleys in general. So in this area the alley is more constrained. First of all the intensity in use is going to change somewhat. This is not a rental project any more. You mayor may not have an absentee 7 PZM7.5.94 owner in some of the condominiums. The only full time resident that you can guarantee would be the affordable housing units which you have to rent. And the number of residents that will be there will be less than the current number of residents that are there today. And, as you know, there is basically no parking in the rear except where you can pull off the alley slightly to get out of the alley ROW. So you are going to have less congestion in the alley. You are going to have a more organized parking layout. You are going to have on-site parking for the individual cars. But it is possible that someone in the end unit which is a free market unit could back straight back into the rear of Gus's building. Bruce: How many feet is it from the property line to the edge of Gus's building? Arch: 14 and 1/2 to 15 feet. Marta: I would like to see us be a little more specific in this text amendment. Here we are changing an amendment that really affects multi-family dwellings in general. This specific project addresses a problem where you have parking right next to a unit where they are going to live, park right in front of them. This is very broad--this addition of multi-family dwellings which do not share a common parking area. I would like to see that be defined a lot more. Multi-family dwellings could be whatever size. Vann: The language intent was to make sure no one is blocking anyone else. So the way I was trying to draft it was you can only stack parking if you don't obstruct anyone. You can only stack in those situations where each unit owns it's own parking. Marta: I don't think that is clear in this though. I would like to have that be more specific. Allen: It could specific to the extent that you can do stack parking if it is within the limited common element allocated to that specific unit. Marta: That is much better. Gus: In the parking we talked about cars--stackingcars. What about the recreation vehicle which is 24 feet long? Every once in a while we look out in the back and here is the largest RV that you ever saw and it has a motor on it that runs the air conditioner all night. They are big and I just wonder when this person--you can rent these. You don't have to buy one--you can rent them. And when he gets to Aspen and finds there is absolutely nowhere to put it, will he turn into that alley and put it in the back whether he knows it will fit there or not? Do you think that he will try to put that RV in the space? Vann: I guess the answer is if an owner or an owner's friend wanted to try and park his RV there he would be within his rights to do so. 8 PZM7.5.94 Vann: We are more than happy to condition the approval on a street- scape/landscapeplan. If you want us to make sure that that one spot along South Aspen is screened appropriately that is acceptable too. Bruce: As much as I am looking forward to this property being re- developed as opposed to what is there now, I must tell you as a neighbor I have real concerns not only for me but also for my other neighbors about the height, mass and bulk of this structure. You just mentioned Southpoint clear across Durant Street shades this property--the subject property. And you can just imagine what this building is going to do to the neighbor to your north. I have some concerns about the window treatments on the east elevation and the privacy of my own guests at my lodge with those east facing windows looking right down on my guest rooms. Frankly I have got some concerns about sun on my own property in the summer time--the western sun. I understand and appreciate the box we force you into with Ord 1--the parking and open space requirements and all of those things. But I am concerned about how this project will affect the neighbors and specifically those are closest to you. I don't what if anything more can be done to address some of those concerns. But I would like to hear from you in their regard. Vann: Subdivision does not include architectural review. That is impossible to talk about this proj ect wi thout talking about it's height and it's bulk. We are willing to try to respond to concerns that you might have about architectural aspects of this particular proj ect . The combination of the LTR zone district and Ord 1 working together gives you little if any creativity in developing a motel site. You are forced into a building footprint. Obviously you can try and build substantially less than the allowable FAR on the site but as you know it is not economically feasible to do so and also replace the affordable housing units. So the parameters that drive this project are fairly etched in stone. That is why in large part that you have not seen projects come through under the Ord 1 provision. Unless it is a very large site you simply do not have enough land area to meet the requirements of the code, architectural considerations notwithstanding. So the design of the building is driven by all the factors--front yard setbacks, side yard setbacks, parking requirements etc. What you are left is with a box in which you can try and achieve sufficient FAR to make the proj ect work. Bruce: earlier address of 9 or Just in regard to the height for example, I think I heard that the heights are 9 or 10 feet floors. One way you could the height issue is to have standard 8 foot ceilings instead 10. Arch: The 9 foot ceilings including the affordable housing is to try 10 PZM7.5.94 ~p"'" to get additional window height in the unit. We have the same concern as you do as far as windows overlooking adjacent properties. (using drawings) There is a whole level of master bedrooms right in here. WE did not even put any windows in because we have the same concerns. We don't want to be looking these windows are on the upper level. There is a dining area here. These are high windows. The idea is to look out across for the view. All of this is really high glass. There is a fireplace with shelves in front of this to keep you 2 feet away from the glass so you are not going to be peering out. We don't want to be looking down on your units. With this height glass the idea is to focus at the sky--not down at you. Dale?: I really have empathy for the developer. I have gone through some of the things you have to do in this county and city to build anything. And I really want to see this area developed because what is there is pretty disgraceful. But at the same time I want to voice my concerns we are talking about basically cutting down a 65 year old Spruce tree and I really don't want to have a square box in my back yard. And I don't want it anywhere else in the valley. So I can see the concerns. You are kind of roped into something. It has to look like a monster but at the same time I venture this has a life longer than any of our life time. And it would be nice to put something in our town that looks good in the first place instead of talking about the Gant that has problems or North of Nell or Southpoint that are basically square boxes. Vann: It is not really a square box. Arch: We are trying to get some character to break it up. We have the same concerns you do. We want to break it up and get some feel to the upper lever so it has some scale and mass to it that is different than what is across the street to the south. There are 2 recessed courtyard areas that are slightly above grade. Lackner: The P&Z can initiate PUD rezoning of the property. If you think it would make a better project you can initiate that process. That would allow flexibility in setbacks to perhaps save the tree. You can do some parking variations and height variations. Vann: The problem with PUD is that most people use PUD to waive things or increase things to their benefit. If you say it is too tall, I don't need to have a PUD on it to have you tell me it has to be lowered. I don't need a PUD to increase the setback. I need a PUD to reduce the setbacks. I am not asking to reduce things. So you could agree to less open space under PUD. But we don't think that is desireable. We don't want to push this building to the front of the site and reduce the amount of open space on the site. You have to look at projects like this in balance. We are balancing the loss of the tree against the replacement of the affordable housing. We are doing a qUCl.lity job on the replacement of the housing within the spirit of the regulations of the affordable housing ordinance. The 11 PZM7.5.94 Housing Authority has no problem with the units. They are acceptable to the Planning Office. We are significantly below the maximum density that one could do on this site. We have not asked to vary the setbacks. We have not asked to vary the open space requirements. We have not asked to vary the parking. The only thing we are trading off is the loss of this one tree. And if the tree does not survive we will replace the value of the tree with comparable vegetation elsewhere in the City at the Parks Dept choice. We are saving the other 3 of the 4 specimen trees. If we are forced to save all 4 trees then I have serious questions about whether this project can go forward because we simply don't have enough room on the site to make this project work. Roger: It looks like you have a 1 to 2 roof. Is there a way you could increase the slope of the roof making a 1 to 1 roof and using the existing ridge line as your maximum height but going 1 to 1 and in effect bringing down the roof a little bit around the edges to help the shading thing? Arch: The shading thing--if the ridge is at the same point you would still have the same problem. Roger: The ridge line is not the limiting factor. 73 degrees and you have a 45 degree roof you have in a little bit by going to a 45 degree angle. If the sun is at brought the shadow Arch: It is such a minor difference mumble Vann: It forces you into some sort of mansard type situation. Bruce: Are there enough people here who feel so strongly about the tree that they are ready to tell Sunny and Doug to go back to the drawing board? Tim: I am not. I think that if they do their plan to try and move the tree and go through all of this and then still if the tree dies that they will replace with another tree, that is good enough for me. I can't let the tree hold up the project even as much as I am a tree person. Everyone agreed with this. Jasmine: I think despite various reservations we may have about the project that the project as proposed does uphold the requirements for the Ord 1 housing replacement and does fulfill the subdivision regulations. I think the additional density is in an area that is zoned for the additional density. The additional bulk is something that we just have to put up with if that is the way the Ord is written. 12 PZM7.5.94 My recommendation would be for the purpose of further discussion to recommend approval of the housing replacement and the subdivision subject to conditions. I am not really happy about the text amendment. I don' t have a problem with this particular project and it's handling of the aprons for parking. I think it obviously works here. I don't want to see it necessarily applied to other projects without some form of review or control. MOTION Jasmine: I recommend approval of the applicant's request for multi- family housing replacement and subdivision for the 204 East Durant project subject to conditions in Planning Office memo dated July 5, 1994. We do not recommend approval of the text amendment to permit parking on the garage apron subject to some language changes but instead prefer to see that as part of subdivision regulations. Vann: It would still have to be a code amendment. This provision does not exist so you have to put it into the code. What I was suggesting is that ability to stack is subject to review and approval of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Bruce: Procedurally this evening we don't have any language in front of us for this text amendment. Jasmine: We could just put in a condition #13 saying that one of the conditions of approval is that we will draft a text amendment that would go in the subdivision Bruce: That this approval would be subject to the text amendment to be crafted. Allen: That it would be allowed when the stack parking is within the limited common element for that unit. That is just like a single family house they can park behind the garage because it is their cars in the garage. Mary: We can bring that text amendment back to you before they go to City Council. Jasmine: My motion would be to recommend approval of the applicant's request for multi-family housing replacement and subdivision for the 204 E. Durant project subject to conditions #1 through #12 in the Planning Office memo dated July 5, 1994 with the additional condition that the approval is conditioned upon approval of the text amendment which will be submitted at the next regular meeting of Planning & Zoning Commission. I will include Subdivision and GMQS exemption. 13 PZM7.5.94 Roger seconded the motion. Tim: I suggest a separate condition putting an item #14 that there is a gable over the AH u<lit ao that the snow shed does, as it comes off the roof, go onto a gabled roof above the door. And then it can shed onto the snowmelt and that AH parking space is snowmelted and that if it is part of the condominium ownership that it is not required by the occupant of the AH unit to pay for the snowmelt. That it be a requirement of the owner in the condo decs that it is the requirement of the owner of the unit to pay for that. Vann: That is acceptable to the applicant. Jasmine: That is fine for my motion. Roger: If you are talking snowmelt in the parking area for the affordable units yet that is the responsibility of the free market unit, then how do you determine the common element. How do you separate the common element? Vann: Snowmelt will be at the condominium association expense that is born pro-rata by the 4 free market units. The architect mumbled something here. Vann: The solution of that is to put each affordable housing unit parking area on the utility meter for free market unit which each owner pays the expense of maintaining his condominium. Marta: You had also volunteered something abut the condo decs being specific regarding the oversized vehicles. Vann: We said we would prohibit oversized vehicles. Allen: Let me make the representation that they will not be oversized vehicles- -like motorhomes . Marta: Just so that it is not sticking out into the alley or into an area that would-- Allen: OK, then, why don't we say that it will be such a vehicle that it can fit within the parking pad where it is supposed to fit. Bruce: That may not answer Gus's concerns. motorhome that will still fit in there conditioning and run it. There may be a size of and plug in their air Vann: Let's say specificallyRV vehicles--motorhomes. Bruce: We know what we are talking about. It is up to you guys to draft it in such a way as to satisfy our requirement. 14 PZM7.5.94 Roger: I am still having problems with how are you going to deal with the snowmelt between the units? You want the free market unit not to use the snowmelt in his private driveway when he is not there. Now does that mean that the affordable unit is going to have a zone off of the free market unit? Vann: How mechanically it is going to work, I don't know. But the intent was your concern about snow buildup in the employee parking spaces. We have to rent them or sell them which means they will be occupied but you can't have an absentee employee. That means we have to snowmelt them during those times of the year when there is the potential for snow accumulation. It cannot be cut off by the free market resident simply because he is not here. And that is our representation. The intent is that we will snowmelt the affordable housing parking spaces in consideration of their full time use and the fact that they are somewhat constrained because of where they are located. We will do that at those times when there is snow. If the condo decs contemplate sale of the affordable housing units by their respective owners under the Housing guidelines, then we will have to address how certain costs will be handled. What I would like to get on record is what your intent is and that is that the affordable housing parking spaces will be provided with snowmelt. #2 that the cost of maintaining that snowmelt is not passed onto the affordable housing employee. I don't think we could because I don't think the rent structure allows us to pass that on. We can't pass on, for example, maintenance for landscaping. Those are the 2 things I heard you say we will represent on the record. Roger: So what I am hearing is for those 4 affordable housing units it is going to go into the common elements for the free market units and they split it up by 4. Allen: Yes. Vann: There is a condition here that #3 in your packet where the Planning Office has asked that we expand upon this concept of ownership rental part of the packet that goes to Council. I would be happy to include that issue as part of that as to what the affordable housing units will be responsible for and that they will not be based upon the representations we just made. Tim: I am hoping we can start as a standard condition put in here that energy efficient shower heads, windows, heating systems, materials be used in accordance with the latest design and technology. Roger: It is already in our building code. Vann: Condition #l--The square footages of the 850 and 600 are minimum square footages that we have to provide. They may come out slightly larger. We don't know. That is a minimum net leasable figure that the 15 PZM7.5.94 units must meet. Condition #2, #3, #4, #5,#6 and #7 are fine. Condition #8--there are 2 water lines in Durant Street. They hope to abandon the 6 inch line that is in the street. They have asked that when they do abandon it they are going to dig it up wherever it connects to the valve disconnect the thing and leave it in the ground. That is the cost of the pro-rata share that they wish for us to pay. It isn't pro-rata share of the cost of disconnecting everybody else who is currently on the line. We have asked for clarification from the Water Dept. I will have a letter from Planning Office from Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer regarding that. I want to make sure you understand that is what pro-rata proportionate share of the cost associated with abandoning that 6 inch line is. #9 is also a clarification. My understanding is there is curb and gutter in some areas on Durant and on South Aspen. It does not exist up around the entire block. We have committed to putting in sidewalk and we will enter into a curb and gutter agreement that says we have got to put in curb and gutter on demand of the City. What this says "We shall install curb and gutter prior to CO". What I would like it to say is that "We shall install sidewalk and that we will enter into a curb and gutter agreement which says we have to install a curb and gutter whenever the Engineering says we have to put it in or whenever the City says we have to put it in". Bruce: So what if they tell you to do it Now? Vann: We will do it right now. Bruce: Isn't there curb and gutter on both Durant and Aspen Streets along the sides of this property? Vann: That isn't the information that I have. Sara: There is. Vann: So then why am I stalling the curb and gutter? Bruce: That's right. Vann: I am committed to do the sidewalk. Bruce: It is already there, Sunny. Don't stall it. Just do it. Vann: OK. Leave it the way it is and we will put it in. #11 needs to be revised to reflect the position of the tree. I would suggest we substitute the comments in the Park's Dept referral comment which obligates us to relocate the tree and to essentially pay the 16 PZM7.5.94 value of the tree if it doesn't survive. Leslie: I remind you that we did the same thing at the O'Block. There was a big Spruce tree there. We did this whole deal. They will move the tree. They will bond it for 5 years. They will pay to move it. Then if it died they..;ill pay for everything after that. We are now negotiating with them because they cannot find anybody to remove the tree who will guarantee that it will survive and who will agree to bond the tree. Vann: We are bonding the tree. Leslie: But they can't find anybody to move it and then guarantee to them that they can move it and then it will survive. So I would suggest to you that that is not a good argument and for us to get into this tracking mode to try and save these trees is not a good spot for us to be in because it is 2 years after O'Block and we are having to negotiate with these guys on this tree. Bruce: We took a straw poll a while ago and decided we weren't going to kill the project to save the tree. Sunny: I would like it to say we have permission to remove the tree subject to obtaining the permit and paying the appropriate Park's charge for the valuation of the tree. Jasmine: That is acceptable for the motion. Roger: And the seconder. Roll call vote: Steven, yes, Marta, yes, Robert, yes, Tim, yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, yes. Bruce closed this portion of the public hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to table the text amendment portion of this application and continue the public hearing to date certain of August 2, 1994. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the proposed affordable housing parking element with condition #14 concerning the subdivision approval of snowmelting of the affordable housing and snow shedding above the entry to the affordable housing units under Condition #15 added to the Planning Office memo dated July 5, 1994. Bruce: For the record there was also a condition #13 that indicated that it was subject to the text amendment. 17 PZM7.5.94 Roger: I amend my motion to include condition #13, #14 and #15. Jasmine seconded the motion with everyone in favor. AUSTIN CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Kim: I think this application is to be withdrawn. After short discussion it was decided this is a dead issue. CREEKTREE SUBDIVISION/POD AMENDMENT MOTION Sara: Made a motion to table this application and continue public hearing to date certain of July 19, 1994. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. MIRABELLA SPECIAL REVIEW FOR OUTDOOR DINING Kim made presentation as attached in record. Bruce asked the applicant if they had any problem with any of the conditions of approval. Doug Allen, Attorney for applicant: The conditions of approval are acceptable on behalf of the applicant. Bob: Is that fence permanent or is it removable? Allen: It is seasonal. It will be there only as long as the lease is in effect. Bob: I was there for your opening party. And there was an adjacent tenant that had a rug sale going on outside. Is that kind of thing allowable in that area? Bruce: Well it was going on again today. Rugs were everywhere today. Janet Lightfoot, representative for Mirabella: The rug sale is not allowed. Bob: I am questioning the use of that public area. Lightfoot: They came around and said "Does this bother you?" Leslie: The only people who can use the public open space is restaurant activity through this special review process. So they are in violation. 18 PZM7.5.94 Marta: The furniture that is there--tables, umbrellas that type of thing-- Allen: We are going to have the chairs that were approved by the CCLC. They approved the color of the fence and the type of furniture. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the outdoor dining in the open space at the Katy Reid parcel for the Mirabella Restaurant with conditions #1 through #6 on Planning Office memo dated July 5, 1994. Sara seconded the motion: Tim: I am still not convinced that we are not creating a bigger business space which in my mind is going to need mitigation. Lightfoot: We meet all the codes as far as sanitation, the grease trap for 200 people. We also made all the requirements for bathroom. And met all requirements for employees. Everything is totally met. Tim: But if you expand the floor area of the restaurant you are going to need more employees and staff. So the restaurant basically is bigger than you have mitigated for. I think that what we are doing is expanding your size of your ability to do business. Lightfoot: For 5 months out of the year that could be true. Leslie: This building has mitigated in areas where there are more employees and in places where there are less employees. Tim: I don't know how we do it or when we do it. But we keep looking at these things and we give people the ability to seat 50 more people. When is it going to be mitigated for? Kim: There is no code requirement at this point that addresses outdoor dining. Sara: Actually the discussion came up with the expansion of the Jerome dining into the garden. And the very same argument that the Fleischer made "Oh well, they won't sit inside". We are putting staff on alert to consider this. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. Bruce then adjourned the meeting. 7:40 P.M. 19