Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19950207 ,.,.......... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS '--, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7, 1995 Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to nrder at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were Steven Buettow, Tim Mooney, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Bruce Kerr. Marta Chaikovska and Robert Blaich were excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Sara: In talking to other people regarding the vote on parking it has been suggested if we all felt the vote should not be held until after summer time we should draft a resolution to City Council requesting that the vot.e be in the Fall. After discussion: MOTION Sara: I so move. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. Sara: I was walking along Neal Street on the wonderful new sidewalk and stopped to talk with Lonna Trenton and she said she has to pay for all the shoveling of this walk between King Street and all the way down to Queen Street. She is the only property owner there. It is a real hardship for her. She didn't want that walk to go in. And it is the main trail link. Seeing as how it is a main trail link I wondered if we could discuss that there could be extenuating circumstances that certain walks be cleared by the City. Mary Lackner, Planning: The City clears the Smuggler sidewalk because there is a lot of vacant land adjacent to it. The NAC talks about this every month or two. Tim: And there is one over where the bridge crosses by Elsa Mitchell's house. There is a strip of sidewalk there and it is just the way the water drains off Park Avenue it runs down this sidewalk. So if the City didn't do that it would be a solid sheet of ice. So the City has been clearing that sidewalk. And that is private property but it is one of the main trail links because it is right up to the bridge--Hopkins foot Bridge. Mary: We can talk about it again at NAC. Sara: I think it might be good to discuss it now because we are '--.,. talking about some streets having a sidewalk bordering only one side of the street. So then it is a hardship for only those property owners but it benefits the entire street. """""" Bruce: I would recommend that you advise the lady in question to go directly to Council if she feels there is a hardship. Bruce: I want to advise Commissioners that I have attended 2 preliminary planning meetings along with people at the hospital in connection with a medical clinic that they are considering. It is not just for the orthopods like happened with the bond issues some time ago. I was invited as Chairman of P&Z. Obviously at this point in time we would only be a referral agency. So I didn't think there would be a conflict of interest. The 2 main issues are growth management and whether that medical clinic would be perceived and accepted as an essential public facility and therefor exempt from growth management. And secondly the intersection of Maroon Creek, Castle Creek, Hwy 82 and how all that fits together with the Hines project, Moore project and whatever is happening at the school. The other thing they have briefly discussed is the possibility of annexation which would then involve the City if that does come up. But they are not sure they want to go that way. They are on City water anyway. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie brought Commission up to date regarding the Sy Coleman/KNFO satellite dish. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES NOVEMBER 22, 1994 JANUARY 17, 1995 Sara: I move to approve minutes of November 22, 1994 and January 17, 1995. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. 100 PARK AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Kim Johnson, Planning: Made presentation as attached in record. At this point staff is making the ruling that this doesn't meet any floor area bonus provision. ..- \.....-. 2 -1''"''''''..... She also presented affidavits of publishing. (attached in record) ,~ I have devised some additional conditions of approval specific to this plan. She passed these to the Commission members. I would ask if you adopt this resolution I have included in the packet that you also move to have staff include these particular conditions of approval. Tim asked regarding the address. After discussion conclusion was come to that the address for this parcel is 101 Park Avenue. Jasmine: I am not sure I understand why we are including the vested rights approval in the motion. Kim: We have been telling applicants if they want to vest rights for development application that is approved at P&Z they have to apply another i-step application fee to have vested rights ordinance at City Council. Our code says that vested rights have to be approved it has to be approved at a public hearing that is subject to a referendum of the people which means there is a 30 day period where somebody could object to the approval and then it would go before a public vote. So our City Attorney is saying is that rather than tell people they .~ have to pay that additional $1,000 and then wait an additional 6 to 8 weeks to have an ordinance adopted vesting the rights is that ...._ we can incorporate at the meeting the actual resolution that vest the rights and then have that suffice as the public hearing. Joe Krabacher, Attorney for applicant: On the vested rights on the old common law rule is that once you had a development approval if you took some action you had reliance on that approval which a lot of people interpreted to be if you pulled a building permit, then you have vested your rights. There are some cases saying you spend $10 on that approval and you have taken some action to vest it so there was some confusion in the law as to when is it vested--when is it not vested. So the State thought "We will just have a uniform procedure. If there is a site specific development plan that is approved, you have 3 years of vested rights". I know the lawyers in town generally feel that this provision in the City ordinances that require you to then go through a public hearing is illegal because it is beyond the scope of what the State says you have to do. The State says you get an approval. It is a site specific plan. It vests. So I think that is why you find that there is no standards. And it has become sort of non- discretionary-- .i'~' ,-. 3 .--. Leslie: Joe is right. But no one has challenged the City on our code that lays out how we do vested rights. - Krabacher: Because nobody has been denied. Bruce opened the public hearing. Karen?: This is a very small alley. I am the end house. About a year and a half ago because of the pot holes I can hardly get out of here. It is a real problem when there is ice. I just wanted to point out that to take care of the drainage is very important. Architect: The berm will be landscaped so it will hold a lot more water. Right now there is no landscaping on the berm and that is probably why you are getting the ice trouble. Karen: I will watch very carefully that the legal line of the property off this alley will be recognized because it is in the wrong place now. Roth: We will work with them on that and get with you. sure that we get something that works. And be Bruce: There are 2 conditions on the additional list of conditions that relates specifically to this. One of them relates to storm runoff. It says "Any increase in storm runoff must be contained _ on the property". And the other one--"The applicant shall consult with City Engineering for design considerations of development within public ROWs which would include the alleys". Perry Pollock: all to scale? I own the house on the right there. And is that Arch: As well as I could draw it from City drawings. Pollock: I have only about 7 or 8 feet from the corner of my house to the lot line so I just wondered if this was the position. Arch: That is positioned correctly. I was going off City plats where they have your house platted. That is what I drew it off of. There is a chance you house could be farther down. Pollock: You are saying there is going to be a sidewalk along there? Along Cooper? Roth: Yes. pollock: will that be at street level? Roth: Close to. 4 .- - pollock: That would probably help the visibility problem a lot. Because what they have done when they put the bike path in along there they widened the road but the bank was still up there instead of being like that--now the bank is like this. When you pullout with your car to get to where you can see around the bank, the front of your car is sitting out there. And bicycles come down there at 30 miles an hour and you can't see until you are out in the actual area. So I think if the bank is cut down it will help visibility for pulling out of that alley. I am surprised someone hasn't been hit already because you cannot see a normal sedan when you pullout of there. Bruce: The masterplan for the house is approved at the special overlay district committee. Basically what we are considering now is the 430 foot accessory dwelling unit. But as I recall the overlay meeting there is an area that is 25 or 30 feet that is going to be landscaped between the building and Hwy 82. So I am sure the berm is going to be smoothed out a little bit. ~ Arch: In the additional conditions for approval--#4. It says a new (walk) shall be approved by the City Engineering Dept. I would add because I am not sure if the ROW right next to Cooper Avenue is the City's jurisdiction for the ROW or the State Hwy 82' s jurisdiction. I might add this would be subject to Colo Dept of Transportation guidelines. I am not sure they will allow a sidewalk next to a highway. "'- Roth: I don't mind that change. Typically CDOT is only worried about curb to curb and not what happens curb to property line. But that is fine. There being no further public comments Bruce closed the public hearing. Krabacher: We are going to withdraw the request for a bonus on the ADD so that is not an issue. Sara: So we do want sidewalks on both sides? Roth: I have got complaints from people from Mountain Valley and Knoll and Eastwood areas about the lack of sidewalk on that side of the highway. Sara: What will that do to the bike path? Roth: I will look into that. Sara: Would you also feel more comfortable if we added something about the signing the exact alley property lines? ",,"'~' Roth: I am comfortable with working it out with the neighbors. """"" 5 - Krabacher: We have a survey of the property which should be in ~ your application package which has these corners shown. The alley is whatever it is. Our whole design is contained on our property. Roth: I have it on my list of "things to do" to do the Park Avenue sidewalk minnie masterplan. Because we have got "IODs" from Winnerman and right next door. Tim: Can you tell us what the future owners intend to do with the ADD? Krabacher: Whatever the laws are governing ADDs. I am not sure. I think they are planning on having it actually used. MOTION Roger: I move to adopt resolution #95-1 which will cover the attached accessory dwelling unit at the BKR Partners LLC residence, Lot 17 and 18, Block 6, Riverside Addition to be ultimately signed by the Chairman as amended in these proceedings specifically integrating the conditions #1 through #7 on Planning Office memo dated February 7, 1995 and also integrating the additional conditions of approval handed out by the Planning Office on February 7, 1995 amending #4- .- -CDOT may have some involvement in this regard. (attached in record) Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. INDEPENDENCE PLACE SPA DESIGNATION & CONCEPTUAL SPA PLAN Leslie: Made presentation as attached in record. After discussion: MOTION Roger: I move to continue the public hearing and table action on the Independence Place SPA and GMQS review to date certain of May 16, 1995. Steve seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was then adjourned. Time was 5:20 P.M. 6