Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19850430 RECORD OF PROCBBDINGS . Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 30. 1985 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. with commissioners Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson, David White, and alternate Ramona Markalunas present. COMMISSIONERS I COMMBRTS Wel ton Anderson asked the commission what requirements had been set on the satelite dish at the Floridora Building. There is a large, about 12 foot, silver dish on the top of the building that can be seen from everywhere. Ms. Fallin said they were supposed to get a small er screen which would be placed in a location where it would be hidden. Harvey asked Alan Richman, planning office, to contact Bill Drueding, Building Department, and have him look up the approval and report back to the planning office or the commission. MINUTES March 19. 1985: Ramona Markal unas moved to approve the minutes of March 19, 1985, seconded by Pat Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. April 2. 1985: Pat Fallin moved to approve 2, 1985, seconded by Ramona Markalunas. carried. the minutes of April All in favor motion April 16, 1985: April 16, 1985, motion carried. Dav id Whi te moved to approve the minutes of seconded by Welton Anderson. All in favor, PUBLIC BEARING ASPBN MOORTAIN LODGB POD Anderson said since the final vote was taken on the lodge portion of the project he has become involved with the project and stepped down for conflict of interest. Alan Richman said the reason for this public hearing relates to questions raised by various members of the public, at a City Council meeting on the final platt, relating to proper notice. Rather than leave doubt as to whether the notice was done properly the applicants requested renoticing of all property owners around the entire PUD. 1 RECORD OF PROCEBDINGS Soecial Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 30. 1985 The POD was heard in 2 stages, 1 the lodge, the other the residential. There is not a specific presentation for this meeting. There are, however, two issues which could come up tonight, one being the service area changes, the other issue being the question of landscaping and specifically tree removal. Harvey opened the public hearing. He asked the applicants if they wanted to make a presentation, or wait for public comments. John Doremus replied, for the applicant, they would respond to public comment or commissioner comment. Richman said it was not the intent of this meeting to readopt or reapprove the resolutions, unless there is a specific need to. Harvey asked for a presentation on the changes in the service area. Doug Greybeal, applicants architect,outlined the changes in the entrance to the service area. He told the commission, due to the change s, the appl icant s have asked City Council to approve an increase of 1200 square feet to enclose an area in the service entrance. In addition they have also asked for an elimination of 3 parking spaces on Monarch Street to allow the landscaping to blend into the space. Grabel also said all radiuses within the service entrance have been designed to allow trucks easy manuve- rability in the loading dock area. Harvey noted that the service entrance is also the main entrance to the hotel, will there be any problem with guests entry. Grabel replied that it wasn't the be st sol ution f or the appl icant so at times the re could be problems. The applicants have researched and talked with the trucking companies and feel there shoul dn' t be a probl em with trucks stacking up in the area. There are also 3 streets coming into the area which should allow for flexibility. Fred Smith, neighbor, addressed the commission. He said he was delighted with the improvement to the service area. His critisisum was in regard to whether it was necessary to encroach on Monarch street. We need a place to store snow on Monarch Street, as it is now the street is only one lane wide in the winter due to the snow. By reducing the width of the street another 8 to 10 feet, the only place the snow can go is on to the sidewalk. I think the commission should consider what the benef i t to the publ ic is, having the landscaping encroach on the public right-of-way. This project is supposed to be beneficial, they had many acres to plan this serv ice area in, I don I t see why the publ ic street right-of-way needs to be used. Grabel responded that the encroachment on Monarch is to allow 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS S~cial Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 30. 1985 space for the sidewalk to come around the building. We accommodated the snow problem by putting a curve into the parking spaces. The idea of the landscaping is to provide a visual buffer for the surrounding neighbors. Harvey asked if the landscaping were moved back, and did not encroach, would there be a snow slide problem from the roofs. Grabel replied no and outlined on the plans where the snow would be caught on their deck area. Harvey said then the landscaping and encroachment are esthetic. Grabel replied yes, that they were hearing from the owners on Monarch Street that they wanted this. Joe Wells said they had submitted a scheme without the landscaping and with the landscaping and that the City Council had prefered the landscaping. Ron Erickson, neighbor, said one of the reasons this had come back to the commission was because there was not proper notification to properties adjacent to the building site. I think the neighbors prefer the new service area plan over the original plan submitted. Harvey asked Richman if the commission had to make any clarification regarding the 1200 square feet of additional space, given item 12 in Resolution 85-1 which addresses the commissions recommendation to elimiate the covered areas. Joe Wells said initially they thought they could combine it with the unenclosed space category but decided not to do that because they might want to enclose it at some point. Harvey asked where the space was. Wells replied underneath the roof line, outlined on plans, with other mechanical space ie. transformers, trash, etc. Richman said Council has already agreed and made a motion to approve the design with the additional 1200 square feet. Harvey asked if the commission should send Council a resolution discussing our discussion tonight and giving them our findings. Richman replied yes, as opposed to making minor changes to the 2 already exi sting resol ut ions. Harvey asked the commission if they fel t the additional 1200 square feet shoud be supported. The reply was yes. Jim Delman, representing the Mountain Queen Condominium Association, said they only recently became aware of a probl em wi th the configuration of the service area. When we came to Council a couple of weeks ago we were faced wi th what we thought was a totally unacceptable situation. The possibility of large trucks getting tied up on a step grade creating problems in the winter time. We felt that Council was perceptive to our position at that time. One week later the applicant had come up with the new service area configuration and we must say it is an exceptional improvement. Trucks will now be on a level street, we think there 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SRecial Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission JUlril 30. 1985 will be much less congestion on Monarch Street and overall we think it will be a better project. That is not to say that we give it 100% of our blessing. I do think there are things the commission should consider, such as mitigating noise problems, traffic problems, polution problems, etc. Ms. Markalunas asked what the offset on Monarch St. was. Wells replied 8 feet. He added that didn't constitute a reduction in the on street commitment that was made and approved in the beginning, because the parking was lost to the service drive. We are still maintaining the same on street parking as originally planned. Joe Krabacher, representing the Aztec Condominiums directly across the street from the proposed service entrance, commented that he would like to reiterate what was on everybodys minds, which is, this is a service entrance for the.entire lodge, there will be a lot of traffic which will cause problems that need to be mitigated. Although this has been discussed before, this is the first public hearing before the commission. The Aztec Condom- iniums would like to make the following suggestions to be incorp- orated in to the proposed service area: they would like to see the large Spruce tree on the corner of Dean and Monarch Streets remain in its location, significant landscaping of the service . area to reduce the visual impact, a requirement that the applicant keep the dumpster and trash compacter under the roof of the service facility, and that the applicant provide some kind of sound proofing for the walls and possibly the ceiling of the service area in order to mitigate the noise polution. Mr. Krabacher also said that the president of the Aztec Condominiums, Patrick Smith, had written a letter, because he was unable to attend this meeting, and would like to get the commissions reaction to the COmments raised in the letter. The letter was submitted for the record. Krabacher outlined the concerns that Mr. Smith stated in his letter. One of his concerns was the height of the project creating a .wall" effect on Monarch street.He feels that there is still an issue as to the design of the roofs and whether. or not they meet the building code requirements for a mansard roof. Another concern is how the trucks intend to get into the service area and where they will be parked while waiting to get into the area. He also said the plans are not clear as to what the patio cut will be and questioned whether it should be cut back at an angle. He raised concern about the Spruce trees on ~Ionarch. He raised a question as to whether or not the commission has addressed the potential issue of burying the existing utility poles and lines. His final 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 30. 1985 concern was regarding landscaping being done to minimalize the visual impacts. Harvey asked Richman if building height was done at the conceptual level. Richman replied yes, and finally given agreement to the fact that the mansard roof, and the whole question of how you measure a mansard roof, was entirely irrelovent. Planning and Zoning and Council set height limits at the conceptual level, and verify that they are complied with at the preliminary and final level. Height is not an issue to be discussed at this meeting. Doug Grabel addressed the concerns voiced in Mr. Smith's letter. In regard to trucks backing up in the service area, it was pointed out at the last Council meeting that there is an ordinance that exists in the city that prohibits trucks from stacking up, so the City has control of that issue. In the matter of noise, our trash compacter is under the roof overhang. We, too, are concerned about the problem so we are currently exploring all possibilities to eliminate the noise in that qrea. Richman added that the City has a noise ordinance which they will have to comply with. The roof heights have already been addressed. The wall heights will be 8 feet to 12 feet at the highest point. The compacter will be contained within the service area except when it is being loaded on a truck. There is physically no way to cut the angle from the storage area in order to allow truck access. The landscaping . shown on the plans is purely an architectural graphic, we have not gotten to the point of studying it. . Harvey asked where the "spruce tree" in question was located, and if it could be maintained and still give adequate access. Joe Wells replied it was on the north west corner directly above the proposed ballroom and could not be maintained in that location. Joe Wells clarified that this was not the first public hearing on the lodge, it is the fourth. The question as to whether or not the notice was adequate at the first preliminary hearing results from the fact that adj acent property owners to the lodge were noticed for the lodge preliminary public hearing and adjacent property owners to the residential project were noticed for the residential portion of the preliminary hearing. Rather than debate whether or not there was a deficiency in the noticing, we chose to renotice and go through the whole process again. The Aztec Condominium Association was noticed, at their record address, for the second public hearing held. Harvey addressed the issue in Mr. Smith's letter suggesting that the applicant bury the utili ty lines on Monarch during the construction of the project. We are requiring that utility lines 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 30. 1985 be undergrounded on the site by the city. We don't believe it should be the city's policy to make development pay for what is a city responsibility, to underground utilities throughout the city. Fred Smith said he wanted to get on the record regarding the height and density of the proj ect. Harvey allowed him to make a statement, but added that the height has been resolved during the conceptual and is not up for discussion at this meeting. Fred pointed out that Section 24-7.1 says "the definitional, regulatory, and other general provisions of Chapter 24 shall, when not in conflict with the approved plans, continue with equal force and within such areas". I don't think PUD has the right to change how you measure the heights, it clearly says in Section 24 how to measure the heights. Council said if they were 42 feet to the mid point of the roof line, this would be acceptable. I think the developer has complied with that, but I think everybody should realize that this building is actually over 60 feet measured with our existing code. I think when the platt is approved, and any of the exceptions or variances are noted, it should note the maximum height of the building that is allowed. Somehow the "beneficial to the neighborhood" got lost in the PUD planning. Fred Smiths second point was that of density, and the code clearly says that you can not exceed the allowed density in the ~rea. I am confused as to how density is defined in this area. Richman answered that density is the number of units on the site, not the FAR. The FAR specifically is allowed to be varied under the PUD and the P&Z and Council have agreed to vary it. Density is something that was discussed at great length by both P&Z and Council because the issue came up of how you interpret certain aspects of the zoning code. Wells added that the code- allows you to define lodge square footage into any configuration of rooms that you choose. It simply establishes a limitation on square footage. Therefore, the square footage can be varied under PUD, therefore, the number of lodge rooms that can be allowed can be varied. Harvey asked for comments on the issues of sound proofing of and enclosing of the trash area, where the trucks park etc. addressed in Mr. Smith's letter. Richman asked if there was any desire to make statements to Council about any of this. Harvey replied it appears the new service area is more sensitive to the neighborhood and has been overly landscaped. It seems there is not much concern about the noise and pollution factor because the hotel has a large number of rooms overlooking that specific area. Noise and Pollution would have an impact on the lodge first. Richman and Harvey said it should be said that we have reviewed the changes 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 30. 1985 .and find them to be an improvement. Ms. Markalunas questioned, as stated in Mr. Smith's letter, the guarantee that this is going to be accomplished according to the plans submitted and that there will be no changes hereafter, is that the building department's charge? Richman replied that was why he was asking for a statement, so that it becomes part of record and a representation of a commitment. A copy of the plans will be kept in the record so there will be something to refer back to and if the applicant is not building according to plans then they would have to go back for approval again. Fred Smith again stated concern, being, if there is not adequate overhead clearence and the trash can't be lifted out correctly they will leave it out in the open court area. We need to verify that the covered service area is the only place trash can be stored. Harvey said he didn't want the community to lose focus on the importance and benefits that can be generated to a community by a new lodging facility such as this one. Smith said the purpose of the PUD is to provide a beneficial use of the property, they have 14 acres to provide this facility, this is the chance to "do it right" and we think you should. Harvey asked for clarification of the status of the trash pickup. Grabel outlined the method of pickup on the plans. Bob Hartman, owner of 2 Mountain Queen units, told the commission that he had not been notified of the proceedings in a formal way. We joined with the other Monarch owners in opposing the original access to the service area. We are delighted with the developers changes to the service area, as proposed now, with the screening of the area from Monarch St. We assume that the landsc- aping will be appropriate. With the exception of that, we are concerned about any possible future changes or modificaations of the site plan of that development to the east of Monarch. He asked if there were any changes proposed. Harvey responded that the area of Mr. Hartman I s concern was part of the residential portion of the PUD which has been delayed, pending monitoring of the mud slide area on Aspen Mountain. After the monitoring is complete, that portion will come back before the commission. Joan Anderman, owner 700 Galena St. ,said she was pleased with developers. She asked if the area around her property was going to be discussed at this meeting. Joe Wells responded that the issue was open for comment. Harvey added that this meeting was held for public comment, on any issue. Wells said the area around her property has not changed from the original plans. Ron Erickson asked if there would be another public meeting before 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meetina Planning and Zoning Commission April 30. 1985 phase 2 of the project final platt approval. Richman said it would be renoticed. Erickson expressed concern that Summit Place is currently the only way an ambulance can get into the top of Monarch St. in the winter time. There is a ski way planned for that area and before final platt approval, I want to be sure that idea is considered. Richman said the road is not going to be built at this point in time, they are giving right-of-way to the city. Joe Wells outlined the current proposed landscaping plan, and phase lA tree relocation plan that was revised and submitted to the building inspector on April 9, 1985. Wells stated that it was approved by the building inspector. It is the plan under which we were proceeding to relocate, remove and retain trees. Generally, every tree within the site has to be relocated or lost because of the extensive undergrounding space under the facility. We were asked by Jim Holland to make every attempt to retain some addi tional trees and we made a commitment to try to move every tree possible off of the site. However, we have now moved every tree we can. We were told to move any more of the larger spruces would be lunacy, they are so big that they would not survive. It looks like we could lose up to an additional 7 major spruce trees off of the site. We have come to the commission for your suggestions and alternatives. Harvey asked what the largest tree that can be put somewhere ,for replant was. Wells replied that 4 spruces, between 20 and 40 feet in height had been moved. It is not the size of the tree that is the issue, but the difficulty of the location and the ability to get to it. Harvey asked what could be put back on the site when complete. Joe Wells responded they had been told you could get "prepared" 30 to 40 foot trees for relocation. John Doremus said, given the fact that the. trees have to be lost, the landscape architect doesn't want to put that particular kind of tree back. It is not in his master plan for landscaping. Having the choice, he would put in street trees that match other street trees in the plan. Not replace the large spruce tree, because it was there before, but to create a more unified landscape plan. Richman said he had conversations with the City Manager, the Chief Building Official, and the Parks Director and there are several complications with the tree issue. We have had a landscaping plan for months, which has been reviewed and commented on, which is not the same plan that has been presented tonight. Regardless of which plan was approved, apparently the people doing the tree relocations have not been following either plan. There are at least 2 trees on Monarch st. that were cut down that had no 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ,..... Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 30. 1985 approval. They claim that Jim Wilson had given approval to the plan, but it is not the same plan that Jim Wilson gave the approval to. We have a need to get some mitigation on trees that have been removed contrary to the approvals granted. We have the potential, beyond the 2 that have already been removed, for losing 5 more significant trees in the area. If we are going to look at replac- ement, I think we should look at a replacement schedule of at least 2 or 3 trees per tree lost. Harvey asked what treatment had been applied at preliminary PUD on landscaping. John Doremus answered they were to follow, as much as possible, Jim Holland's recommendations. That was to save 7 or 8 trees that we had planned to cut down. Harvey stated that the commission should stick to what was decided at preliminary, and leave Jim Holland in charge of approval of the landscape plan. Richman said we need to give Jim a plan and a chance to review and comment to his satisfaction. Joe Wells said their understanding was that Berridge Associates, applicants landscape architect, produced the version of the plan submitted tonight, shipped the plan to Henry Pederson, who took the plan to the Building Inspector. The Building Inspector approved the plan, there is a notation on the plan dated April 9, 1985. We want to get action from P&Z and Council as to what the tree relocation plan should be. We feel there' is an error, that some members of the team were assuming all they had to do was get the building inspectors sign-off and they could proceed with different plans. We don't want to do that. We want an action from this commission and Council that indicates what the final tree relocation plan is to be. Fred Smith commented that he had come home to find the trees were cut down. He went to the Building Department and there was a tree cutting application that had been approved. The building department gave me a copy of the official drawing, as submitted by the applicant. After looking at the drawfng, it appears that all of the trees that were to be retained were cut down. I agree that these big trees can not be saved, but I am upset about the trees that were cut from public right-of-way, presumably because of the underground excavation for the ballroom area. Why, with 14 acres, do they have to build this on the lot line of Monarch St. Mr. Smith reviewed the landscape plan given to him by the building department with the commissioners. Harvey said it was the stated position of the commission that Jim Holland be in charge of the tree dispositions, etc. so the applicant needs to go back to Jim Holland. 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS S~cial Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 30. 1985 Ms. Markalunas asked how large a spruce tree can be planted in the area to replace the trees that are cut down. Wells replied a properly prepared tree of 30 to 40 feet. Ms. Markalunas asked if the applicant was prepared to replace the trees that were cut. Wells responded that he would go back to the owner on that question. Harvey said he would like to see Jim Holland do some detective work and track back the plans and put his rubber stamp on the plan that he is approving, with his comments and suggestions and the applicants conformance to them. Both parties can come to a mutual sign-off on that plan. Harvey added that the supplemental resolution should clearly state that there should be this process of going through an established plan, signed-off on by both the applicant and Jim Holland. If work is being done on the trees right now, I think it should cease until this is done. Wells responded that work has already ceased. Richman asked for clarification as to whether the commission was requesting "comparable replacement" or "multiple smaller" for the trees in question. Harvey responded that if Jim Holland and the appl icants architects agree on a landscape plan for the enti re si te, which they f eel is both beneficial f or the ci ty and the project, we would not want to be in the way of that agreement by saying that on a particular site a particular tree has to be placed there. Richman said that it should be said that the trees that the commission expects to be replaced, that are now being removed, be replaced with trees of comparable size, where feasable. John Doremus said there was an error in Resolution 85-6, page 3, item 5, lines 4 and 5, refering to employee housing restrictions indexed at the time or prior to issuance of the building permit. We had anticipated that would occur prior to certificate of occupancy, not at the time of building. Harvey asked what the policy or precedent on this was. Richman replied the employee housing unit pact takes place at the time that the building is occupied. Harvey concurred. Mr. Doremus said Resolution 85-1, page 5, item 14, we don't think reads what we have agreed to, having encountered the Top of Mill problem. Richman noted that at the time it was applicable, the Top of Mill problem superseded that. Harvey asked if it was covered in other Resolutions. Richman replied 85-7 was the commissions comment to Council. Richman added that he agreed with Doremus, that preliminary approval has become effective for everything with the Top of Mill being witheld. Harvey asked if we were going to make corrections to the resolutions or create a new lO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 30. 1985 resolution. Richamn replied his intent was to create a new resolution for this meetings comments. Any action that needs to be taken is final platt action at this point. The commission agreed that Resolution 85-1, page 5, item 14 was misleading. Mr. Doremus said there were some minor changes in the parking configuration in Resolution 85-1, page 3, Section 2, item 3. Item B went from 54 to 55 spaces, Item C went from 19 to 18 spaces, Item E went from 22 to 23 spaces, Item F went from 12 to 13 spaces. The net resul twas 2 addi tional parking spaces, so the total should be changed from 349 spaces to 351 spaces. Perry Harvey closed the public hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 6:42 p.m. cf ~ U-/Ll~L 'C Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 11