Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19810407 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves rORM'G C.F.HOECHlB.B.1I: LeQ. Aspen Planning and zoning Commission April 7, 1981 Regular Meeting Olof Hedstrom called the meeting to order with members Hunt, Tygre, Blomquist, Pardee, Harvey, and Klar present. Commission's Comments Parker Quillen Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Roger Hunt noted that city property at the intersection of Highway 82 and Cemetery Lane is turning into a used car lot. Hunt asked the staff to look into that eyesore. Hunt stated he was upset about the ability to expand out there without any approvals. Sunny Vann, planning director, told the Commission this is a request to re-adjust a property line between lots 11 and 12, block 1, Red Butte subdivision. This was turned down on request of conceptual because of the request to create a third lot as a result of this lot line adjustment. The application was sub- mitted and turned down in the subdivision exception process. The application was submitted again as a full subdivision. The P & Z reviewed this at conceptual subdivision stage and also denied the application at this time. The denial was based on a policy decision and supported this through the general intent of the subdivision regulations. Vann told P & Z the application for the adjustment of the lot line complies with the basic subdivision regulations but this would have resulted in a circumvention of the growth management policy plan - creation of a third lot by the subdivision of two lots. The planning office drafted a resolution outlining the concerns of the P & z, which was taken to Council at the conceptual review. Council essentially agreed with the policy considera- tions: however, they felt the application was consistent the subdivision regulations as currently drafted. The city attorney advised an appropriate resolution could be drafted in which in exchange for approval of the project based on its compliance with the subdivision regulations, pending litigation could be dropped. There was some feeling on the part of Council that there may have been some misrepresentation on behalf of prior staff members. In light of this, Council approved the applica- tion at conceptual level. Council instructed the city attorney to draft a resolution, not removing the ability to pursue the policy issue at a later date. Council was also issuing a directive to P & Z of its desire to settle the litigation. ,vann pointed out this application is before P & Z for prelimin- ary plat. The resolution from Council is enclosed in the packet with review comments from the staff. The staff has found the application essentially to be in compliance with the subdivision regulations: ignoring the policy issue the P & Z was relying on the general intent of the subdivision regulations to deny this. The staff concurs with Council to resolve this issue and is recommending approval: however, the staff suggests this approval be predicated on the completion of some engineering requirements and, second, conditioning this approval with respect to policy but in the interest to resolve this situation and on the basis there may have been some misrepresentation, approving it. Hedstrom stated he wanted it clear that P & Z is not attempting to establish policy but is referring to the policy inherently stated in the subdivision regulations. The objection was that P & Z could not recommend approval of an action that was clearly thwarting the purpose of the regulations. City Attorney Taddune outlined in his memorandum that Council was using the occasion of approving this particular application so he could negotiate April 7, 1981 _.~ " Page Two a settlement of the lawsuit, which is currently pending. Hunt asked what is new in this application that it is back before P & z. Vann pointed out this is a full subdivision application and must come before P & Z at preliminary plat. Blomquist read from Section 20-5(d) "The lot lines established in such approved subdivision (that is Red Butte) shall not be altered by a conveyance of a part of such lots nor shall any part of lot be joined with a part of any other lot for conveyance or construction unless written application has been made to and approved by the planning commission after finding that the general purpose and purport of this chapter shall not be weakened by such change". Blomquist stated that Section 20-2 is Purpose and intent which includes such provisions as to safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider and provide consumer protection for the purchaser. Blomquist said a subdivision is filed for a long period of time; the people doing it, approving it and buying parts of it are all relying on the representations made. Blomquist said the purchasers reliance on the plat plus the covenants plus design in this subdivision are items that people should reasonably be allowed to rely on. Blomquist said this reasoning should be added to a P & Z resolution. Blomquist said he would vote to deny on the basis of the above arguments because he cannot find that the general purpose is not weakened when the general purpose is so specific to provide for consumer protection. Hunt agreed completely. Pardee asked if then-city attorney Stock confirmed what was represented. Vann told P & Z Stock did not address the issue of policy but that there was a physical mechanism in the Code that would allow this. Pardee said he understood that a lot line adjustment required some demonstration of hardship. Vann said this is not articu- lated in the Code; that is criteria that has been used in the past. Hunt said this has been to correct an error of survey, or hardship, or trade-off of land for the convenience of more space to a window; that has been basically the reasons the P & Z has allowed lot line changes in the past. Jon Seigle, representing the applicant, told P & Z when this first came to them, the objections were not with the land use considerations but the procedure that was followed. The minutes reflect what P & z's concerns were was the mechanism and pro- cedure followed did not require the applicant to go through growth management process. The preference of P & Z and a reason for denial was they wished to see the application go through growth management and compete for an allocation. The application then went to Council, who gave conceptual approval they had no problems with what the application was doing, the concept was fine. A minor reason was reliance on what the then- city attorney said. Seigle said he had a sworn testimony of Stock saying what he said he said. Seigle told P & Z his clients asked Stock if there was a procedure available to do what they wanted to do; Stock told them the procedure. Seigle told P & Z Council had asked the acting city attorney is what is being proposed illegal; is it permitted under the subdivision code. The answer was yes. Based upon that, Council made the determina- tion to approve the concept. Seigle said the concept has been approved; they are now at the preliminary plat stage. Seigle acknowledged the policy consid- erations. The applicant has dealt with those. The focus now is whether the applicant has complied with the set of criteria set forth in the preliminary plat section of the Code. Seigle pointed out the engineering department comments the plat is fine. The planning office and attorney have recommended approval. Seigle stated they have complied with this criteria. Seigle told the Commission there is a basis for the applicant obtaining the relief requested; what they were denied on was a policy consideration not really stated in the Code. Seigle stated the only thing at issue here is the moving of a lot line. It is \ , -,-,--_....,..-.....~.~,,---~...._'~.,.._.,-'_._...~-- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~ORM 'I C. F. HOECKfL a. e. II: l. co. April 7, 1981 P & Z Page Three trUe that the moving of that lot line will enable the applicant at some period in time to apply for an exemption from growth management to develop a third lot. Seigle said it is important that Council has made a statement to P & Z that this subdivision application ought to be approved in light of all the circum- stances. Seigle introduced a photograph into the record showing the vacant portion that will be developed. There is approxim~el: 330 feet along the road: across the road along approximately 250 feet there are six houses. Seigle pointed where there is one house proposed. Seigle told the Commission when they are done subdividing, the lots will be around 31,000 square feet, which will be bigger than 1/3 of the lots in the subdivision at the present time. Seigle told P & Z this subdivision is twenty years old and there have been additions to the subdivision since its original first filing. There has not been any amendments to the covenants to prevent resubdivision. Another reliance is zoning and the zoning permitted 28,000 square feet lots. Seigle told P & z he clients checked the covenants andc, the zoning. Seigle noted one objection this this application is that the house would block the view at the intersection. Seigle pointed out in a exhibit that the house would be "way over here". Seigle said was this application is attempting to do is not contrary to anything that has been done in this subdivision. Seigle said on objection to this is that it would change the character of the neighborhood and everyone will be doing this. Seigle stated this is a fallacy. The house was originally built next to a lot line with a lot of vacant space. Seigle's client owns the house next door and by putting the two lots together has 90,000 square feet with excess of 30,000 square feet which is vacant. Seigle pointed out how this could not be done in the rest of the subdivision due to the placement of houses. Seigle submitted to the record a letter sent to the neighbors to explain what his client was attempting to do (letter dated March 25, 1981). Seigle suggested Council has made a determina- tion that this is not a mattter, in light of all circumstances, that they want to litigate. Seigle stated the issue is there is nothing in the code to prohibit something and there's no policy addressing it. Seigle requested the Commission approve the application. Seigle stated he understood the policy concerns but this is not at the preliminary plat stage, which is a technical stage. The policy issue had its day in the city process. Hedstrom said the only issue is not the moving of the lot line: the Commission would be derelict if they failed to look beyond the specific item before then and failed to consider the result of this action. Blomquist read from the Council resolution "approve the preliminary presentation upon sufficient demonstra- tion that the application complies with the existing subdivision regulations". Blomquist stated the Commission has to find, before they approve this application, that the application complies with the existing regulations. Blomquist said his previous quotations indicates that it does not. The issue is the reasons of the P & Z at conceputal. Blomquist told the board based upon further information and the testimony of the hearing, the P & Z must find a sufficient demonstration that the application complies with the existing subdivision regula- tions. The provision of law is very simple: that the P & Z may only approve the adjustment of lot lines after finding "-""'~"""""';'-"'-.,...''''~'' ,...., ",...". ,,,.......,<.. ,.. April 7, 1981 Page Four "that the general purpose and be weakened by such change". Section 20-2. Vann read from is stated. purport of this chapter shall not Blomquist said the purpose is P & z's resolution, in which this Hedstrom opened the public hearing and entered into the record communications from Nick McGrath and from Roland Fisher. From Roland Fisher, "I have had a home in the Red Butte subdi- vision for 14 years. When I bought the lot, I accepted the approved plat and expected that the plan would be followed through. I've just been told the City Council has given a Mr. Quillen approval to turn his two lots into three for three homes. This does not conform with the plan under which I made my original purchase. You can understand that this is very disturbing. The rules appear to be changing in the middle of the game, and in general that is wrong. This opens the door for another plat provision and others to disturb the nature of the subdivision; a clever scheme to buy two lots and end up with three, avoiding the original plat and caring not about the increase of house density for the neighbors does not seem reasonable for the good of the area. I fully expect you to deny the change. My neighbors feel the same way. Please read this letter from me and enter it into the record. Bil Dunaway, property owner in Aspen and resident of pitkin County, reminded P & Z that the Charter and state law provides for P & z, and that it is an independent body that makes its own decisions. Dunaway said he did not feel the Council has business telling the P & Z what decision to make. Hedstrom said he felt the P & Z members are aware of this and said he felt the Commission was of an independent mind. Roland Fisher, author of the letter, said he had studied the plat and covenants carefully. Fisher said he counts on people like P & Z to see that he is not the victim of others. Fisher told the Commission that their covenants read only one detached single family dwelling shall be placed on one of the platted lots, and Fisher bought his lot with that understanding. The owner of lot 12 put the house where he wanted, within the covenants. Fisher stated a letter from Quillen's lawyer refers to a vacant lot; there is no vacant lot, not in the category Risher is talking about. Fisher stated that land had been built upon, according to the covenants. Nick McGrath, representing the Richardsons and Penny Evans, told P & Z he disagreed with Seigle's characterization of the nature of the application and with what the City Council did. McGrath told P & Z his clients have come into this matter late. Ms. Evans and Richardson had talked to the planning office and someone told them not to worry, this will not be approved as people cannot split lot lines and build other houses. McGrath said he was not retained until after the Quillens filed a law suit and the Council indicated they might wish to settle. McGrath opined a party can, and this is bolstered by Blomquist's quotation of the subdivision code, rely upon an existing plat. McGrath noted Seigle pointed out a person can rely upon zoning; McGrath stated this is the not the law and should not be the policy. McGrath told the P & Z there are other lots that could have the same idea, follow the Quillen example, divide into three lots and build another house. McGrath told P & Z the applicant had stated earlier they had no other reason for chang- ing the lot line other than trying to get an exemption from the GMP and further density. McGrath said the subdivision laws exist for consumer protection regardless of the fact that there may be lots larger and smaller than the applicant's. The plat is of record and show lot 12 as being a large lot with one house on this. McGrath stated the P & Z should not permit this subdivision through the device of changing a lot line. " , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'G C.F.HOECKELB.B.II:L.CO. April 7, 1981 P & Z Page Five Hunt said in his history on the P & Z was that when members saw lot line changes that could be for no other purpose, even though it was not announced but there would be a buildable lot, to deny the request. McGrath agreed that history is clear and the P & Z has the power to deny and that power is defensible. Marvin Jordan, resident across the street, said the corner of Red Butte and Cemetery Lane should be considered. This is a very accute angle. people spin out on this corner. It is necessary that drivers down the hill be able to see across the open space to make sure no cars are coming. Jordan pointed out that children wait for school buses and people wait for city buses there. If a house is built on this area, it is going to possibly obstruct the view. Jordan told P & Z when he bought the property six years ago, he relied on the existing plats for this subdivision. Jordan had discussions with the person who owned the open house pasture, and has been leasing that horse pasture for his horses. Jordan said he felt it was thoroughly wrong to go changing the rules at this stage of the game. Parker Quillen told the Commission there is no proposal to change the rules of the covenants except those proposed by Mr. Grath's clients. Quillen outlined the history of their purchase of these two lots; originally interested in lot II, block I, the deal fell through, offered the house next door, took it up, offered the house they were originally interested in. ~ that time, their broker told them they could combine both lots, II and 12, and create a third lot. Quillen said he did not have the money and did not think it could be done. Their broker checked the covenants, checked with his attorney and with the city attorney. Quillen said in every case there were no prohibitions to combining these two lots in our effort to apply for a third. Quillen said he believed one could manage his own life and property as he sees fit unless one is interfering with the lives or others or violating an area of regulations. Charles wirth told the P & Z he, at one time, owned all the lots in the subdivision. Over a period people were looking for the kind of place it is down there. Some of the lots are big and some smaller; everybody seemed happy with the size in order to live down there. wirth said the subdivision has had some problmes keeping things they way they are, but they have had a certain amount of cooperation from the city on regulations, etc. wirth said he and the people in the subdivision have more or less relied on the origianl plat and on the support that they have had from the bodies that regulate this to keep things the way they are. wirth said he felt everyone that lives down there depends on these things staying the same. Wirth said no one else has attempted to expand the number of lots. wirth told the P & Z this subdivision was of the out- skirts of town. People were allowed to have horses or whatever. The intent was to have children and room to roam around in. Blomquist asked Wirth when he was planning the subdivision and drawing the lot ines, were there reasons inherent in the land, flood danger or sun angles, that prompted him to lay it out in a certain way. Wirth said he did spend a good deal of time going over this, becoming familiar with the flat pieces of ground. The lots were made larger on the inside so that people could have horses. There was no intent at all of allow- ing to be resubdivided or shortened in size. Robert Pars told the Commission he felt that Quillen is improv- April 7, 1981 ,.....'",.,." -, "._ ."........',._.,.,.w~._.._..-.-.~ " ,....~_..""-_..-.'~,,,....__.~t."'..J. I. Page Six ing the development by doing what he feels is right. Pars said by looking at the work that has been done there has been a lot of good improvements in the development. Pars said Quillen is increasing the quality in that area and building and improving his home. Marty Kelleher, owner of lot 5, said they bought the first lot in the Red Butte subdivision from Mr. Wirth. At that time, the subdivision was staked out so there and there would only be so many lots. Ms. Kelleher said she thinks the number of lots was 12 and it would remain just 12 building sites in the subdivision. Ms. Kelleher told the Commission that the house across the street had been for sale many times and people have looked into putting another building on that big employ lot. Whenever someone has checked into this, for some reason it could not be done. Ms. Kelleher said she hoped the Commission would oppose the change. There were no further comments. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. Seigle brought up the word "intention" used in the memorandum by the city attorney, it is not their intention. The word is what is the intention of the subdivision ordinances. This is where the legal problem has arisen, and it is because there has been no further definition of that section which prohibits or directs this question before you. Seigle stated there has been a lot of talk about people relying on the pasture; what is their reliance based on. It is not in the protective covenants nor does it appear on the plat. And it does not appear in the zoning Seigle proposed, because of the controvery of this issue, to let Council decide. Council has indicated their initiat concern and direction, and it seems appropriate to give it back to Council. Harvey asked if the law suit was still pending; Taddune answered it is. Harvey said he did not feel he could vot on any applica- tion while there was a hammer of a lawsuit over his head. Harvey said he felt very strongly in this instance because this suit was filed before the exhaustion of administrative remedies was through the system. Seigle stated the suit was filed after a denial through the exception procedure. P & Z is the final authority on that. Vann stated there was a further administrative process to seek. Blomquist stated the ordinance is cleark, the findings that have to be made here, the resolution that was passed previously was probably incomplete or not quite clear. P & Z ought to clear up that act. The Council resolution requested this approval was very clear in stipulating that y & Z should find that their denial was inconsistent with the subdivision regula- tions, and the findings Blomquist has from the regulations indicate that is not the case. Taddune read from the Zoning and Land Use Control and told P&Z there is a question of concern about the result that will eventually be accomplished. Whether or not the city's subdivi- sion regulations are comprehensive enough is a legla issue that the court would have to decide in determining whether or not the actions of the P & Z are capricious. Pardee said the Commission' position has certain been as shown in the resolution that the intent of the subdivision has not been met and the portion of the Code that Blomquist read lays it out very clearl~ Pardee said the commission has not had any demonstration of hard- ship. Both of those are the basis of denial. Pardee said this is a recorded plat which other people have relied on and it is not in the public interest to move it. Pardee said he could not remember a time when P & Z has moved a lot line and not asked if this would increase the development potential. , , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 'I C.F.HOECKELO.B.&L.CO. Page Seven April 7, 1981 P & z pitkin Reserve Conceptual PUD Submission Koval Residential Bonus Overlay Rezoning/70:30 subdivision Exception Hunt said there is nothing indicated by the applicant that gives him any reason to recommend approval of this subdivision. This subdivision is only the establishment of moving the lot line and there is no foundation or reason for moving that lot line. Anderson agreement. Ms. Klar said the issue gets into density, the objectives are a lot broader in terms of the whole community and not just this subdivision. Lardee stated he is against this application; he does not believe it complies with the intention of the subdivision, referencing Section 20-5. No hardship has been determined. It may be legal to apply; however, there is no guarantee that this body, which has discretion, would approve it. Ms. Tygre agreed with the Board members and felt that Blomquist's point is well taken. Hedstrom said his feeling is with most of the others. Blomquist noted the charm of this town is the variations between subdivision, each has their little character and different style. This has to be protected, it has been whittle away at and getting more uniform. Hunt moved to have the planning office draft a resolution along the lines of 81-1 including the statements brought up by Blonquist including quoting section 20-5(d) and the general purpose as further identified in Section 20-2, including the standards and including the consumer protection for the purchasel and the fact P & z finds it does not meet the subdivision regu- lations; seconded by Tygre. Pardee said he would like to review the resolution. Roll call vote; Harvey, aye; Hunt, aye; Klar, aye; Tygre, aye; Anderson, aye; Pardee, aye; Hedstrom, aye. Motion carried. Hedstrom requested the applicants to accept tabling this to a later meeting. P & Z scheduled a special meeting April 14, 1981 because of timing and the work load of the P & Z. Ferrell submitted for the record there was a complete conceptual plan on file with the planning office January 29, 1981. Anderson moved to table the pitkin Reserve Conceputal PUD submission to a special P & Z meeting Tuesday, April 14, 1981, at 5:00 p.m.; seconded by Pardee. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Klar suggested the planning office work on legislation to cover lot line adjustments. Vann told the P & Z his staff is working on this. Jack Johnson, planning office, told P & Z this is an applica- tion for rezoning to residential bonus; growth management plan exemption; 70/30 application; and subdivision exception for the purpose of condominiumization. Johnson said this project is located at 135 East Cooper with current zoning of R/MF. This matter was before P & Z February 17; P & Z requested the applicant to modify the site plan to accommodate a l:l parking ratio. On March 17, planning office requested a continuance of this item due to a notice deficiency to this evening. Johnson reminded the Commission there was public comment at the February 17 meeting; comments were to the effect that parking was inadequate. There was also concern about the changing character of "Victorian Aspen". April 7, 1981 .,- ,...". 111_.4'41 ...-.-...,.".,....."~",. '0 Page Eight Johnson told the Board this application requests a three-story eleven, one-bedroom project. Eight of these units will be deed restricted to the moderate income category. Johnson reiterated the four items being requested. Johnson said the referral comments are basically not out of context with what the applicants propose. These include some water line improvements and deed restrictions to moderate income category, compliance with the appropriate code provisions. The engineering department reviewed the revised site plan and the parking. They found the parking to be adequate; the curb cuts will have to be to code. The planning office suggests the the rezoning to residential bonus overlay for this project is appropriate; it does trade off 50 per cent density in exchange for employee housing. This application complies with the 70/30 ordinances. The planning office feels this is an appropriate location for REO because the surrounding property is R/MF and there is a lot of lodge structure in the vicinity. The planning office does have an objection to the area and bulk requirements; the applicant will have to modify one, one-bedroom unit to a studio in order get the the proper relationship of lot are to unit size. Johnson pointed out the park dedication fee is discretionary on city Council's part. At the February 17 P & Z meeting, there was discussion about recommending a waiver of part or all of these fees because it is a valid employee housing project. The planning office recommends approval of rezoning to R/MF/RBO; approval of exemption from the growth management plan for purposes of 70/30 deed restricted housing; and approval of subdivsion exception to condominiumize; and approval of waiving conceptual before Council and preliminary before P & Z. Johnson suggested in lieu of full subdivision procedure, the other three requests go before Council at first and second hearing. The conditions placed on these recommendations are (I) provide improvements to the water system as requested, (2) restrict eight units to the moderate income category, (3) either eliminate one bedroom altogether or modify it to a studio to comply with the area and bulk requirements, (4) and P & Z consider the appropriateness of the park dedication fees. Andy Hecht, representing the applicant, said his client is excited about the 70/30 process. Hecht said he felt that the client could come out as well financially with just a duplex. Hedstrom stated just because there are large buildings sur~ rounding this lot is no justification for building another large structure. The mixture of large and small and old and new is one of the assets of this community; these assets are being destroyed. Hedstrom said he felt a lot is being given up in the name of employee housing. Legislation that is on the books may have to be reconsidered. Pardee asked about the existing Victorian on the lot. Hecht answered his client has purchased a lot in the West End and may move the house there. Hunt objected to the impacts on parking and the streets and to the removal of the Victorian, which eliminates a neighborhood mix. Hedstrom opened the public hearing. Harvey asked if the engineering department was satisfied with the parking plan. Johnson said they had answered back they were. It is prefer- able to keep cars out of view but this site cannot accommodate this. Harvey said he felt the density it too great; also, the P & Z should relook the RBO. Gus Hallum, owner of Deep Powder lodge, said this would move from a single family residence on 30,000 square feet to eleven families on 6,000 square feet. Hallum said this neighborhood is very sensitive to anything that would deteriorate the , , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves April 7, 1981 P & Z Page Nine FORM" C.F.HOECKELB.B.II: l. co. tourist experience and quality of the neighborhood. Hallum said the one to one parking ratio is not realistic. There is no parking on the street at present. There will be problems with snow removal: there will be congestion problems. Norma Dolle, Snow Queen lodge preserve crucial Victorians. opposed to overbuilting. The owner, said they are trying to Ms. Dolle stated she is strongly growth must be controlled. Larry Lettingham, neighbor, is strongly opposed to the increased density. There will be parking problems. Jim Riley, neighbor, said he felt there were enough beds in this section of town. Marge Riley, owner of the Little Red Ski Haus, said the P & z and Council have been helpful in the "Save the victorian" movement. There are many supporters in town and a lot of sympathy from residents. Ms. Riley said she felt strongly not to lose this Victorian. Debbie Aiken, resident of the premise, pointed out that Ordinance 16 directs the P & z to look at the area and bulk and prefers that these new developments be placed in under- developed areas. Bernard Utcheneck presented picture of this particular Victorian and told the Board that Mr. Koval has let this house deteriorate. The HPC has recommended that this house not be moved. The "Save the Victorian" committee circulated a petition to get on the ballot to add to Ordinance 16 to have all victorians reviewed. The committee has over 500 signatures who agree this would damage the charm and quality of Aspen. Jeff Sachs, representing the Aspen Growth Management founda- tion, said this is a combination of economics and dumb laws. If Aspen does not annex any more land, there is not much land left to build on. The 70/30 law allows a developer to go outside the growth management plan and build, provided there is employee housing. There is also a residential bonus overlay, which doubles the density. The potential for what can go on is abhorant. This will go far beyond this particu- lar application. These laws should be changed. Andy Hecht pointed out that Ordinance 16 was passed to help the employee housing problem. The committee has lost employee units. James Barrash, attorney from Colorado Springs, pointed out that this Victorian is not the issue - it is going, either to the West End or to be demolished (Victorian Heaven). Mr. Koval has gone to lengths to comply with the Aspen laws. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. Welton Anderson pointed out 24.10-9(a) establisffithe review criteria, one of which is the appropriateness for the area. Other criteria are architectural design, bulk and density. Anderson said he did not find this bulk consistent with the neighborhood, nor is the structure as designed architecturally appropriate. Joan Klar said there is a mix of community values here. people are in favor of saving the Victorians: the community wants to take a crack at solving the employee April 7, 1981 -"'--."'..._............ _.,-"..,.,,~_ . 1 .__.,'~~,_..-4..._,....~'.~"..e.,"' .... ...,.~"-- Page Ten Hotel Jerome Conceptmal PUD Submission housing problem. This is the first project of this type on line, the P & Z should take a critical look at this. Lee Pardee said it is important to realize this Victorian is gone. There can be, by right, a duplex with the same foot- print. The Commission has to decide whether they want a duplex or employee housing. People are for employee housing but not in their neighborhood. Pardee said if this is approved, it should be low income housing rather than moderate. Pardee recommended giving a break on the park dedication fee and waiving 8/11's. Jasmine Tygre said the Victorian is really not a question in this particular application. Ms. Tygre said she felt the density of the proposed project is too great and would prefer a replacement structure because it would have less impact. Ms. Tygre pointed out as the 70/30 projects are coming through there are few low income projects. Most of them are moderate and middle, which are hard to afford and not perhaps what the community needs. Roger Hunt stated there is nothing in the code that says the P & Z has to allow up to the maximum density. Hunt said this project is unsatisfactory to him density and bulk-wise. Perry Harvey agreed with Hunt. Al Blomquist agreed with Ms. Tygre. Blomquist suggested a duplex with a caretaker unit. Hedstrom said he sided strongly with Ms. Tygre's statements. Pardee said it is important to reflect that the site and the project may not be applicable to the neighborhood and may not meet all the review criteria. This does not say that the REO and 70/30 are not valid pieces of legislation and theydon't serve a purpose in the right situation. Anderson moved to deny the Koval residential bonus overlay rezoning because it does not meet the review criteria of 24.10-9 in regards to the appropriateness of the application for the neighborhood, architectural design, bulk and density and parking; seconded by Ms. Tygre. Harvey said the density of the site is related to the parking. If the parking were underground to minimize the impact on the neighborhood, he would feel differently about this project. Hunt said another alternative would be scaling down the whole project. Pardee stated many of the adjacent landowners have no on-site parking. Hunt, aye; Harvey, aye; Klar, aye; Tygre, aye; Pardee, nay; Anderson, aye; Hedstrom, aye. Motion carried Alan Richman, planning office, reminded the Commission this was before them previously; they raised several concerns which the applicant and staff have been trying to work out. The proposal is for 34 rooms in the old hotel and 76 new rooms, with 4 employee units. The floor area ratio is greater than 2.25:1. The request involves rezoning to CC/pUD. The applicant is going to request historic designation from HPC which would allow exemption from the GMP. Concerns from previous P & Z meeting include parking, employee housing, circulation, square footage mixture, density, and the degree of inconvenience from the construction. Richman researched the parking and parking studies and suggests 25 guest spaces and 35 employee spaces. The planning office would press for the parking to be at the Rio Grande if a facility is built. In lieu of that structure, the P & Z should request the applicant lease a site and provide valet parking service. , , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOllll11 C.F.HOECKELB.8.1l: L. CD. April 7, 1981 P & Z Page Eleven Regarding employee housing, the hotel employee 65 people and will increase this by IS. Richman suggested that the entire new increment be housed; the applicant is willing to become involved in arrangements for this. It is important that the P & Z outline to the applicant the paramters for parking and housing rather than an exact solution. As far as the circulation, P & Z was concerned about a Main street entrance and suggested a MainlMil1 street entrance. The Main street entrance is much preferable to the applicant from security and employee needs. There is a pull off on Main to the entrance. Hunt pointed out Main is very narrow there and is difficult to negotiate now. The engineering department suggested no degree of inconven- ience would be suitable in this area and recommended all construction materials be stored on site. The applicant has not voiced objection to this restriction. Richman recommended P & Z approve the conceptual PUD for purposes of expanding the Hotel Jerome with conditions. Pardee said 60 parking spaces is far too low. Blomquist suggested the applicant re-investigate underground parking rather than the hassel of dealing with the city on a transpor- tation center at the Rio Grande. Harvey said the number of parking spaces is all right as long as it is in conjunction with a limosine service. Ms. Klar said at this stage the number of parking is okay. The 60 parking spaces was agreed upon by P & Z, except for Pardee. (Anderson and Tygre left). The applicant has proposed four deed restricted units and that the entire increment of new employees be housed by the applicant in some arrangement worked out with the housing department. Harvey stated he would like to see as many as possible housed on the site, in the area of 12 to 14 people. Blomquist said if this off-site housing is tied to the project, it is immaterial how many people are housed, as long as it is close to town. The Commission decided to leave it to acceptable to the housing office. Item 3, the storage of construction materials on the site, is acceptable to the applicant. Hunt said they ought to be allowed to use Bleeker street like any other construction in town. They applicant has agreed to install a trash compactor. Blomquist asked it be defined as inside the loadinc bay. The applicant has agreed to install a new sidewalk, curb and gutter along Main. If any damage is created to the new sidewalk on Mill, they will fix it. Harvey said at preliminary, the P & Z should have a definitive parking plan, empleyee housing plan, circulation plan and a mass, bulk, height, and use of space. This is the last time the P & Z will have to see this application. Pardee pointed out this will be exempted from the GMP if it is designated an historic structure. This loophole ought to be closed. Klar and Harvey argued some historical structures are worth saving in order to preserve and allow an expansion to justify the maintenance and renovation of the structure. Harvey moved to recommend approval of the Hotel Jerome conceptual PUD conditioned upon the items delinated in the planning office memorandum of April I, 1981, with the additions made by the Board. These are with 60 parking spaces, 3 limosines, an option to underground the parking, .~"" H L tiI;"~'H" ." April 7, 1981 Page Twelve allowing the hotel to use Bleeker street during construction, that the trash compactor be in the loading zone, and language for a definitive review at preliminary plat, seconded by Hunt. All in favor, motion carried. John Gilmore said the conditions appear to be satisfactory and as they plan and draw more, he will be more specific. Code Amendment Employee Units in nonconforming Lodges Alan Richman explained this is back to P & Z as a resolution of approval. The change was heard at the last meeting. Presently, a lodge is allowed a 700 square foot expansion in certain zones. It has been recommended to allow the expansion in all zones and to make this a conditional use in all the zones. P & Z requested additions; that the deed restricted units must be retained as a portion of the common elements of the lodge; that the units be solely available to the employees of the lodge. These have been added. Hunt moved to adopt Resolution 81-5 as written; seconded by Klar. Blomquist asked that the amendment to rent solely to lodge employees be stricken. Lodge owners ought to have the option to rent to other employees at restricted rent. Richman said the concern was in the enforcability as well as impacts on neighborhoods. All in favor, with the exception of Blomquist. Motion carried. Dietsch Subdivision Exception Richman told P & Z this is for purposes of condominiumizing. It is a lot located on Lake avenue in the R-6 zone, it is a little less than 12,000 square feet. There was recently a lot line adjustment for this and the lot next door. The lot was created in 1977 and pre-dates the GMP. The proposed duplex would be allowed and the historic structure will be incorporated. Planning office is recommended this request with three conditions; (I) necessary corrections are made on the plat, (2) six month minimum leases, and (3) insure that the WoganlJacobsen be recorded prior to this. Gideon Kaufman pointed out that the structures are not designed yet so that they cannot draw the total plans before the Council meeting. Richman said that condition could be stricken from the engineering department memorandum. Harvey moved to recommend subdivision exception for the Dietsct proposed duplex, lot 17, Shaw and WPW joint venture subdivi- sion conditioned upon the applicant making the necessary corrections to the plat to conform to the engineering depart- ment's memorandum of March 23, 1981 deleting 4(a) of that memo; conditioned upon the applicant agreeing to restrict the units to six month minimum leases under Section 20-22; the applicant insuring that the WoganlJacobsen plat is recording to final recordation of this; seconded by Pardee. All in favor, motion carried. Harvey moved to adjourn at 8:45 p.m.; seconded by Klar. All in favor, motion carried. City Clerk