Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19831018 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18, 1983 fORM" c. F. ~OECKEL B. 8. a. L. co. The meeting of the Planning and zoning Commission was called to order at 5:05 p.m. Commissioners Tygre, Fallin, Pardee, White, Hunt, and Harvey were present. ~ -~ ~:- Commissioners' Comments Approval of Minutes Public Hearing Shadow Mountain Timeshare Roger Hunt said that he had a comment in the form of a question concerning the next adgenda. It appeared to Roger that a special meeting was suddenly considered mandatory. Mr. Hunt said that he was under the impression that the by-laws considered only regular meetings to be mandatory. David White informed the Commission that he was having Alan Richman on his show on Grass Roots the morning of October 19, to talk about the meeting. Alice Davis, planning, told the Commission that on October 17, the City Council approved some amendments to the timesharing ordinance at the first reading. The Council would like to send the ordinance back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and have the Commission process it as soon as possible so that Council can review the ordinance at the public hearing during the first meeting in December. Alice said that in order for the Commission to accommodate this request a work session would be required. Ms. Davis suggested a work session be held on Tuesday November 1, and a special meeting be held on November 15, 1983. Regular meetings will be held on November 8, and November 22, 1983. Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes of March 8, 1983 with the following corrections: that eith be changed to eight, that deolish be changed to demolish and that Jasmine Tygres' name be added to list of Commissioners present. Jasmine Tygre seconded the motion. All in favor. However, because of two abstentions there was no quorum. Roger Hunt moved to table the minutes until the next hearing. Jasmine Tygre seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. Gary Esary, attorney, explained to the Commission that on October 17, 1983, City Council passed a resolution directing administrative delay in the Planning and Building departments in the processing of applications for timeshare approval. Council also passed, on the first reading, an ordinance creating a six month moratorium on the acceptance of all timeshare applications. Gary said that this would indicate that Council was requesting the Planning and zoning Commission not to proc.ess further timeshare applications presented to the commission. Mr. Esary recommended that the commission open the public hearing and table the matter for one month in order to give Council time to act on the moratorium ordinance. If Council passes the moratorium ordinance the commission will be asked to table the application for an additional five months until the moratorium period has ended. Gary Esary told the Commission that he had contacted Mr. Andy Hecht, attorney for the applicant and gave him several alternatives which included accepting the tabling of the applciation, disputing the tabling at the public hearing, or withdrawing the application. Mr. Hecht indicated to Gary that he had no in~est in with- drawing the application. Mr. Hecht was advised of the tabling and indicated that he would act accordingly. Gary noted that Andy Hecht was not present at the meeting. Bill , applicant, was however present at the meeting and asked why the application was being tabled for one month. Mr. Esary explained that one month would give the City Council time to act on the moratorium ordinance and that the application was being tabled on the basis of the Shadow Mountain Timeshare (cont) Public Hearing New Business Abetone GMP Exemption " -2- moratorium resolution. When Council passes the moratorium ordinance Gary will ask that the application be tabled for five additional months. He is asking that it be tabled for one month now because applications have to be tabled to a "date certain" and it is not known for sure if Council will pass the moratorium ordinance. Gary also said that tabling the application for five months is not definite, though he anticipates that it will be tabled for five months; at the end of the one month period he may only ask that it be tabled for an additional month depending on Councils' decision. Perry Harvey opened the public hearing. Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing and to table action on the Shadow Mountain timeshare project to November 22, 1983 at the request and effect of the City Council on the basis of their action on a resolution for a six month moratorium. Jasmine Tygre seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. Colette Penne of the Planning office informed the Commission that Paul Ruben, representative for the applicant, had come to her at pre-application stage and asked if Abetone Restaurant would be able to put a glass atrium roof over the space now used for outside dining. Colette told Mr. Ruben that it was possible to get an exemption from GMP for a small(under 500 square feet) expansion of floor area ratio(FAR). The exemption criteria were reviewed and it was thought that the applicant could meet those criteria. Mr. Ruben made the application and after reviewing the application Colette stated in her memo to the Commission dated October 18, 1983, that the applicant did substantially meet the criteria for a GMP exemption. After the memo was written, produced and sent out to Commission members in the packets, Colette Penne recieved a memo from the Building Department indicating that the building was over FAR and therefore non-conforming. Thus, the building cannot be expanded. Colette stated that she should have checked this out in the pre-application stage and that it was an oversight on her part. Colette informed the applicant of the situation saying that the application should not have been accepted in the first place and offered to return the application fee. Colette also offered to explain the situation to the Commission and remove the application from the adgenda. The applicant is unhappy with this because he feels that the solution is not detrimental and has some questions as to whether it is in fact an increase in floor area ratio. The applicant was at the meeting to address the Commission. There is "a light at the end of the tunnel" from the applicants point of view in that the Board of Adjustment, last week, took action at the Red Onion in a case that is not exactly analogous but one in which the Board allowed some space on the addition to be glassed over, However the space was not to be used for commercial square footage. Paul Ruben told the Commission that he felt that he could make a compelling case to rebut the fact that it does extend the floor area ratios. Mr. Ruben told the Commission that the plans had changed some and pointed out that he had gone over the FAR with the planning office and was led to believe that it would not be a problem. Paul Ruben then read from the Municipal Code section 24-11.2 A. Mr. Ruben said that if he went back to measuring the floor area ratio under section 24-3.7 ordinance ll_it states that ventilating shafts and courtyards are areas that don't count as FAR. It is Mr. Rubens' contention that the part of the property in question which has been leased to Abetone since they have RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18, 1983 FORM '0 C. F. ~OE(KH 8. B. & L. ~O. Abetone GMP Exemption(cont.) been there is not in fact a courtyard, a courtyard being an architectural element of open space. According to City Code open space can not be more than ten feet below grade and the property in question is 10.3 feet below grade. Mr. Ruben said that the property in question is an area that is enclosed on all sides, the roof is currently open and it has been used historically as commercial floor area. It should have been included in FAR to this point. Paul Ruben pointed out that there were several discrepancies in the code as in the non-conforming structure portion of the code and is allowed from the stand point that it does not add to the non-conformity if in fact it is an existing commercial, retail area. As far as the project itself (the FAR) is concerned Mr. Ruben said he could make a case and show the Commission drawings and data that show that it will alleviate problems of standing water and snow. Mr. Ruben said that it will be kept virtually the way it is now with movable glazing. The area in question will not only meet its own needs passivly, with a passive solar system, but it will either add 95,000 BTU's a day to the existing structure or 230,000 BTU's a day depending on whether movable insulation is desirable on an economic basis. The redaurant, which is being remodeled on the inside, will have 60 fewer seats in the winter when this proposed ~&Qi~~t~ is in place. Thus, according to Mr. Ruben, the impact on parking and the impact of employees is less with the new design of the resaurant. Mr. Ruben thought that including his argument in the FAR would save the applicant the money, time and heartache of going to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Ruben reiterated that there were a number of discrpancies in the code as to what commercial floor area i~canct~~hgt floor area ratio. i:Sl~ J:n1,o:th-eorl:@Qrdil" ii0th~coappi!icaht.,__bllilt..- part of the project ,~: under a horizantal protrusion the applicant would not even have to face the Commission. There are, accorcing to Paul Ruben, large portions of the building under horizantal protrusions that could never be expandeded but which legally could be expanded. Mr. Ruben felt that in a number of ways the co~~ission had the legal grounds to grant an exemption from the GMP and that it is a compelling argument for the applicant to get the right to do the project. Perry Harvey asked if the patio was classified as open space in the original approval of the building. Colette Penne said that it didn't qualify as the definition of open space states that open space can not be more than 10 feet below grade. Colette explained that ordinance #19,building, required 25% (percent) open space in the C-l zone thus the courtyard under discussion could not be "counted" because it is farther below grade than the definition allows. The original plan did not include the courtyard as open space. Perry then asked if the courtyard was counted as part of the FAR. Colette said that she didn't know how it could have counted as FAR because there is no roof over the area and it has been leased as commercial footage. Colette also pointed out that the C-l zone allows a 1:1 FAR and the current FAR on this building ~s 1,83:1. Perry then pointed out that buildings.:;bUilt.:;l:lefQJ::e~1977.:ccan~remQdel and reconstruct if there is no expansion of the commercial FAR. Perry said that he was trying to determine what that space was catalog~ed as originally. If it was not open space and it was not part of the building what was it? If the space was originally , , -4- Abetone GMP Exemption (cont.) then there are grounds for exemption but if it was originally part of the 25% open space then it is questionable whether or not there are grounds for exemption. Jim Wilson of the Building Department told the Commission that there are some areas in the zoning code which are not clear. Mr. Wilson informed the Commission that it doesn't have to be either FAR or open space. "This is not an either or situation" said Mr. Wilson. Bill Drueding also of the Building Department told the Commission that they would have to go back to the original building plans and see what information they could come up with. There is nothing in the plans that show there is still a maintenance of the 25% open space requirement. If the area is still regarded as open space than the roof over the area defeats the word "deck". Mr. Dreuding said that he would do his best to determine what they can from the original plans as soon as possible. Roger Hunt thought that there was a contractual agreement between Don Fliesher and the City Council. Roger suggested going back to those agreements. Perry Harvey stated that the on-site plan had to show building footprint, and the open space that was figured to arrive at the 25% requirement. Perry said that he didn't know whether the Commission could make a decision on taking an action. Perry said that the Commission had three choices; they could act on it, they could table it, or they could table it pending Board of Adjustment review. Paul Ruben stated that the courtyard was tied to the leasable space of the restaurant and was a dining courtyard. , said that the Commission cannot increase the FAR, rather the Commission must determine if the area was originally zoned FAR, not open space. Paul Ruben felt that even if, whenever they figured FAR, the area wasn't included in FAR then the fact that they didn't include the area in FAR was a mistake. Lee Pardee thought the question would be determined by the agreement with the City, on what square footage of commercial space was allowed, "taking with it plans". If there is the square footage of the building plus the courtyard then the Commission knows that it was originally included as commercial space and "we have a simple answer". Colette Penne said that if in fact research shows that the area was part of the FAR then there is no reason to go through the procedure. Paul Ruben said that he would like to point out one other thing. It seemed to Mr. Ruben that there should be mechanism that deals with criteria regardless of FAR. Perry Harvey saicl that the Commission was not empowered to give variances to the code. Esary pointed out the Board of Adjustment requires a hardship to grant a variance, and this can be hard to show. Harvey said the applicant should review the determination with the building department and planning office regarding the original designation of this space. If it is designated as part of the FAR, they can get a building permit. If this was designated part of the 25 per cent open space, it has to go to the Board of Adjustment. If there is a way for P & z to act upon this, they will. Hunt moved to table this what the staff finds, if seconded by Ms. Fallin. to a date uncertain depending upon the P & Z needs to act upon this; All in favor, motion carried. ~ , . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM ~~ C. F. H OECKfL 8. 8. l> l. ~~. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission -5- October 18, 1983 Resolution - 1983 GMP Commercial Colette Penne, planning office, presented ment in written form. This will go on to had no changes, additions or deletions. this 1983 GMP allot- Council. The P & Z Hunt moved to approve Resolution 83-10; seconded by White. All in favor, motion carried. Reconsideration of Andrews/Zebra production (separate sheets. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 C.F.HOECKELB.A.&L.CO. REGULAR MEETING PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18, 1983 ANDREWS - RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS Hunt said that he thought both Andrews and Zebra productions conditional use permits would have the same requirements. Harvey said the Commission should review the Andrews' case first, then, and Zebra after that. He continued that it was coming back to the Commission due to the onerous condition of the 3-hour fire wall. Luke Ferguson, attorney representing the Andrews, said that he appreciated the time the P & Z had devoted to this case, and that there were 4 reasons for coming back to the P & Z at this time. He said that the first reason goes to something Hunt raised at the outset, which was 3 hour fire resistant walls and the first condition imposed on this project. He said that this 3 hour fire wall condition was within the Commission's power, in order to preserve the availability of all permitted uses under the SCI zone. However, he said, he had found a way in this instance to accomodate the City's interests, and hopefully to go with something Commissioner White had mentioned several hearings ago, which was a question of rezoning this particular property. The second reason, he continued, is to clarify for Bob Andrews a 3 hour fire resistant wall and a 1 hour fire resistant wall, and there is a significant difference not only in terms of cost but in terms of construction that must take place that would affect the tenancies of existing tenants and the amount of space they have in the lower floors. Thirdly, he said, he didn't know if the Commissioners were aware that Sarah Pletts was purchasing her unit, and consequently they think that all owners within the same building should have the same conditions imposed ~on them. The fourth reason was to try to step back from the rushed nature of this project and try to put into prospective in light of the city's interest which fluctuates from year to year, and also to address the Andrews' desires. He said they have come up with a proposal that hopefully serves the interests of everyone, protecting the City's interests but also to impose some long range considerations for that whole area. The first part of the Andrews proposal is to delay the imposition of the 3-hour fire wall con- dition until June 1, or until the date that a rezoning application can be filed on behalf of the McFarland & Andrews. He digressed, saying that a review of the Building Code indicates that only one use would be excluded by this delay of the 3 hour fire wall condition, and this one use is the only one permitted in the SCI zone, namely wood-working establishment. He added that the only other potential use in the SCI zone would be a dry cleaning plant using flammable liquids, and he added that they didn't feel that they would be approached during the next 9 months for a dry cleaning operation. The result of this kind of delay he felt would have a minor impact affecting permitted uses in the SCI zone. All other permitted SCI uses may take place in the building as it is currently constructed now. During this period of time they would evaluate the property and consider its best and highest use in light of several factors, one the zoning in the area. They are anticipating a request to rezone teh property in February. This would permit the uses in the building, and would also permit uses that in the long range would be more compatible, i.e., restaurants or other appropriate uses. The result, he said, would be that they would have opportunity to step back and analyze, and also consult to determine what would be the best use of the property. Lastly, he said, the biggest problem is, what happens if they get down to the line, and don't get rezoned, and they are living in the building. What power does the city have to impose the fulfillment of the condition of the 3 hour fire wall construction? Andrew's have come up with 3 devices that they think would give the City the key and would impose upon the Andrews the requirement to build this 3 hour fire wall in the event the zoning is not changed. The first would be for the Andrews to provide a performance bond at their own cost or other security, that would assure that there is financing to construct the wa-ls, including Sarah Plett's unit. He added that they do have an estimate on what the construction would cost for jsut the Andrews unit, and that figure would be $18,450.00. To do all the units, the cost would be approximately $40,000. The second means is that they would re- quest that the City issue a temporary CO, which would be temporary until such time as the rezoning application is favorably approved, and in event that the building as constructed complied with all of the requirements of the new zone, then the temporary CO would become permanent. In the event the rezoning was not a-proved, then the temporary CO would expire. The result would be that the City could sue with penalties. . ANDREWS - RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS - CONT'D The third condition, he continued, would be to provide the City with the names of the holders of the Deeds of Trust that secure the financing for the property, so that the City could notify those holders in such instance as they did not receive the rezoning and did not build the fire resistant walls, and that would automati- cally declare default and declare all sums due. The reason they have proposed these 3 conditions is that he didn't want to have to come back in July and explain why his clients, the Andrews, didn't want to do it. He concluded that he felt it would protect the City's uses, in that the SCI zone uses are protected except for 1 use for 9 months, and after that they would all be protected whether or not the zoning is changed. Secondly, it protects Sarah Pletts and existing tenants, and third, it gives the Andrews the time to do appropriate long range planning for that property, rather than piece-meal. He added that he would provide the neces- sary docuemnts to the City Attorney's office for their review. Harvey asked Ferguson if they changed the zoning and the P & Z has conditioned the residences on these uses, (for Sarah and the Andrews), would there be a problem with creating a non-conforming usage under zoning change for these 2 businesses. Ferguson replied that that was why they needed time to look at before they applied for the rezoning. He added that since Sarah would be an owner, she would be in- volved in all these plans. Harvey said that the reason they had treated Pletts and the Andrews differently was that Pletts would have to put in a 3 hour fire wall if and when a tenant came into a space next to her that required it. Because the Andrews own the building, they would be the ones coming to Pletts and saying they are putting in this tenant and she has to put the wall in. In the Andrews case, they own the rest of the building, and if someone came to them and wanted to put in a drycleaning plant, they can say no because they don't want to put in the fire wall. That was the reason the P & Z had said the Andrews had to do it. Ferguson said they appreciated the P & Z's opinion, but that they felt if the 3 hour fire wall has to be built, it should all be built at once, and that since Pletts would be an owner, they couldn't really make a distinction between the conditions imposed on Pletts and those imposed on the Andrews, and in the event you impose the same conditions on Pletts as on the Andrews, Pletts isn't going to want to buy. He added that what they are trying to do is just to see if they can get a delay on this condition, with assurances and guarantees that they will com- ply in the event the rezoning is not successful. Harvey said that what he is saying is that Pletts doesn't have the same rights of ownership or status that the Andrews have. Pardee said that he would be infavor of extending the time they have to install the 3 hour wall, and that the guarantees are substantial, but he felt that Harvey had brought up a very important problem. He said that he would be in favor to extend it, but when it comes back to P & Z for rezoning and they are asked to make an exception for a residence, he would be inclined not to do it. If they choose to sell it now as a residence and then rezone, he didn't think they could expect the P & Z to allow it. Harvey said what are Andrews consideration if the P & Z was to extend the require- ment until June '84, if the Andrews go out and sell the remaining condominium spaces... Ferguson said that they would put those conditions as a matter of record, and any person that wanted to look at them would be advised of what they are attemp- ting to do. He added that they were trying to accomodate everyone's interests, and the changing nature of the master plan for the Rio Grande property. They are simply asking for the time to analyze the situation, and may impose some long range planning. Harvey said that if he were in their position he might look at rezoning in order to avoid having to put in a 3 hour wall, or rezoning, which would exclude dan- gerous businesses so he wouldn't have to spend the money. Ferguson replied that the problem that the P & Z faces is that the SCI zone was established for a number of uses, for basic purposes to create a core in that area for specific uses that are intended to this City. Harvey said that the dilemna is that the Andrews have empty space, there is a provision for residences, the P & Z wants to allow that, but as a result of that they don't want to restrict the potential uses for SCI. " RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM', c-r.HOE:CKEL8.B.ltl.CQ. REGULAR MEETING PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18, 1983 ANDREWS - RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS - CONT'D Hunt added that it was not only permitted uses, but conditional uses as well. Harvey said that in the memo from the Andrews is that they would like to have some time period in which to sell some spaces and improve the exterior. Ferguson said that he would be a fool to come before the P & Z and suggest that they just waive this condition, and he does not want to do that. He added that that is why they came with this proposal, they think its a workable proposal, and they don't want to put the City in a position of creating precedents that it would have to live with either. On the other hand, if they can analyze the rezoning potential, it might make the spaces more attractive to the prospective purchasers, and they would have to file someting for rezoning before February anyway. Harvey then said that Ferguson said they would do the two units together, does the purchase contract call for Pletts to bear the cost on her unit? Ferguson replied that he didn't know. He said the Andrews would get a performance bond, because they didn't want to lose Pletts as a purchaser. He said that if Pletts knew she was going to have to put in a $20,000 fire wall, Andrews would not have a purchaser. Harvey then asked Gary Esary if the Andrews were to go out and sell the condo- miniumized units around their unit and restrict in the purchase contract that they would never use those spaces for dangerous, hazardous, flammable uses, that would get them out of the requirement. In other words, he said, could they covenant privately between the purchaser and the seller the uses to which the units could be put, because the Andrews control the condominium association they can write in certain elements in a private document outside of the City's zoning. Esary replied that the market takes care of it. He said that the problem with the condition on Zebra was that if at some time in the future a dangerous business came in, Pletts would have to construct the fire wall. The reason the P & Z had said the Andrews had to do it now, and Sarah later was because the Andrews had control. If Andrews were to suddenly to get people lining up to buy the condo- minium units who had lawful permitted uses and none involved the 3 hour fire wall separation, it would be great. However, if a person requiring the 3 hour fire wall were to come in and want to rent the bottom space, and would pay high rent, Andrews would be anxious to rent to him. He added that he did not consider it to be a serious problem, and the condition that Ferguson suggested is that either they get rezoning by June '84 or they have to put in the fire wall. He concluded that Andrews couldn't eliminate that condition simply by selling the units to people that did not require the 3 hour fire wall. Harvey then asked Esary if he was comfortable with the 3 conditions put forward by the Andrews, ie, the performance bond, temporary CO, and names of holders of Deeds of Trust. Esary replied that he felt it was pretty good security. Pardee said that the performance bond should be reviewed by the City Attorney, and those funds should be, if not voluntarily done by the applicant, turned over to the City and the City can proceed with the construction. Esary said that one of the things that would have to be determined when the fire wall is put in, does it mean separating the first floor from the second floor, or the two units from each other, or what. Harvey said that the Building Department would enforce those regulations. Esary then said the P & Z should also consider that if the Andrews can't get any more people with permitted uses in the SCI zone, but do get people with condi- tional uses, the P & Z will see them and since the Andrews and Pletts got their conditional uses, the Board should consider how far they will go on that line. '._~-_'......I-.'.',;,..- 1~ .. ANDREWS - RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS - CONT'D Harvey said the uses are permitted, and the residences are conditional. Esary said that the P & Z commission has very broad discretion on deciding on conditional uses in a zone, if the commission's focus is on the compatible con- ditional uses. Harvey asked Esary if he felt comfortable with what was going on the record, and with the requirement that the fire wall must be put in if and when the use comes up. Esary said it could be drafted that way. Harvey said he was mostly concerned with the difference in control of owners, and percentage of ownership, and did Esary feel that there is a problem with putting 2 different conditions on the aame element on the 3 hour fire wall. Esary replied that the distinction in ownership, 85% control versus 15% control, is a valid point, but one of the things the Andrews said in the memo was that this 3 hour fire wall was going to be very expensive, and the way they had pre- sented it is that they want to take some time and do some planning, to see if they are going to need the fire walls, or get rezoning. He concluded that there is a distinction between the t~o, but since the Andrews offer removes that distinc- tion, the P & Z will have to ask Zebra if that distinction is OK. Harvey asked if Esary is saying that Zebra get the same deal, that it goes unti June and they have to put a performance bond up etc. Esary said that if the P & Z accepts this condition, Zebra is not involved anymore Ferguson said that the Andrews have to take care of it then. He added that the Andrews are taking a real risk, an expensive risk, and it is forced on them by the zoning, and they are hopeful that they can find some other ground where they can accomodate and be compatible with other uses, but its a terrible risk. Harvey said that he wanted to condition this on examination of rezoning. Ferguson said that all they were asking for was until June '84 to check it out. Harvey then reiterated the situation, saying that if the applicant and City Attorney can draft to the Attorney's satisfaction a conditional use permit with the same conditions that were in previously, with the exception of two, one being a delay on the requirement to install the 3 hour wall surrounding the residential unit until June 1, 1984, conditioned upon the applicant providing 3 elements, a performance bond or adequate security, a CO which would be temporary until that time, June 1, 1984, and supplying the names of the owners of the Deeds of Trust on the property, and in addition it must be spelled out that this states that at that time if the conditions exist that it is SCI zone they will supply 3 hour fire walls for Pletts unit as well as the other two residential units (to be specified) . Hunt said that the only problem he could see was that there is no incentive there for the major property holder to sell or rent to permitted uses. Harvey said tl2tthere is an economic incentive, in that someone will come up and say they want to buy or rent it, Andrews can make a deal on the expense of in- stalling the fire walls. Ferguson added that they had looked carefully at all aspects, and they appreciate the commission's concern. Colette Penne of the Planning Office reminded P & Z of their condition from the last meeting, that money would be spent to fix up the exterior of the building. Ms. Penne pointed out there are economic pressures that might preclude tenants. Anderson moved that the applicant and city attorney redraft this conditional use permit to'incporate the Andrews' responsibility for the fire walls in all those units and the delay until June 1, 1984, for the conditions, and that this will come back to P & Z; seconded by Pardee. All in favor, motion carried. \1 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM', C.F.HOE'CKElO.B.Ill.CJ. Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission -10- October 18, 1983 ZEBRA PRODCUTIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The P & Z went over the draft conditional use permit for Sarah Pletts. Harvey said for the dance studio, the P & Z requested Ms. Pletts to make arrangements for her students parking either at the Rio Grande or at the Trueman center. Esary suggested leaving conditon #4 in, in case the Andrews default. The city can step in with the performance bond, and Ms. Pletts still has a conditional use that is valid. Esary pointed out this conditional use permit does not effect Ms. pletts permitted uses. Pardee moved to approve the conditional use permit as presented in the P & Z packet with typographic and grammar clean up, with a paragraph to be added by Gary Esary in place of #4 indicating the priority of responsibility for the three-hour fire wall (first Andrews, then pletts and Garwood), and that Chairman Harvey sign the permit, after review; seconded by Ms. Tygre. Hunt said he would like to see both the documents again at a P & Z meeting, and to see how they interface. All in favor, with the exception of Hunt. Motion carried. Code Amendment - Individual Designated Historic Structures Colette Penne, planning office, told P & Z in the lot split provisions, when one has a large lot, the was to get maximum use out of the lot is to duplex the existing historic structure, and then do the lot split provisions and get a single family house on the new lot. In the case of Victorian houses, like Glidden, it is difficult and can ruin the historic integrity. Ms. Penne said she feels a code amendment can be written to clearly limit and define such that a property right is transferred. The lot split provision could be written to recognize that significant historic structures that are sitting on a lot that lends itself to a lot split, what would result is the Victorian and a single family lot, that a duplex could be put on the new lot. The new lot would have to be big enough to accommodate a duplex. Harvey said the condition would be that a person would have to have 9,000 square feet on one side, in order to split the lot. Ms. Penne said the structure would have to be part of the historic inventory. Ms. Penne said this could be defined in the code as to what categories of historic designation this would apply to. Anderson said the Code sometimes limits flexibility to houses that were constructed 100 years ago. Sometimes the character of the structure has to be totally altered. The Commission said they would like to see this pursued as a code amendment. Ms. Penne said perhaps the city should allow detached care- taker units when there is an historic structure on the lot. These would have to be deed restricted employee units. Harvey said enough review criteria should be built in so the P & Z does have discretion. P & Z requested staff to research these and come back with a code amendment. Ms. Tygre moved to adjourn at 7:15 p.m.; seconded by Ms. Fallin. All in favor, motion carried J!~ zi.d~