Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19840703 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 3, 1984 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, Lee Pardee, David white, Welton Anderson, and Roger Hunt present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Hunt questioned Arthur ' s Restaurant ' s conditional use permit saying that he felt it was time for the Commission to review the permit. Hunt informed the Commission that the restaurant was not in compliance as delivery trucks often blocked the street. Deliveries are supposed to be made in the alley. Parking is also a problem. Harvey suggested that the planning office contact Dill Drueding in the building department and have him look into the situation. Hunt pointed out that this was not the first time that violation of the permit had occurred. Harvey stated that if Arthur' s was found to be in violation of the conditional use permit by the building department then perhaps the Commission should review it. Hunt also brought up the TrTill Street stop light stating that there has been real problems with the light. Hunt suggested that the state of Colorado be notified about the problems with the light. He has already brought it to the attention of Jay Hammond, engineering, who has notified the proper authorities. Fallin asked Jay Hammond about stop signs saying that it has become a challange to drive through parts or town as many stop signs are either nonexistent or hidden. Hammond said that as a rule response is made to specific instances where stop signs are in need of attention. Hammond informed the Commission that Puppy Smith, street department, is reluctant to install new signs unless there is distinct evidence of accidents. However, the engineering department is in the process of proposing some standards for signage in the downtown area and some of this signage has been instigated. One aspect of this is that when there is angle parking to the curb a large setback to the corner ;rust be created. The problem with this is that people often violate such a large setback . White pointed out that often big trucks are parked on corners creating a dangerous situation. Hammond said that truck loading zones presently on the angle parking side of the block are being moved to the parallel parking side of the block in an effort to alleviate some of the danger. Another aspect of this problem is that there is no distinct definition as to where trucks can and can' t park. Hunt asked if there was a schedule for the relining of hill 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 3. 1984 Street. Hammond said that as far as he knew there was not. Tygre was curious about the satellite dish in front of KSPN. There are now two dishes on the property surrounding the KSPN studio. Mary Martin, alternate member for the Historic Preservation Committee, informed the Commission that one satellite dish is being returned to Denver . Harvey requested that someone in the planning office inquire about the status of the satellite dishes. Alan Richman, planning, informed the Commission that the planning office had received an application for condominiumization from the Nugget Lodge . When the property was zoned to L-3 there was an incorrect legal description. Richman requested that the Commission "re-sponsor" the rezoning so that when the application for condominiumization is reviewed on August 7, 1984 the appli- cation for rezoning can be handled at the same time. Jasmine Tygre moved to "re-sponsor" the application for rezoning the Nugget Lodge at the August 7th meeting. Pat Fallin seconded the motion. All in favor. Notion carried. Hammond explained the situation that occurred last week when high water in the Roaring Fork river threatened to flood the Visual Arts Center . Hammond thought that there was some misconceptions regarding the situation due to some editorials written at the time. Clarifying a couple of items stemming from these misconceptions Hammond stated that Mrs. Reich was never denied permission to undertake emergency measures to protect her property. She was at first interested in extending the rip-rap on the property to the west of her home for which she was granted stream margin approval adjacent to her house. Her stream margin approval was specific in that it was only for the parcel on which the house sat. Reich was informed a stream margin review would be required in order to extend the burm and the concrete rip-rap. Any request on Reich part, however , to undertake emergency measures on the same basis that it was done at the Visual Arts Center was never denied and was discussed very distinctly with her after the Visual Art Center situation arose. Hammond informed the Commission that there is some distinc- tion drawn between the protection of existing homes and buildings in the floodplain and the protection of property that is currently undeveloped. However, this was not an aspect of Hammond' s discussion with Reich. The discussions were initially regarding the extension of the permanent rip-rap and work of a permanent nature will always be subject to stream margin review. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Neeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 3, 1984 Harvey asked if there was a mechanism for emergency situations. Hammond said that there was. The mechanism would be under- taken on the same basis that the city undertook it. The city placed material in the river way to protect the bank and that material will be removed at such time as the river recedes to a point where it will not continue to erode the bank. Hammond informed the Commission that Reich did not want to put material in the river and then remove it at a later date. Should someone place material in the river as an emergency measure and then request stream margin approval to leave the material there perman- ently then this would be another approach. Harvey asked if this opens the door for people to throw things in the river, not take the material out and then request a stream margin review after the fact . Hammond said that it may open that door but if the material is judged to be appropriate and its placement considered proper then it may be approached this way anyway. Pardee said that he concurred with Hammond. Somebody at their risk should be able to do what they deem appropriate to save their land and their trees. Pardee pointed out that Reich lost some of her trees and the Commission stops people from building to protect trees. People should be allowed, with the knowledge that the material may later have to be removed, to place material in the river and to do it right taking the chance that the material can remain there on a permanent basis. Hammond added that Reich contends that the fill on the other side of the river has impacted her property and this is true. The City Council has indicated an interest in looking at what might be done to remove some of that fill and to reopen the floodplain. Harvey asked the status of the Hemmeter 0040 green-line that is scheduled for the July 17th agenda. Richman said that there had been a problem with the application and suggested that tonight' s meeting not be formally adjourned but be continued to July 10th (currently scheduled for < work session) in order act upon the application at that time. SHAW ESTATE LOT SPLIT COUNTY REFERRAL Richard Grice , planning, explained that the Shaw Estate lot split is a request for a simple two unit subdivision of a large piece of property that is currently the site of the Parlour Car Restaurant. The Parlour Car Restaurant has a lease on the entire property until 1990 . Therefore, no residential development can occur until such time that the Parlour Car Restaurant is no longer there. During the County Commissioner ' s public hearing it occurred to the county commissioner ' s that the city might 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 3, 1984 have some interest and they requested that it be referred to the Commission. Grice thought that the trail easement and the setbacks would be of particular interest to the Commission. The master plan shows a trail easement crossing the front of the property parallel to Hopkins Avenue. The county figures the setbacks from the property line which in this case is at an odd angle not directly parallel to Hopkins Avenue. The application requests that planning and zoning and the board of county Commissioners support a setback variance that establishes these building envelopes which in effect reestablishes a reasonable setback based on the distance from the Hopkins Avenue boundary. This setback would be 30 feet from the right-of- ,ray and would be consistent with other properties along Hopkins Avenue. The building envelopes that are allowed in this area are quite large as are the lots that will be created. Therefore, large, single family homes are expected to be built there at some point . Items other than the setbacks and trail easements such as water, sewer, and access are all items that are handled in an appropriate manner through the city' s water department and Aspen IZetro Sanita- tion. Harvey asked if the board of county commissioners recommended approval. Grice said that the board approved the application subject to a condition which states : this application shall be reviewed by the city planning and zoning Coriuiission prior to detailed submission. Grice explained that the board had not delegated its responsibility to the P&Z but had referred it to the Commission for comment. Harvey stated that the planning office' s six conditions did not mention the trail easement and asked if it covered everything else. Grice said that that was correct. Harvey asked if there was any potential for further development on the lots in question. Grice said that there wasn' t. A given requirement of the counties 50% density reduction lot split is an exemption from GIMP. This particular property is eligible for this type of exemption only when the end result by deed restriction will be no greater than 500 of the zoned density. This applicant has voluntarily committed to deed restrict property against any further development beyond the two single family homes. The extremely steep part of the property will be dedicated as a park. Harvey asked why the voluntary limitation was not in the resolution. Grice assured Harvey that it would be in the final plat resolution. Jim Curtis informed the Commission that the county would be 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 3. 1984 granting an extension of the right-of-way through the property, but it is no more than a grant to the city. Curtis indicated that it was not the old Tlidland Railroad right-of-way. Hunt assumed that the Midland right-of-way had been completely dropped from the transportation use. Glenn Horn, planning, said that this was correct. The -Midland right-of-way is only being considered for trail purposes. Harvey said that it was recommended that the Commission use language dedication of an easement for a bike path in accordance with the trails master plan. Harvey asked if there was a width for this easement. trice thought it was 15 feet as specified in the trails master plan. Harvey asked if the trails master plan specified the location. Grice said that there was no such specification on any property . Harvey asked who figured out the location of the trail. Grice said that it was a combina- tion of people. Z,Ihite asked where the trail proposed by the Nordic Council passed through the the property. It was assumed that the trail followed the Midland right of way. David Hhite moved to place the trail easement along the Midland right-of-way. The motion died for lack of a second. Harvey entertained a motion recommending that the county require the dedication of an easement for a bike path across the front of the property consistent with the Aspen/Pitkin County trails master plan and that the county add to their resolution a restriction by the applicant of further development of the two lots. Jasmine Tygre so moved. Pat Fallin seconded the motion. Jasmine Tygre amended the motion to state "deed restriction" . Pat Fallin amended the second. All in favor with the exception of David White who was opposed. Motion carried. CODE AMENDMENT: DELETION OF DUPLEXES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES Richman in his memorandum dated July 3 , 1934 , identified approxi- mately 185 duplexes in existence throughout the city. Approyimately 2/3 of these would become non-conforming uses should this amendment be adopted. Richman introduced Mary Martin, representative for the `Jest Side I�aprove.nent Association, to explain to the Commission why this amendment is desired. Martin explained that the West Side 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 3, 1984 U,,provement Association sent out a letter in April to all the members of the West Side Improvement Association asking if the association should petition. Prior to this Ir. and tlrs. Ilartin had asked Council to look into the situation and to see that duplexes, defined as side by side identical looking duplexes, be studied by planning and zoning. Martin stated that nothing was ever done. Harvey asked what the rationale was behind wanting to eliminate the duplexes. Martin said that there was no opposition to the zoning of the FAR ratio. Martin said that there was a 100 foot requirement between houses and this was not correct. Harvey explained that this requirement applied to farm and garden buildings. Richman explained that in writing the ordinance all the city attorney did was to eliminate the word "two family dwelling". Martin stated that after seeing the duplex that was built by Dan Levinson and the setback on the Lotters duplex the West Side Improvement Association does not want to see the duplex building, per se, almost anywhere and challenged the rest of the caucuses all over town to go in with the association on the same ordinance. Martin asked why duplexes were allowed to be 10% larger than a single family dwelling. Harvey said this was because 9,000 square feet of land is required for a duplex as opposed to the G ,000 square feet of land that is required for a single family dwelling. Martin reiterated that the association does not want a duplex in this town. Harvey asked wily. Martin said that there needs to be a policy statement established which states that due to the differences in the topography in the areas in Aspen it is necessary to consider different zoning to take into account features like small compact lots of which the west end is largely composed. Zoning for the west end should be R-G and R-15 lots and permitted to have only one single family unit. Martin objects to the size and the look of duplexes. Harvey said that he under- stood Martin' s objection if she was looking at duplexes such as the one belonging to the Levinsons. However, the Floor Area Patio ordinance has restricted those. The Levinson duplex was built mistakenly under the old FAR. Harvey explained that the reason the new FAR was implemented was to limit the problem that Martin is concerned about . The size and bulk that used to be able to be achieved with a duplex is no longer achiev- able. G RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular rieeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 3. 1984 Pardee said that it appears that Martin' s major objection is to side by side mirror image duplexes. There is particular concern regarding the west end where there are smaller lots and structures are closer together. Therefore, the compatability of the neighborhood is more critical . Under the new FAR it is not economically feasible to build side by side. Pardee challenged anyone to show him a duplex, built since the new FAR regulation, that is ugly. He contended that if someone had bad taste that they could do just as bad on single family as on a duplex and could have the same setbacks. Pardee felt that because of the action taken two years ago the FARs are so restrictive that anything large cannot be built. lie requested so;ne examples of duplexes that were built recently that are objectionable and that do comply with the FAR for duplexes. The reason that the present FAR was implemented was because of some objectionable duplexes. Richman informed the Commission that the residential growth rate has been very small in the past two years. He would look specifically at what has been built in 1983 and 1984 . White pointed out that in other places there are architectural reviews for residential areas. Such reviews don' t exist in Aspen. Part of what Martin is talking about may have been covered by the FAR but another part may need to be covered by an architectural review. Harvey said that such reviews existed mostly in subdivisions. Tygre felt that it was too late to implement this type of review. Harvey agreed that there have been some offensive duplexes built and that it would have been nice if the FAR had been in effect before they were built. The reason the FAR is in existence now is a reaction against any more duplexes being built. Sunny Vann, planning , pointed out that if a person happens to own 35 or 36 thousand square feet of land, they have an inherent right to reduce that to 6 lots at 61 ,000 square feet per lot. This seems to be one of the problems in reducing the larger parcels to smaller parcels and then developing duplexes on these smaller pieces of land. It is very difficult to find a way to treat everyone equally under the requirements of the zone district. Richman felt that the problem identified by Martin may be a problem that is more a factor of the old FAR regulations than the new ones. He proposed that he do some research and determine 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 3, 1984 if any new problems have cropped up since the new FAR had been Miartin asked who allowed the trees to be torn down in front of the Scandinavian shop (Danish Antiques) on Main Street . Georgeann ?,tiragamann, chairperson for HPC, said she noticed the tree cutting also. To 1-7agamann the cottonwoods on Nain Street are a more significant feature of Aspen than even the architecture. Wagamann feels that in the last few years they have been cut down almost casually and she is not sure that enough are being replaced. Harvey thought that a permit was required to cut down trees. The Commission was informed that the trees in front of Danish Antiques were cut down because of disease. iTagar:iann thought that this was something that all of the committees that have any involvement with the look of the town should be aware of since cottonwoods are such a significant feature. Pardee felt that every group in town would be supportive of an effort to replace the cottonwood trees. It would probably take public funds to instigate and maintain a replacement program. Horn suggested taking this issue up with the Council as it is part of the capital improvement process. Jim Holland, parks, for years has been trying to establish a nursery on parks and recreation land where the city can invest in growing seedlings and then have a tree planting program throughout the town. This idea has continually fallen out the bottom of the capital improvement funding process. CODE AMENDMENTS: SPA/PUD Richman informed the Commission that after the problems with the Rubey Park and Little Nell Council, directed the planning office to do a full study on the SPA zone and any problems with it. One of the most important aspects shown by this study is that many of the parcels zoned SPA are "built out " already, for example, Castle Ridge and the jail , places where the SPA has been implemented and used. In the opinion of the planning office necessity has become rather secondary. In most cases there is a zone in the city that can accommodate what is taking place on the land zoned SPA, presently and in the future. There are only a very limited number of places (the Institute, the Rio Grande and the Forest Service proper ties)where zoning and likely future uses could not be readily identified. Richman thought that there were a couple of things wrong with 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 3. 1984 the SPA. One, there are parcels zoned SPA which don' t need to be zoned SPA. Secondly, the section in the code regarding the SPA procedure is not clearly written. It doesn' t indicate how sites should be designated nor does it indicate formally how an application should be processed. Submission requirements and evaluation criteria are also not indicated clearly. it would be a good idea to establish a much cleaner process. The planning office agrees with Council in that something needs to be done to clean up the SPA process and has come up with three alternatives: 1) Beep the SPA imechanism as it is, however , existing approvals should be reviewed and, as mentioned before, the SPA section should be amended to provide procedures. 2) Eliminate the SPA mechanism altogether. Take the twelve parcels now zoned SPA and put them into zones where they belong. Where there is a problem, for example the Institute where there is no one particular zone to take care of the situation, put a PUD over it. The Council suggested that while looking at PUD a special mechanism be devised within PUD that does what SPA used to do (SPUD) . The combination of the two proposals listed above constitutes the third alternative and is the alternative that the planning office favors. There are some parcels where SPA is not necessary and the SPA section of the code does need to be amended in order to create a reasonable set of submission requirements and review criteria. Richman informed the Commission that after being presented with these three alternatives Council opted for eliminating SPA altogether and to amend the PUD section of the code by establishing a SPUD section. The Council has also considered removing the ability of PUDs to vary the FAR on projects unless they are among these SPUDs. Council did agree with co-ming up with appropriate requirements and review criteria for this new SPUD. They suggested that since several zoning requirements are set by SPA in the code , particularly the public zone and the academic zone, that reference to the SPA be eliminated. These area and bulk require- ments would probably be set by PUD or special review. Harvey said that it seemed like Council just wanted to change the name of SPA. Council wants to create a PUD "critter" that 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 3, 1984 will not allow FAR variations for standard PUDs. Richman reiterated that what this comes down to in the end is SPA with a different name. Vann indicated that there is a benefit in distinguishing SPA from PUD. PUD is generally construed to be a review process and is a flexible one. SPA is a "holding category" for sites in the community for which no specific zone district could be easily identified because of the nature of existing uses or the fact that certain types of uses may be complicated in the future. SPA provides the ability to deal with the use question independent of underlying Lone districts or other zone districts in the community. The real problem with SPA is not the definition of it but the fact that there aren' t many guidelines in the code indicating how SPA is applied. Gideon Kaufman, attorney, stated that the SPA was a designation for parcels the city did not want to zone at a particular time. The problem came up when the city didn ' t stop with SPA and utilized underlying zoning creating zones like SPA/cc. Now there is an expectation of the underlying zoning. Harvey stated that to take away the underlying zoning opens the door for hours and hours of review. ail Dunaway , Aspen Times, said that the more complicated the code is the harder it is for the public to understand and asked why two almost identical zones were needed. Vann explained that one is a zone (SPA) and one is a process (PUD) . Tygre felt that for the properties in question the SPA is essential . However, when there is an SPA that does not seem to have any appropriate review criteria or guidelines then there is a problem. Tygre thought that this could be amended and could be included in the master plan. If the SPAS are going to be retained then there should be some indication of a general intent for those SPA areas. Jasmine likes the third alternative the best but suggested finding a way to make clearer the fact that the PUD is primarily a bull: area requirement . Perhaps this should be done in the language of the code. Vann suggested using a table and listing SPA uses sAtai an intent. A section in the code would then deal with specific review criteria 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission July 3, 1984 for SPA. with regard to the sites zoned SPA there should be specific reasons as to why those sites are zoned SPA. Naufman reiterated that the key to the SPA is the use variation. White asked if there was some way to get rid of SPA and replace it with a type of public zoning so that it has a particular i-aaster plan. Richman informed the Commission that not all public lands are SPA and a public zone requires an SPA. Hunt also agrees with alternative number three. The SPA was important in areas like the Little Nell property where there is a "hodge-podge " of areas of different zones under one owner- ship. Harvey asked if there was a consensus to keep the SPA and clean out the requirements for submission and review as well as pull out the properties that no longer need SPA. Harvey said that thorough language would have to be developed regarding the Commission' s position on SPA and why the Commission feels that SPA is needed for those pieces of property. Harvey asked the Commission about simply having an SPA and not having an underlying zone designation yet having so7ae master plan language regarding each parcel that is zoned SPA. It was agreed that the underlying zoning should be kept. Harvey thought that some language needed to be developed with regard to the parcels that are going to be zoned SPA. Richman thought Tygre' s idea of legislative intent was a good one. Richman said that he would schedule a work session with council . Harvey said that Council should have the Commission' s best shot and requested that Richman develop the language with some background. It was decided that a resolution should be made regarding the SPA/PUT). Harvey continued the meeting until July 10 , 190)4 . Harvey adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m. u ie P�marka unas lCity Clerk' s Office V 11