Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19781121 BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.,DENVER R E C O R D OF P R O C E E D I N G S Regular Meeting Aspen Independent Commission November 21, 1978 The Aspen Independent Commission held a regular meeting on November 21, 1978 , at 5: 00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Charles Collins, Ellen Anderson, Welton Anderson, Olaf Hedstrom and Mayor Stacy Standley. Also present were Karen Smith of the Planning Office and Mark Danielsen, Housing Director. GMP Amendments The Board discussed the amendment to Sections 1-6 of Housing Guidelines, Section 24-10 and Section 24-10. 12. Section 24-10. 10 Independent Com- Hedstrom moved to continue the public hearing on housing mission, guidelines, Section 24-10. 10 and request that the Planning Section 24-10-12 Office come back with revised amendments reflecting the attitude of the commission and the public comment and after review for legality by the City Attorney, Standley seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Hedstrom moved to amend his motion to show that these amendments are to Section 24-10, E. Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Standley moved to adjourn the meeting, W. Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 6: 00 PM. Sheryl P en, Deputy City Clerk ' Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 21, 1978 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on November 21, 1978 , at 6: 00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Charles Collins,; Ellen Anderson, Welton Anderson and Olaf Hedstrom. Also present were Karen Smith, Jim Reents, Richard Grice and Jolene Vrchota of the Planning Office, City Sanitarian Tom Dunlop and Housing Director Mark Danielsen. Condominiumization Vrchota introduced the item. Vrchota noted that the basic problem with Ordinance 53 is that if the applicant showed that they did have employee housing, there was no restric- tion to retain it. Section A, 90 day right of first re- fusal and Section B, 6 month minimum lease, would remain the same. Section C delineates the criteria needed for an applicant to prove he will not remove employee housing from the market through condominiumization. The applicant will then bring a proposal to the City Council to maintain this supply. Danielsen felt -.this is a good step towards proving tenant displacement. Collins noted that this is a continued public hearing. Gideon Kaufman Kaufman questioned a phrase in the amendment regarding the initial consideration by City Council. Smith suggested the wording, "Such demonstration shall be made at the time of initial consideration by the P&Z Commission for purposes of their recommendation to City Council" . Jeffrey Sachs Sachs noted that the language regarding tenants should be changed to employees. He also noted that landlords can evict tenants for legal reasons and that these evictions should be provided for in the ordinance. The Board sup- ported these suggestions. Collins closed the public hearing. W. Anderson moved to recommend adoption of Ordinance 39, regarding condominiumization rights as corrected, Hedstrom seconded. All in favor, motion approved. -2- Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 21, 1978 S/C/I Code Grice felt the problem lies between the policy makers and Amendments the enforcers. He noted that the code never defines limited industrial. He noted a letter from Hal Clark to Henry' s Electronics stating their operation is permitted only if the retail is minor; this is not the case today. He pre- sented his amendments. He asked that they either decide to maintain the S/C/I or rezone it. He felt they should state in the intention of the zone the need for low traffic generators. He suggested deleting gasoline stations and vehicle sales. He suggested defining "wholesale" as "the sale of goods to anyone other than the ultimate consumer" . Collins felt the uses of the Trueman Center are being ex- tended into the contiguous S/C/I zone. He noted that P&Z and City Council tried to limit the development in the N/C zone. He felt if P&Z continues to allow this deterioration, those uses will move to the Airport Business Center. He felt they should decide if they will permit the extension of the Trueman uses into the S/C/I zone or support amend- ments to strengthen the code. E. Anderson noted that she seconded Hedstrom' s original motion for two reasons: she couldn' t see how they could allow retail sales now and deny this application and she felt they needed a bakery. She then realized that Delice' s Bakery is operating a similar business in the manner that Le Cuisinier represented was impossible. She suggested allow nonconforming uses with an abatement clause. Herb Klein, representing Le Cuisinier, asked to speak. Collins noted that this is not a public hearing. . ._ Le Cuisinier was used as an example but the specific application would be considered at a later date. Klein stated that they were informed that this was a public hearing on their application with other amendments to the S/C/I zone. He submitted suggestions for the language of the amendment. The amendment would allow baked goods to be sold boxed with no on-site consumption. Collins stated that each zone district has its purpose. If these are diluted, the intent of the zone is lost. He felt they may lose the S/C/I district and generate more traffic than intended. Dunaway stated that the original purpose of this zone was to provide a place where quasi-industrial businesses could make and sell their goods. Hedstrom noted that the busi- nesses that went into the S/C/I were known to have a limited retail business. He agreed that they have encroached on this "limited" ability. He did not feel they could deny this similar limited retail use. His motion was to make these limitations specific for enforcement. Grice noted that the S/C/I zone was considerably larger when the code was adopted and felt they should make the language more restrictive. Tom Dunlop, representing the Building Department, noted that no one is getting away with anything. The Building permits and inspections were issued based on the best in- formation possible from the applicants. He felt the vagueness of the code makes their job difficult. He said they will support the P7Z ' s recommendations as long as they are clear for interpretation. Dunaway felt that the Planning Office had not followed the instructions of the P&Z ' s motion. Klein asked that they consider their proposed language. E. Anderson suggested defining limited retail by percentage of gross income in- stead of floor space. Smith said this would be much more difficult. Smith suggested the P&Z direct the Planning Office to work on this further and come back with their suggestions. -3- BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.,DENVER R E C O R D OF P R O C E E D I N G S Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 21, 1978 Klein did not feel Le Cuisinier should be penalized by the passage of time. Collins noted that the major question is how to define "limited" . A former P&Z member in the audience recalled a similar application for this property. The major question for this application was the request for consumption on the premises . He suggested looking at the discussions of that application. Dunlop noted that the construction of the specific site would prevent them from being allowed on-site consumption. Hedstrom stood by his previous motion. He commended Grice for his arguements but was not in favor of imposing a re- striction that was not imposed on the other uses in that district. E. Anderson did not feel she had all the infor- mation when she seconded Hedstrom' s motions. She wants to see the S/C/I cleaned up of the encroachments. Collins did not feel they could make an exception to the specific restriction against over the counter sale of baked goods as prohibited in the code. They must amend this re- striction to allow that operation. He felt they still need a public hearing. Seigle noted that the publication for the public hearing was for these amendments. Collins opened the public hearing. Bil Dunaway Dunaway objected that the Planning Office sets public hearing on items that were not requested by the P&Z . He felt they were subverting the process. The administra- tion should follow the dictates of the elected officials. Hedstrom regretted allowing a "broad" interpretation of his motion. He commended Grice for the memo but felt it exceeded "broad" . He felt Grice should have responded in the broad interpretation of his motion and then introduce his philosophy and comments on this subject. A baker from Le Cuisinier objected to being compared to Delice' s. They just want to provide their products on site. Jeffrey Sachs Sachs noted that one of the great frustrations of being be- fore P&Z is the unpredictability of the promises or obliga- tions to abide by its rules. The attorney prepares assuming the matter will be addressed as reflected in the minutes. Smith stated the Planning Office had no intention of sub- verting the directives of the P&Z . She asked that they reissue the directives and let the Planning Office come back with their requests. Collins agreed that they must redefine and clarify their directives. Collins closed the public hearing. W. Anderson moved to table action on items 1, 2, and 4 of the Planning Office' s memo from Richard Grice dated November 16, 1978, concerning amendments to the S/C/I code district and that item three be changed to read that the definition of a commercial bakery is a bakery that is primarily engaged in the wholesale production of baked goods. A commercial bakery may engage in limited retail over-the-counter sales of baked goods provided: 1) that said retail sales are ancillary to the primary activity of the commercial bakery, 2) that all goods sold are baked on the premises, 3) that all goods sold are packaged, and 4) that no on-site consumption of baked goods is permitted, Hedstrom seconded. Roll call vote: -4- Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 21, 1978 W. Anderson, aye; E. Anderson, nay; Hedstrom, aye; Collins, nay. Motion denied. Wesson Parking Grice introduced the application. He noted 6 problems Special Review with this application from the engineering office. He suggested tabling the item. Hedstrom moved to table the Wesson Parking submission for Special Review to the next regular meeting for the reason that sufficient data for consideration is not available at this meeting, E. Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved. WPW Smith introduced the application. She noted that the Subdivision previous application was to separate these lots which Exemption was approved by P&Z and Council. The purpose of the application is to change the boundary between Lots 19 and 20 in order that the front lot line of Lot 19 will be conforming. The Planning Office recommends approval along with the City Engineering Office and the City Attorney. Nick McGrath, representing the applicant, noted that the Board of Adjustment felt this was a problem created by the City Council and did not deal with it. W. Anderson moved to grant the WPW subdivision exemption inasmuch as all the intents and purposes of the subdivision regulations have been met and that the City Engineering and the City Attorney have no objections to recommending exemption, Hedstrom seconded. All in favor, motion approved. W. Anderson moved to adjourn the meeting, E. Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 8: 05 PM. Sheryl ,S mmen, Deputy City Clerk