Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19780706 BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.,DENVER R E C O R D OF P R O C E E D I N G S Regular Meeting As en Planning and Zoning Commission ___jRLy 6, 1978 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on July 6, 1978 , at 5: 00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Charles Collins, Welton Anderson, Donald Ensign, Olaf Hedstrom and Joan Klar. Also present were Karen Smith and Richard Grice of the Planning Office, City Attorney Ronald Stock, and City Engineer Dave Ellis. Approval of Minutes Ensign moved to table action on the minutes, Hedstrom seconded. All in favor, motion approved. FAR Collins noted that the Planning Office tabled this item. Report of Hedstrom noted that Ensign wrote a memo of the committee ' s Transportation findings. He submitted the report. Collins asked the Committee status of the parking structure. Ensign stated that the parking structure has been tabled until completion of the Transportation Study by the City and County. Collins asked Grice to get an update on the status of the Trans- portation Committee. Collins accepted the report of the P&Z Transportation Committee, Environetics Grice introduced the application. Environetics is a local Use Determination interior design firm. The applicants wish to relocate to Conditional Use the Trueman Commercial Center. The uses listed on the final plat of the Trueman Commercial Center are the same as the N/C and S/C/I zone. The uses include a builders supply store, paint and wallpaper store, carpet, flooring, drapery, etc. The intent of the N/C zone is to encourage one stop shopping. Grice questioned the percentage of business from their services and the percentage from their supplies. The use is inappropriate if their inter- ior design services outweigh their supplies. Larry Yaw, architect for the Trueman Center, introduced Jerry Toole of Environetics. Yaw noted that the uses of Environetics are listed in the code as conditional uses. He noted that their main emphasis in their present location is design because of the size. Their emphasis in their new location will be their furnishings. Toole said they are primarily a furniture outlet. He noted that this is not an every day item store but it does serve local needs. Grice noted that this zone is for every day uses , He noted the Commercial Core is appropriate for uses such as this. Yaw noted that this is a conditional use. He stated that there is no space in Aspen to accomodate this size of a display floor. He feels it is an appropriate use for this zone. Collins asked the size of their two stores , Vail and Aspen. Toole noted that there is also a store in Breckenridge. The sizes are Vail, 3, 000 sqft. ; Breckenridge, 1, 000 sqft. ; Aspen, 350 sqft. Collins asked for an inventory of the items in their stores. Toole said they represent over 120 lines of furniture, they stock part of this on site. They are sold off the floor and out of a warehouses The items include contemporary dining room and living room furniture, carpet, drapes, etc. They estimate 90% sales from their products and 10% from their services. Collins asked how much of the 90% would be sold off the floor. Toole estimated 75% . Collins opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the public. Collins closed the public hearing. Collins noted his concern with the percentage of retail versus design services. Yaw stated that the design ser- vices would use 150 of the 1700 sqft, The displays, which are primarily two dimensional, would use 300 sqft. The remaining would be the floor displays of the furniture, Hedstrom felt that 75% of the 90% sold off the floor was -2- ar Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Jul 6, 1978 high. He felt they would need to order and deliver alot of their merchandise. Yaw said this is an alternative to driving to Denver for such specialized needs. Ensign asked the price per square foot of the space. Yaw said $11/sqft. Collins felt they needed more information on the operation and the layout. He did not find this like a paint store. He felt it important to meet the demands of a convenience center which is the intent of the NC zone antedta floor plan and documents showing the types and of the items and services . Joan Klar entered the meeting. Hedstrom did not feel the requested information would affect the substance of the application, He did not feel this is in the intent of the NC zone. Anderson asked if there are any similar operations in Aspen to compare with this application. Yaw offered that Aspen Furniture is similar. Ensign read the conditional uses in the NC zone. He felt the uses are similar with those listed in the code. Grice noted that conditional uses are not permitted uses. Smith felt that people will go to this store exclusively instead of stopping by while grocery shopping, etc. Ensign felt that this is a personalized service, not a high volume supplier. He felt the professional office an added extra. Hedstrom did not feel this would generate substantially more traffic but could not justify this with the code. Collins felt that mixing uses of the NC and CC zones will cause both to malfunction. He also noted the convenience of parkin g there if one buys ten gallons paint. Yaw felt this serves more needs since it fills 4 or 5 of the conditional uses in one use. Klar felt this meets a neighborhood need. Yaw stated that there is 42000 sgft, of commercial space in this center including the grocery. Grice asked if this would set a precedent for conditional uses. Collins noted that each case is taken separately on its own merits. Klar asked if there is any more space it available in ose toubeingCfullrciae n.otedrthata d there are was pretty cl enough applicants for all the space.. Ensign moved to find Environetics a use permitted con„ ditionally in the NC zone under the catagories of wall- paper store, carpet, flooring, drapery shop, business and professional office, Klar seconded, Roll call vote: Klar, aye; Anderson, aye; Ensign, aye; He Collins, nay; motion approved. Ensign moved to approve the use proposed by Environetics conditionally, Klar seconded. Roll call vote: Klar, aye; Anderson, aye; Ensign, aye; Hedstrom, nay; Collins , nay; motion approved. Aspen Club Smith noted that Recreation Clubs are a conditional use Conditional Use in the Rural Residential District, Any expansion to the conditional use must be approved by P&Z . She noted the PUD Plat Amendment that was approved a few weeks ago. The criteria to determine a conditional use expansion are, 1) the proposed use complies with the requirements in the code (area and bulk requirements, etc. ) f 2) the proposed use is consistent with the objectives and purposes of the zone district, 3) the proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses and uses in the area. Smith read the intents and purposes of the Rural Residential District. She noted the adjacent land uses are the Benedict office Building, single family residences and condominiums, The club was originally intended to serve the needs of the Callahan Subdivision. Conditions have changed since that original application and the club now serves the commu- nity. Smith did not feel it continues to be compatible -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 July 6 1978 with surrounding land uses. She noted a traffic problem. She felt compatibility with adjacent land uses is affected by the location of the building improvements on the west side of the building and the proposed tennis court to the west of the existing tennis courts. The new court is at the property line. It will cut out a major buffer ridge which would be replaced by a retaining wall. The existing building is massive but was camoflaged by the natural ridge. She noted the Planning Office memos of June 30, June 16, 1978 and the application dated May 24 , 1978 . Jim Reents of the Planning Office noted that the proposed bubble over the proposed tennis court will cut into a ridge line and will be visible above the ridge line. He asked if they propose artificial lighting for the courts. Anderson said there will be lighting in the bubble. He noted that the bubble is tan. Huss noted that the lights will be about 12-14 ' high and the hours will be 7AM-10PM. Huss noted that the bubble will be removed in April and replaced when the weather necessitates it. Ashley Anderson, representing the applicant, noted a land- scaping plan. He noted that they are moving the ridge. He showed the plans on a map. He noted that the tennis bubble would not be visible from grade. He stated that the fire access has been moved next to the building. Smith noted that the zoning is Rural Residential with a PUD overlay. The setbacks are set through the PUD. She felt the landscape plan unrealistic since they must re- move all the natural vegetation. The landscape architect stated that their landscape plan would restore the natural vegetation within 2-3 years. They propose trees with a 12-2" caliper which is about 15 ' tall. Klar asked if they intend to save the trees they will remove, The ar- chitect said it is possible with the aid of an expert. Another architect noted that the trees and vegetation that they will install will not be all the same height or type. Hedstrom asked how far they would have to cut into this ridge. The architect said they are moving the entire ridge. Huss stated that they have a real concern for this and they intend to replace all the trees and vegetation.. Anderson stated that the Aspen trees are 2" in diameter and the evergreens are 4" . He said they will attempt to transplant as many trees as possible. Collins opened the public hearing, Gideon Kaufman Kaufman's office has been in the Benedict Building for three and one half years. He is also a member of the club. His office is the closest to the proposed tennis court. He feels it is too close to the building even with the proposed landscape. He can hear people playing on the other courts at present,. He feels it is incom- patible with the uses of the office building. Anderson asked if he had any objections to the building expansion. Kaufman said no. Fritz Benedict Benedict showed the expansion on a map. He stated that he has no objections to the expansion, He noted that the downtown area requires 250 open space. He objected to the south side of the building where a water line was installed and there have been no attempts to manicure the disturbance to the land, He provided a sketch of what the area may look like after the expansion. He noted that Aspen trees are extremely difficult to transplant. He did not feel the area could be revegetated in 2-3 years. One of the architects asked the height of the viewpoint in the picture. Benedict estimated it -4- Regular Meeting As en Planning and Zoning Commission July 6, 1978 was from the second floor. One of the architects noted 20 ' of natural plant material that would not be disturbed. Benedict noted his objection was to the tennis court, not the expansion. Michael Teschner Teschner noted that it is difficult to get a tennis court. He thought it would be nice to have one more. Welton Anderson asked if they would be willing to have only 4 new racquet ball courts instead of 6. Huss said they have researched their needs and determined the exact amounts for the best operation of the club. Welton noted that he would be in favor of the proposal if they deleted the tennis court in question. Ashley Anderson noted that their racquet ball courts are more important than their tennis court. Huss noted that many people that come to the club are amazed at how the building is incorporated into the natural surroundings. Smith said that is what they are attempting to preserve. Huss said they intend to pre- serve this effect with their landscape plan. Hedstrom did not feel tennis courts are open space. He felt that the whole project benefits from the Benedict property and its open space. He questioned whether this expansion was a benefit to the community. Collins felt the impact on the area was important. He noted that this was originally intended to serve the residents of the Callahan subdivision and has evolved into a sports arena. He noted that the zoning is still Rural Residential. lie had reservations that a facility of that scope in that zone should be allowed to expand. He agreed with the Planning Office' s concerns about traffic , open space and the destruction of the buffer ridge. Ensign was con- cerned with the tennis court. Klar noted that there are no objections from adjacent property owners to the expan- sion, other than Benedict who objects to the tennis court. She felt the whole city needs more tennis courts but that this one court has many objectionable points. She felt they had done a good job of massing in the building ex- pansion plan. Welton Anderson asked Benedict's opinion of the total expansion. Fritz Benedict Benedict asked that they remove the tennis court and consider changing the proposed entrance. Welton Anderson objected to tearing up the natural berm. He felt this is the only protection for the Benedict Building. He felt they could achieve their goal by re- designing it. He objected to the tennis court, Hedstrom objected to the tennis court and the destruction of the natural ridge. He felt it would take many years to re- store the ridge to its natural vegetation. Ashley Anderson deleted the tennis court from the appli- cation. He noted that the vegetation that was disturbed from the water line would be restored,. He stated that the berm will be saved. Collins closed the public hearing. Hedstrom moved to approve the conditional use of the Aspen Club expansion under the following conditions: 1) West additional tennis court adjacent to the Benedict Office property be deleted, 2) the footprint of the additional court building be changed to conform to the suggestions of Mr. Benedict, 3) the landscaping of the property adjacent to the Benedict property that has not -5- 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 July 6, 1978 been completed be pushed to early completion, 4) the potential traffic increases caused by the expansion be minimized as described in the PUD Subdivision amend- ment recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 20, 1978 , Anderson seconded. Roll call vote: Klar, aye; Anderson, aye; Ensign, aye; Hedstrom, aye; Collins, nay; motion approved. Manor House Preliminary Plat Smith introduced the application. The applicant wishes to condominiumize nine units in the Lodge-1 District. She submitted the Planning Office memo of June 30, 1978 , Dave Ellis' memo of June 28 , 1978 , letter from Lyle Reeder, a copy of the preliminary plat, for the record. She noted the conditions of clarifying road easements, maximizing the parking, committing one studio unit to employee housing under the conditions stated in the letter from Marty Kahn of February 28 , 1978 , and 90 day right of first refusal. The change from the conceptual plan is a reduction in three bedroom units. Smith noted that Ellis ' concerns could be satisfied prior to the final plat. Ellis also wants an updated title commit- ment. Collins opened the public hearing. Ensign moved to continue the public hearing and table action on this condominium application until the next regular meeting, Hedstrom seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Ensign moved to adjourn the meeting, Klar seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 7 : 30 PM. ery Simmen, Deputy City Clerk