Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19960618 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 Growth Management Commission meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m., minutes taken by Dee Benson, County. Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. with members Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Timothy Mooney, Steve Buettow, Marta Chaikovska and Dave Johnston present. Member Robert Blaich was excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Buettow said the American Institute of Architects is putting together a new policy on proposed livable communities and they would like some comments in 90 days and he thinks the Commission should read the memorandum over and he will put together a letter, this could be a way to implement an impact nationally. Garton commented that she is concerned with the length of the agenda and suggested that the Commission meet weekly rather than burden the Commission with such a long agenda as tonight. Stan Clausen, Community Development Director apologized for the length of the agenda, added to the agenda is the annexation plan and unfortunately the legal requirements of annexation where such that the City Attorney's office advised them to move forward with the plan, any items that prove to be difficult or prolonged could be tabled to the next meeting. Garton stated that it was not just the annexation there are several items that are going to require a lot of discussion. Clausen responded that the Winnerman Stream Margin Review will be tabled to July 16, 1996. Garton also said she received a memo from the City, they have been meeting with representatives of the Aspen Small Lodges for the past six months, a general consensus has been reached regarding amendments to the Municipal Code which will affect the Lodge Preservation Zone. Garton stated that they would like to have a round table discussion of the issues with the key players in the Community one of which is the Planning & Zoning Commission, the meeting will be held Tuesday, July 9, 1996 and they asked that the Commission appoint a representative, although anyone who is interested may come. Michaelson stated that those amendments will be coming before the Commission again on July 16, 1996 so if you can not participate in the round table discussion you will have a full presentation of the amendments. Garton commented that the Arundale residence overlooking the Roaring Fork has very strong exterior lighting on the river at night. Staff took note. Garton asked about the meeting with Council that was canceled. STAFF COMMENTS 1 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 Michaelson said that he thinks it was an opportunity for the Commission to get together with Council and reprioritize. Michaelson also said Staff does not expect to give a lengthy presentation on the Aspen Club PUD amendment because the Commission has heard the issues and has the Council report, it is really an opportunity for Dick Butera to come back and give the Commission an opportunity, if you choose to change the motion of denial that went to Council. There were no public comments' on items not on the agenda. MINUTES MOTION: Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of May 21, 1996 and June 4, 1996. Seconded by Tygre. All in favor, motion carries. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Schrager Conditional Use Review for an ADU Buettow stepped down. Proof of notice provided David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney stated that the notice is legal and adequate and the Commission has jurisdiction to proceed. Suzanne Wolff, Staff stated that the applicant is requesting a below grade ADU of approximately 358 sq.ft, located at 923 E. Hyman. Wolff said the unit complies with the Conditional Use requirements, the Housing office and Staff agrees that the lightwell is not adequate and more light could be added to the unit, the connection shown between the ADU and the Recreation room would need to be removed prior to submission of the deed restriction to the Housing office, the parking space shown encroaches into the alley right-of-way and would need to be moved and accommodated on-site, the Parks Department noted that a couple of Pine trees to the West of the driveway will need to be removed to provide adequate access to the garage. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Roy Parsons, representing the applicant said that some of the items mentioned have either been or will be resolved before any submissions for permits, the lightwell is intended to service light to the rec room of the residence and takes up an entire corner at its narrowest will be 5 ft. front to back, the actual lightwell itself will be a 10' X 15' platform at its lowest point, the requirements for egress are met and exceeds the U.B.C requirement for light and ventilation for that room by about 5 sq.ft. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 Garton asked if there were any conditions that he could not comply with. Parson responded that because the way this house is sited off the alley they had almost 40 ft. of driveway space and the initial plan showed a parking area centered on the driveway past the property line, by putting a 20' X 10' space at the actual property line they still have plenty of clearance for a vehicle to get in, he said they anticipate relocating the trees rather than replacing them. Garton asked about the connection to the rec room. Parson stated that the ADU is directly off of a foyer that accesses a stair way that leads directly to the outside, another doorway in the rec room accesses the hallway and the stairway going outside, this is not only more convenient for the residents of the primary unit but is a safety option to get out of the basement, the ADU is not intended to be part of the residence, the ADU has its own door lock and the rec room having its own door lock. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Chaikovska stated that this is a situation that would be acceptable to her, this is not the situation where someone had the ADU open up into a bathroom adjoining the house. Hunt stated that if he makes the motion he will drop the connection condition. Garton asked about the height of the building. Parsons responded the primary offender would be the South elevation, the eve of the main ridge starts at 20' with an 8:12 pitched roof measured from the third point, this is approximately 32', 3' under the allowable. Carton opened the public hearing. Sven Alstrom, public stated that the HPC Commission is concerned about the roof heights as well and have begun compiling a list and he suggested that the Commissions meet to share their concerns. Garton said we are beginning to see some interesting roof lines. Carton closed the public hearing. MOTION: Hunt moved to approve the conditional use for an ADU of approximately 358 sq.ft, at 923 East Hyman Avenue with the following conditions: 1) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with the following: A) The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restriction to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval of the deed restriction 3 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer; B) Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs. 2) Condition removed. 3) A tree removal and mitigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parks Department prior to building permit submittal. Tree removal permits shall be required for the removal or relocation of any tree greater than 6" caliper. Clumps of trees to be retained shall be protected during construction by fencing around the dripline of the trees. 4) The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall comply with the 1994 UBC Sound Transmission Control guidelines. 5) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Community Development Department shall inspect the unit to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 6) All new surface utility needs and pedestals must be installed on-site. 7) The applicant shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights- of-way from the Community Development Department. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 8) Condition removed. 9) Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the owner shall construct a 5 foot wide sidewalk with a 6 foot buffer zone between the sidewalk and the curb. 10) All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Seconded by Chaikovska. All in favor, motion carries. Buettow stepped down. Tygre excused herself Jhom the meeting. Buettow was re-seated. Winnerman Stream Margin Review MOTION: Hunt moved to table the Winnerman Stream Margin Review to July 16, 1996. Seconded by Chaikovska. All in favor, motion carries. Zupancis Subdivision, William's Addition Proof of notice provided. Hoefer stated that notice is legally correct and the Commission has jurisdiction to proceed. Bob Nevins, Staff said the applicant is requesting to subdivide an existing 16,746 sq.ft parcel into two residential lots, the property is located North of South Avenue between Walnut St. and the platted alley commonly referred to as Race Street. Nevins stated that P&Z's recommendation will be forwarded to City Council, the subdivision proposes to create one 7,500 sq.ft, single family lot with an FAR of 3450 sq.ft, for a single family residence and a 9246 sq.ft, duplex lot that would allow for a duplex of 4095 sq.ft, or a single family home of 3675 sq.ft., currently there are two single family residences occupying the site, one 5 bedroom home and a 3 bedroom residence, upon approval the applicant proposes to demolish the 5 bedroom house on Walnut Street and construct a new duplex. Nevins stated that the reason they are doing subdivision instead of lot split is because a code provision states that since these are two or more lots with continuous frontages in single ownership on October 27, 1975 the lots are considered undivided and conveyance of any portion shall constitute subdivision. Staff recommends approval with conditions. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 Robert Zupancis, applicant stated that this property has been in his family since 1949 and he is excited with the split, the potential and with the preservation of almost all the large vegetation. Garton stated that she is pleased that the grove of Aspen, in the corner will be thinned and worked out with the city. Zupancis responded that will be thinned about 50% and allow some of the trees to grow out nicely and still have the snow removal. There were no public comments on this application. MOTION: Hunt moved to approved the Zupancis Subdivision creating Lot 1 of approximately 7500 sq.ft, and Lot 2 of approximately 9246 sq.ft, with the following conditions: 1) The final improvement/subdivision survey plat shall be prepared in accordance with the standards of 38-51 C.R.S., as amended, and submitted to the City Engineering Department for review and approval. 2) The area within the Superfund site shall delineated on the final subdivision plat with notation detailing any special considerations and mitigation measures that apply. 3) The encroachment of the existing residences across the proposed lot line between Lots 1 and Lot 2 shall be fully described by bearing and distance and a condition shall be placed in the subdivision agreement and on the plat, that when either lot is sold to a new owner, or a demolition or building permit is requested for either lot, the existing house on Lot 1 (510 Walnut Street) which encroaches into Lot 2 shall be removed. Partial demolition of the encroaching portion of the house shall meet this condition if the house at 511 Race Street is demolished or removed. 4) The owners of the residential lots shall be required to join any future improvements districts formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of-way. The agreement shall be executed and recorded prior to the acceptance of the final subdivision plat. 5) The final plat/improvements survey and subdivision agreement shall be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. If the applicant fails to record the plat documents within a period of one hundred and PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 eighty days following approval by the City Council, the plat may be rendered invalid. 6) A storm drainage plan shall be submitted to and approved by City Engineering prior to the issuance of any building permits. 7) If any trees are to be removed, a tree removal permit shall be required prior to the issuance of any excavation or building permits. No excavation shall occur within the dripline of trees and any construction activity occurring close to trees shall require protective fencing to be placed around the dripline of the trees. 8) The lot owners shall be required to meet the affordable housing requirements for the proposed single-family residence on Lot 1 and the proposed duplex on Lot 2 in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 26.100.050(A)(4)(c) of the code. 9) The property owners shall be responsible for snow removal on the sidewalk along South Avenue. The applicant shall also thin the existing aspens by 50% to allow for more snow storage capacity. 10) The frontage along Walnut Street shall be a no parking zone extending from South Avenue for a distance of 45 feet along Walnut Street. Parking shall be parallel and not allowed within five feet of the existing fire hydrant on Walnut Street. No parking shall be permitted in the Race Alley right-of-way or on South Avenue. 11) The proposed single-family residence on Lot 1; and the proposed duplex or single-family residence on Lot 2 shall conform to the dimensional requirements of Section 26.28.040, Medium-Density Residential (R-6). 12) All material representations made by the applicant within the application, and at hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval unless otherwise amended. Seconded by Chaikovska. All in favor, motion carries. NEW BUSINES S: Howling Wolf, Special Review for Trash Area Reduction 7 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE t8~ 1996 Wolff stated that the applicant is requesting to reduce the required trash service area, within the commercial core, up to 6000 sq.ft, of net leasable floor area requires a 20'x 10'xl0' trash service area, the Howling Wolf has approximately 2500 sq.ft, of net leasable floor area and are essentially proposing a 10'x 10'x 10' trash service area, Staff feels this area should be adequate. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions. Hunt asked what the back patio area, surrounded by the fence would be used for. Sven Alstrom, representing applicant responded that it is mostly seating, their dinner business is part of their lifeblood, this will be seasonal outdoor dining. Hunt asked if it would be operated during daylight hours. Alstrom responded yes. Hunt noted that the service access, to the kitchen appears to be through the operating dining area, meaning trash would have to be carried through the dining area. Paul Levine, owner of Howling Wolf responded that the fence along the back opens allowing delivery and trash removal directly from the stairwell to the open fence, only one table should be affected. Hunt said the trash will be taken down through the basement and up these stairs. Levine responded that is possible. Alstrom said Hunt's point is well taken, the Howling Wolf tried to preserve the 10x20 space so they would have the opportunity to build to the max FAR allowed if they choose to do so. MOTION: Hunt moved to approve the Howling Wolf special review to reduce the required trash area to t0' x t0' x t0', with the following conditions: 1) All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 2) Dumpsters shall be oriented with the "ears" facing the alley so as to be easily removed by trash personnel. 3) Access to the trash area from the alley shall be unobstructed. Seconded by Chaikovska. All in favor, motion carries. PUBLIC HEARING: Krabacher Conditional Use for an ADU Proof of notification provided, Hoefer stated that notice is legally correct and the Commission has jurisdiction to proceed. 8 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 Michaelson said this is a request for Conditional Use approval for a voluntary ADU, the property is located at 706 West Main Street, it has a one-story landmark miner's cottage, previously approved by HPC to be converted to an office. Michaelson stated that the current proposal will retain and expand the residential uses, the ADU exceeds the minimum net livable sq.ft, and is exclusively accessed from an ascending stairwell, there is no connection to the main structure, snow shedding will not be a problem, in addition the lightwell exceeds U.B.C. standards by approximately 5 ft., the applicant has requested a waiver from the required parking space, Staff supports that waiver because there is available transit within walking distance and it' s in the downtown core, Staff suggests that the deed restriction include a requirement that the tenants of the ADU must store any vehicle off-site and off street. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Joe Krabacher, applicant stated that this project has been through office building approval and this will not be in lieu of that approval, he has come up with a reasonable plan to continue using the property for residential purposes and the voluntary ADU is for someone to take care of kids (in the future), the issue about the vehicle deed restriction basically states that the person living in the ADU has no rights to have a car, if it can not be stored on-site, nor off-site where will they put it. Michaelson responded that the language does not say that he/she can not have a car, it recognizes that there are options in town for long term storage of vehicles and it is not unusual for someone not to have a vehicle at their house, in the past Staff has recommended the residential parking program, this is a different situation there is another unit of density being introduced, above and beyond a single family unit. Garton stated that Staff is not denying that every citizen has a right to park on a public street, Main Street is pretty restricted as far as moving a car. Michaelson stated that the only thing left is the alley and we clearly try to avoid parking in the alley. Krabacher said City ordinances prohibit parking in the alleys and he has never seen a deed restriction that has this type of language. Michaelson said this is the first ADU, he has personally handled, on Main Street were there is no parking available. Chaikovska asked if the residential parking program states that a permit will only be issued if the house is on the side street or does it state that if you are in a zone you can park anywhere within that zone. Michaelson responded that you can park within the zone, the issue is if residential parking was available on the block face of this structure, he would agree but there is not. Chaikovska stated that she has a problem deed restricting the parking issue. Michaelson said they are creating an additional demand for a parking space where there is none adjacent to the dwelling unit. Hunt stated that they are not within the "D" zone, and this is not an uncommon request for ADU's in the commercial core. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 Garton opened the public hearing. Roy Billings, public stated that one suggestion may be to deny a residential parking permit, even if residential spreads to cover that area. Garton read letter £rom Warren Ryan, in £avor o£the project into the record. Hunt stated that he was ready to make a motion but did not know what to do about the deed restriction because, in the past P&Z has had the authority to make such a deed restriction and has done so within the commercial core, we have required that they not have an automobile, £or example Marolt Housing has that restriction as well. Garton said that she recalls that the Commission has waived the parking requirement if they were close to public transportation and she does not recall a condition that there be no car, Marolt Housing is a different situation. Michaelson stated that the condition does not say "no car", clearly this is a nice unit and he noted that this is a unique location. Hunt stated that he £elt it was incumbent o£ the applicant to make the potential renter aware o£ the problems with parking. Chaikovska stated that if the applicant does not have parking on-site it is something they can deal with, as a matter o£ principal deed restrictions should be used £or things that are serious. Garton suggested that the Commission remove the last sentence from 1. A. MOTION: Hunt moved to approve the Conditional Use for an ADU of approximately 622 sq.ft, located at 706 West Main Street with the following conditions: 1) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with the following: A) The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restrictions to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval of the deed restrictions by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory unit meet the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer. Commission recommends full disclosure of no parking available to the ADU occupants. 10 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 B) Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADU's. 2) The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. sound transmission guidelines. 3) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning Department shall inspect the units to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 4) All new surface utility needs and pedestals must be installed on-site. 5) The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design considerations of development within public rights-of-way, and the Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from the City Streets Department. 6) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a tree removal and mitigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parks Department. Tree removal permits shall be required for the removal or relocation of any tree greater than 6" caliper. 7) All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 8) The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval from the Engineering Department. If the applicant disputes those conditions the applicant shall repeal such conditions to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Seconded by Chaikovska. All in favor, motion carries. NEW BUSINES S: Aspen Club PUD Amendment 11 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 Michaelson stated that this is before P&Z again because on March 19 the Commission recommended denial of the proposed amendment to the Callahan PUD, dealing with parking access to the club, at that time the applicant proposed to transfer all existing parking on the North side on both the Lot and Ute Avenue side. Michaelson noted that the Code is relatively silent on what point an applicant has to return to P&Z, either by direction of the Commission or on his own volition with an amended application, Staff took the Commissions recommendation of denial to Council on first reading, the letters based on the original application and minutes of the March meeting were included in the Council packet. Michaelson said the proposal, at first reading before Council was to retain 20 spaces on the North side and improve the Ute Avenue side to include the deletion of the tennis courts next to the club house, that would be approximately 80 spaces, Council did approve the on first reading. Hoefer stated that Council approved it simply to allow it to come back to P&Z and keep the process going, it was not a vote on the merits of the application. Michaelson stated that Staff' s position has been the same that Ute Avenue is under a lot of pressure now, it has a very interesting mix of traffic including bikes, rollerblades, skateboards and people using Ute trail, we do not consider it a traditional urban roadway, the applicant and Staff have discussed a potential alternative, that has not been presented to Council, it would essentially retain 20 spaces on the North side, allow improvement of the Ute Avenue lot to what it is today, approximately 40-47 spaces, this would keep existing traffic on Ute Avenue with the idea that the applicant would come back in a year if he felt the parking was not meeting the demand. Michaelson said that Staff represented to Council that speed limits of 25 m.p.h, will be posted on Ute Avenue and the City would enforce "no parking" on the downslope side of Ute Avenue, these are commitments the City has made and are independent of this application. Michaelson stated that this is not a public hearing but is an opportunity for the Commission to change their previous recommendation to Council. Garton said the last recommendation was made at a public hearing and asked for clarification of procedures for tonight's meeting. Michaelson responded that this is clearly an advisory to Council. Hoefer stated that the City Attorney's position is this was not a significant change in the application and that is why it is not a noticed public hearing. Garton said she felt it was important to take public comment. Dick Butera, applicant said they have gone to a lot of different places, people and things to find a better way than what was originally proposed, they met with Staff, Department Heads at the site, almost all the neighbors and revisited the traffic consultants to recalculate what the amendmended proposal means. Butera stated what they heard at the public hearing in front of City Council is it is not necessarily the number of cars that people are concerned with but the drivers, they are going too fast, reckless and sometimes with a disregard for pedestrians. Butera said that he has the feeling that Ute Avenue grew up from a rural street to a city street and 12 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 nobody noticed, in terms of snow removal, police, sinage and speed bumps, that really does not have anything to do with the Aspen Club and hopes the Commission keeps that in mind, he thinks a few speed bumps would cure 90% of the issues. Butera said they went back to the traffic engineer, Leigh/Scott which the City and County use regularly, they reported that if the first application was approved the Club would have added 220 cars for a total of 3500 cars a day, a 6.7% increase, on Original Street they would have added 210 cars for a total of 1800 cars a day, an 11% increase, lower Ute, which is really where the problem is there are 1250 cars a day, they would have added 230 for a total of 1480 an 18% increase and at the end of Ute Avenue there are presently 220 cars a day, they would have added 230 for a 104% increase, under the new proposal we will add 55 cars on Cooper and Original a 1.6% increase, 53 cars at lower Original a 2.9% increase and at the critical point, lower Ute they will add 4.5% more traffic than is there now, Leigh/Scott stated that the capacity of Ute Avenue, as it was rebuilt is 3000 cars a day without snow, with snow the capacity is 2200 cars. Butera said if this proposal was approved we would be at 1306 cars on a 2200 capacity, they think they have come up with a proposal that works with everybody, with minimal effect on the neighborhood. Garton said that the van has not been discussed. Butera responded that they propose to have a van from the Aspen Club Lodge during the peak hours from 7-9 a.m. and from 4-6:30 p.m. on a regular, half hour schedule. Chaikovska asked if the parking spaces will be differentiated as to who will be able to park in there, is it member, therapy or employee parking. Butera responded that this parking lot has evolved, innocently, 80% of the parking demand is to be next to the building, few of the employees have cars and they have been told, up until now to park on the North side, they think this is what works for their customer base, he said they are asking for the City to help them be commercially viable, he is not interested in destroying the beauty of the property with a lot of parking, but they do know that to stay in business they have to service their customers. Hunt stated the current load of approximately 47 spaces, developed over the years because people are essentially lazy and they want to park right next to where they want to go and unfortunately that is part of the applicants justification for this, but he wants to know the number of spaces the Club needs for therapy and handicapped. Hunt said that is the change in the Club that he can see justifies some parking there. Butera responded that they have had 12 spaces in the past and would like to put in 6 more, that will be plenty because they only have 3 therapists so they can only have so many people coming in at a time. Hunt said his point is that the therapy and handicapped parking is well justified the parking, for the able bodied customers he does not feel it is justified, it evolved over laziness, 20 or so spaces for therapy and handicapped is perfectly all right. 13 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 Butera stated the ClaD is not competing well with the four new clubs in downtown, he said he needs to do everything he can do, 90's people are in a hurry and will park next to the building, it is our habits. Butera said no one here, that lives on Ute Avenue cheers about the traffic but the Club does not cause all of that traffic, they cause 200 cars and with this new proposal it will be 215-220, he said it has grown up into a city street, we can hope it is a rural lane but it isn't, it is a city street with sixteen homes on 6 acres at 1010 Ute, that is city density. Hunt said that he questions Leigh/Scott in this situation, what happens to the traffic if the parking is full and they have to drive around to the North lot. Butera responded that is the question, they would like to start with 47 spaces, they are trying to do only what is necessary, he asked that the Commission consider that they are trying to keep the Club economically viable and this is a small part of the solution. Chaikovska asked if the applicant is asking for 80 spaces or a phase in starting with the 47. Butera responded they are asking for the 47 spaces, then they will need to prove to Staff, a year from now that it is not enough, they need to prove whether or not the van is working and hopefully he will not have to come back and ask for more. PUBLIC COMMENTS Bill Frazer, public lives very close to Ute Avenue and has had ample opportunity to observe the traffic and its growth over the years and he respectfully disagrees that the serious problem is on lower Ute, he finds a real problem on upper Ute and he is very unhappy with the increase in traffic and the possible further increase. Frazer said he would love to see it rolled back to where it was supposed to be under the existing agreement. Hugh Wise, public said that he tries a lot of automobile cases and Ute Avenue is dangerous, there are too many cars right now and the snowbanks are bad, this is exactly the type of situation he sees in the courts, all the time. Wise stated that he thinks this is permitted to have more cars it is going to become worse. Mary Gleason, public said she does not like to be on the opposite side of Mr. Butera because she does not think anyone uses the Aspen Club more than she does, but she does think it is our job to preserve our neighborhood streets and this is what the issue is for those who live on Ute Avenue. Gleason stated that she would like to again, see the original intent of this road for deliveries and physical therapy, not for the general membership of the Aspen Club. Tim Cooney, public stated that he is the president of the Billings Condominium Association and represent their unity in opposing this, he said he would like to see the existing PUD in force, 14 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 traffic is bad and is getting worse. Cooney said the true motivation for moving the cars on Ute is so the applicant can build a house on the lot, there are a lot of points here that can be debated. Garton said in fairness to the applicant it was disclosed in the original proposal his intent to build a house. Butera responded that it does not feel good to sit here and have someone say he is lying to the Commission, he said he does not have a record of lying to anyone, the cards have been on the table since the beginning, his intentions are clear, we have hired all the experts we were asked to hire to show the effects of this and for the record many people in favor of this wanted to come tonight and we told them there would be no comments at this stage. Susan Welsch, public representing the 1010 Ute subdivision said she is also a member and enjoys the Club very much, she said she was playing tennis with someone who lives on the other side of town and he said it is easier for him to drive on 82 but now he has to go all the way around to Ute because the front door is closed in the evening at 9:00. Welsch stated that there is a lot of ice on the corner of Ute and Original, she thinks it is the most dangerous corner in Aspen, she had a lot of neighbors calling her and asking her to say things tonight but she feels at this time the Commission has heard them all, she would only like to remind the Commission of Ute trail and that people park across the street, that could be a dangerous situation for children and people hiking. John Kelly, public represents several homeowners who live directly on Ute Avenue, he said the reality on Ute Avenue is a lot different than the traffic report, he does not dispute their numbers or their counts but there is adequate evidence in the packet and Staff report that show this is a dangerous road, right now. Kelly stated that no matter how many spaces get shifted to Ute Avenue, the Aspen Club is an integral part of the Callahan Subdivision PUD, everyone who bought into the subdivision knew about that parking lot. Garton closed the public comments'. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mooney stated that he did not have to change his vote, he voted not in favor of the application but in favor of reviewing this in a more elaborate way, he did not think the applicant came prepared to satisfy the needs of the immediate people on Ute Avenue and he thought then that maybe a compromise and a response from the City was necessary. Mooney said he still has the same feeling, the things he is hearing from the public are things that are the responsibility of the City, if the street, sidewalk and lighting is not up to standard, if this is unsafe, if it jeopardizes the health and safety of the citizens living in that area and the street has been designed for so many cars and is not maxed out, it is the City's responsibility to plow it, sign it and to police it. 15 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 Mooney said that people will take the natural path that they feel is the shortest route to get them where they are going, as things evolve there are footpaths that go throughout this town, shortcuts around places, people migrate to what is the easiest way for them, he thinks this is what we are seeing, he thinks this is a use that has been created by either 82 being too busy, the parking lot on the other side of the river being inconvenient, or people knowing they can get in and out quicker, this is the evolution of the community. Mooney stated that we amend things all the time, we're being asked to change ordinances to give exemptions and bonuses to people who want to create growth, here, growth has shown us what a traffic pattern is and we are being asked to legitimize this traffic pattern, to him there seems to be some balance if the City will take responsibility for the health and safety issues. Johnston stated that he was not a part of the original vote and in his mind he is trying to justify the need and he does not think laziness does, he is glad the public had a chance to speak out, the concrete reason is not there for him, he does not see it and laziness does not cut it for him. Garton said she would stand by her original vote for denial because for her, to relocate the main parking for Ute Avenue is an actual relocation of the Club, she thinks it puts the Club into a small residential neighborhood with a dead end street, to keep the entrance and exit off of highway 82 is the way an entrance and exit to a large community, private Club should be. Garton stated that she understands that the patrons of the Club have found a back door that is the fault of the community and the City for allowing it to exist for so long, she recommends the elimination of the Ute Avenue parking lot but allow parking for the health and rehabilitation patients, she said good planning can not guarantee a profit for every business in this town but good planning can guarantee a quality of life for our neighborhoods. Hunt said that he was a party to the original approvals for the Aspen Club and we went very long and hard about the access to the Club being oriented towards Highway 82, Ute Avenue was planned on being, as much as possible a very rural access road it was the desire of the community then and he thinks is still the desire of the community now that it does tend to be more of a rural access road, at that time we recognized the possibility of the problems that any significant parking at the end of that road would put on Ute Avenue, this is the problem he has right now because that aspect of the planning really has not changed. Hunt stated that he can still support, very strongly, because of the significant change in the operation of the Club, the aspect of the handicapped and therapy support, he thinks they can accommodate that parking at the end of Ute Avenue, he can not support 30 additional spaces for general membership that finds it more convenient to drive up closer to a back door, he does not see that convenience to the members of the Club justifying the overwhelming inconvenience to the residential area. Hunt stated that he personally would like to send a recommendation to Council that there is justification for the therapy and handicapped spaces. 16 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 Buettow said that in 1980 he worked in the Benedict building, even then at those traffic levels that road was very unsafe, it has a number of blind spots and even driving at moderate speeds people can not see. Buettow stated that he would keep his vote the same as well although he would support legitimizing the handicapped and therapy spaces. Chaikovska stated that procedurally she would like to protest that if we do not have a publicly noticed hearing she feels it is unfair to the applicant to listen to the comments of the public, which in this case happened to be all negative, it does have some impact on the Commission whether we say it does or doesn't, so as a matter of procedure she would like the Commission to look at that. Chaikovska said the issue here is not whether there is a lot that the applicant wants to do something with, the issue is strictly whether this is a reasonable request to move the parking lot and is the scale down version of the parking lot reasonable for this particular site, she appreciates the comments about the status of the road that it may be unsafe, that there is a lot of traffic, she is always suprised when she goes down Ute Avenue that it is not a rural street, it has offices, it has an enormous amount of buildings, things that she does not think anybody thought of. Chaikovska said she agrees with Mooney, regardless of what Mr. Butera will or will not do on this street, the public has a serious issue with the City if they believe that the street is unsafe, the public comments tonight were the street is unsafe, right now, regardless of Butera's issue. Chaikovska stated that she understood the comments that say the street is unsafe now however, we have traffic experts that give us reports, we rely on engineering, parks, and other reports, she is not convinced that this would make the street significantly more unsafe than it is now, given the report. Chaikovska said that the Aspen Club is an institution that she is sure nobody will dispute is a bad institution, everybody supports it, Butera has done a great deal for the community, she suggests that we try the scale down version of his proposal, if it does not work we will deal with it then, she will support the scale down version, whether people are lazy or not is not an issue with her, everything evolves over time, we are not going to change peoples laziness by keeping the parking lot on one side or the other. Chaikovska said she would vote to recommend the approval of the scale down version of the parking lot. MOTION: Chaikovska moved that the Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding the amended proposal to approve a scale down parking lot of 47 spaces provided that the City revisit the issue after studying the impact of the 47 spaces. Understanding that 20 spaces will remain on the Crystal Lake road lot. Seconded by Mooney. Discussion: Hunt said he could not support that motion because he thinks it goes to far at this point. 17 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 Mooney stated that he is supporting it on the merits that are presented here, he stated at the last meeting and this meeting that he did not support the last motion because he wanted more discussion and compromise from Mr. Butera, the residents and the City and he thinks this is an indication that we have it. Mooney said he thinks this is a substantial change for him and that is why he is voting in favor of this. Garton, Hunt and Buettow voted no, Mooney and Chaikovska voted yes and Johnston abstained. Motion denied 3-2. Hunt asked if the Commission should send a recommendation to Council because we denied that compromise, we support their need for the therapy and handicapped spaces. Garton stated that is not part of the application or the discussion. Clausen said it is very much a part of the record. Hoefer said that because it is only a recommendation, if that is the feeling of the board he does not see where it presents any harm. Chaikovska said she has a problem, yes she would support a minimum amount of that but if she does, that will compromise her other vote. Hoefer said the two votes are both of record, it is pretty obvious you favor something more, so he does not see how voting for the 17 really compromises your position. Chaikovska stated that she feels it does. Clausen stated that it is not necessary to take a vote because Staff understands, having heard from most of the Commission that even though you may be opposed to the proposal as presented you favor some number of spaces relating to the handicapped and rehabilitation parking. Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review Bob Nevins, Staff said the residence is located at 320 Lake Avenue, it is a 7075 sq.fl, lot within the medium density residential R-6 with the Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area Overlay. Nevins stated that the applicant proposes to move an existing, non-conforming hot tub and deck and to revegetate the disturbed slope overlooking Hallam Lake pursuant to the Court order of May 3, 1993. Nevins stated that the critical issues that need to be addressed are the removal and relocation of the deck and hot tub and the stabilization and revegetation of the slope overlooking the nature preserve, having reviewed the application and conducting a site visit Staff finds the applicant has met the standards for ESA review, item 2) states; "that there is no development within the 15' ESA setback", Nevins said there is an existing retaining wall that is retaining the lawn area with the disturbed slope, approximately 3' of soil has been removed to allow the hot tub and deck construction, instead of removing the retaining wall and reconfiguring the slope, Staff recommends that the retaining wall be lowered, as much as possible to ground level at the existing yard area and then there will be approximately a 3' wood retaining wall on the downhill slope facing Hallam Lake with additional planting and landscaping. Nevins said since the time of the original submittal the applicant has proposed 18 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 reconstructing and reconfiguring the slope in its pre-existing condition to revegetate it with an approved seed mix and mesh netting to retain the soil. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Garton had a question on the Project Engineer's questions concerning the Plat map. Jim Cook, representing the applicant stated that he thinks the Project Engineer needs to be more specific as to what his questions are, this was done by a registered surveyor. Cook stated that they plan on completing everything as stated, most of which are typically done when pulling a building permit. Nevins responded that the concern of the Project Engineer and Staff is that the rear property corner hasn't been accurately established, there is conflicting documentation as to where it is. Garton asked where the spa water will be drained. Cook responded that the Code represents that you don't want it going down into the lake so we have to take it into a drywell or the sanitary. Hunt asked if the applicant would be cutting down the retaining wall. Cook responded they are going to cut it down, there is an existing flower garden that follows the outline of the retaining wall so they will take it down within approximately 6" of grade. Cook said they are leaving the retaining wall for stabilization of the uphill side. MOTION: Hunt moved to approve the Marshall Hallam Lake ESA Review with the following conditions: 1) A revised Site Improvements Survey in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Engineering staff memo of May 28, 1996, shall be approved by the City Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any Development Orders. 2) A building plan, plumbing plan or written statement explaining how and where the discharge water from the spa (hot tub) will be disposed prior to the issuance of any development permits. 3) A final site grading plan shall be approved by Engineering before any Development Orders shall be issued. 4) A final landscape plan showing the location, number, type and size of plant materials and any site grading shall be approved by Parks prior to the issuance of any development permits. 19 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 5) The existing hot tub, decking, posts and concrete footings shall be completely removed from the area within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA. A demolition permit shall be issued prior to site work or demolition. 6) The new deck and relocated hot tub shall be constructed in accordance with the development application (see proposed site plan design). No work shall be initiated prior to the issuance of all required permits. 7) The applicant shall restore to the original grade, with new fill and 8" compacted lifts and feather into adjacent properties and to provide stabling mats as required. 8) All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed towards the nature preserve or located down the slope. Light sources shall not illuminate greater than eight feet from the building or structures. 9) Any future development (including but not limited to: decks, spas, terraces, patios, fences, non-native plant materials) shall not encroach into the fifteen foot ESA setbaclc 10) All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 11) That the removal and relocation of the hot tub, deck and revegetation of the slope be completed within 90 days of obtaining building permit. Seconded by Mooney. All in favor, motion carries. 1996 Annexation Plan Clausen said the 1996 Annexation Plan is basically a reauthorization of the October 1988 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan annexation element, the reauthorization is required because Colorado law says that a plan extending out 3 miles from the Municipality be adopted and readopted annually depicting any annexations the City may undertake. Quote from the Annexation Plan: 20 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 "The 1988 plan was actually an individual element to the 1988 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, which has subsequently been replaced by the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) adopted in 1993. This 1996 revision has been prepared in order to meet the statutory requirements of CRS 31-21-105, as well as to update the Annexation Plan with respect to annexations already undertaken, and new policies and land use code provisions which have been implemented. However, the remaining annexation areas identified in the plan are essentially the same as those identified in the 1988 plan and the conceptual framework for annexation remains unchanged as well ". Clausen stated that the 3 mile plan is distinctly different from the Master Plan or the legally required Impact Study for any annexation, the old 1988 plan maps have been replaced by three GIS maps, one illustrates the 3 mile area from the Municipality as well as the extent of annexation within that area, the next depicts 13 specific areas, and finally there is a summary of the annexation areas. Clausen said that Dave Michaelson has provided a resolution of the Commission recommending, to Council the adoption of the 1996 Annexation Plan. Garton stated that page two of the Annexation Plan states; "Owl Creek, Maroon Creek,, and the east side of the Roaring Fork East and the west side of State Highway 82 Corridor, are within the boundaries of the Aspen Area Community Plan but outside of the proposed annexation area. these areas have been excluded from consideration because they are considered rural in character, with little likelihood for the provision of urban or municipal services ", she questions whether they should be excluded. Clausen said bearing in mind we have not attempted to change any policies from the 1988 Plan, that is the language at that time, we have not attempted to reconsider and Staff can put it in the work program to do so in the coming year. Garton stated that Staff has set aside time to really look at this. Clausen responded that this was not on the work program, in January of 1996 a notification from the American Planning Association (APA) of Colorado was received, it emphasized the importance of annually revisiting the 3 Mile Plan as the legal basis for annexation that will take place and he thinks prior to that there was some confusion as to whether such a plan needed to be updated annually or whether it was replaced or amended by the Five Year Plan. Clausen stated that the annexations that would take place could be legally challenged if the plan were not properly done. Clausen noted that there is another area within this document that says it is the intention of the City to adopt any county zoning approvals or any underlying county zoning at essentially the same density. Clausen said the Planning & Zoning Commission may want to discuss this and suggest that the density that we adopt may be somewhat greater than the density of the underlying county zoning that preceded it, this is an issue the Commission would probably want to give some thought. Chaikovska asked if there were changes in this from what you had before that are particularly notable. Clausen responded there are no notable changes, we have acknowledged things that 21 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 have been done over the past five years, for example some language in the 1988 plan has been changed. Chaikovska asked what is the role of the Commission in annexation process. Clausen said that beyond the authorization of the plan itself, he does not believe the Planning & Zoning Commission has a specific role. Garton said the City Council recommends annexation. Chaikovska asked if the Commission had any comment on things such as Environmental Review, FAR there are a lot of provisions that she supposes underline the annexation process that the Commission does not have a say in. Garton responded that she thought Council may ask for P&Z's advice. Chaikovska said Maroon Creek was annexed and there are lots that are about to be developed, do they come under different rules now that they are in the City than what they agreed to. Clausen responded that with the Maroon Creek annexation we are creating zoning districts that are created at the same time annexation takes place, the zoning districts acknowledge the planned unit development program that the county had developed. Chaikovska said we adopt their program, do we have additional rules we impose on the owners of the lots because yesterday they were county and today they're city. Clausen said he would not say as a blanket consideration there would be no additional rules, the basic thrust would be to adopt the zoning that had been expected as part of the county PUD. Hunt stated that the general philosophy is that when it comes in, it does not get a zoning advantage by the annexation. Garton stated that East Wood is an example. Mooney asked if there was some type of mitigation for this growth. Clausen responded that because all the annexation areas are within the Metro area, we have a uniform mitigation of growth management requirements there really is not a significant change whether they are under county or city jurisdiction, a significant additional mitigation that comes with annexation is the Real Estate Transfer Tax. MOTION: Hunt moved to adopt the recommending resolution to City Council for the adoption of the 1996 City of Aspen Annexation Plan. Seconded by Chaikovska. All in favor, motion carries. Election of Chair-person for the Planning & Zoning Commission MOTION: Hunt moved to nominate Sara Garton for Chair-person. Seconded by Chaikovska. Garton accepted. All in favor, motion carries. 22 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 MOTION: Hunt moved to nominate Jasmine Tygre for Vice Chair-person. Seconded by Mooney. All in favor, motion carries. Buettow asked about electing the Chair £or the Design Review Committee as an representatives o£ Planning & Zoning. Election of Chair-person for the Design Review Committee MOTION: Hunt moved to nominate Steve Buettow for Chair-person. Seconded by Mooney. All in favor, motion carries. Chaikovska said she would like to resign from the Design Review Committee. MOTION: Hunt moved to nominate Robert Blaich and Dave Johnston to the Design Review Committee. Seconded by Buettow. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Amy G. Schmid, Deputy City Clerk 23 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18~ 1996 24