Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19980915ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 Sara Garton opened the regular Aspen Planning and Zoning meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners Bob Blaich, Steve Buettow, Ron Erickson, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt and Tim Mooney were present. Jasmine Tygre arrived at 5:00 p.m. and Tim Semrau was excused. City Staff in attendance were: Chris Bendon, Stan Clauson, Mitch Haas, Amy Guthrie and Julie Ann Woods, Community Development; David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ron Erickson complemented staff on doing a great job. Sara Garton asked, as a citizen of the East End with the re-development potential, for a construction parking plan to be reviewed by Planning & Zoning. She noted there were probably 30 pick-ups on Park and Midland now. She said the construction workers vehicles have also disrupted RFTA as well. Mitch Haas commented that Engineering was working on this parking plan. Stan Clauson stated the city policy for development in the commercial core, where paid parking existed, was for those parking spaces occupied by a construction trailer or blocked out, were paid to the city; the lost revenue was reimbursed. He noted there was not an equivalent policy for areas in the city that do not have paid parking. Clauson said that Parking and Transportation would be asked for help. He noted a condition of approval could be added. Tim Mooney asked about the construction trailer in front of the ISIS again. Clauson said that trailer has a permit from Engineering for the duration of the steel bracing in front portion of the project. He said snow removal won't be affected because it was windrow to the center of the street and not plowed to the edge. Mooney said with valet parking and the construction trailer, the center of the street was changed. He asked if this was considered when snow removal would be necessary. There was discussion of trailer placement. Roger Hunt inquired as to changing the valet parking to parallel. David Hoefer noted the parallel parking has been discussed. Mooney clarified the construction manager parked his vehicle on the empty tree lot. Bob Blaich again noted the very shiny and reflective silver pipes exposed at Waterplace and the approval was for a subdued look. Clauson mentioned this to David Guthrie and will check back with him. Jackie Lothian requested dates to for the commissioners to meet with council for lunch. All commissioners, except for Hunt, agreed to a Friday noon lunch. Garton reminded commissioners of the Given Institute AACP update on 10/01/98. 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 Clauson cordially invited the commissioners to the Elks Club on September 30th. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Sara Garton disclosed speaking to Nick Lebby regarding the trash problems in the alley behind LaCocina. No other commissioners disclosed any conflicts. MINUTES Sara Garton complemented the minutes as well done. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes of 21 July, 4 August and 18 August, 1998. Bob Blaich second. APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 934 WEST FRANCIS, CONDITIONAL USE FOR TWO ADUs David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, requested proof of notice be brought to the city clerks office by 5pm, Wednesday, 9/16/98 with the understanding the hearing will be considered null and void, if the proper notice was not received. He stated, that in the future, if staff did not have proof of notice, the public hearing would not proceed. The applicant Dale Hower, was sworn in by the Deputy City Clerk, Jackie Lothian. Mitch Haas stated that neighbors had told him that they were notified. Hoefer asked when the notice was posted on the property, where the list of neighbors was obtained from and when the mailing occurred. Ms. Hower responded that was at least 3 weeks ago. She stated that neighbors also told her that notices were received. (Notice received by deputy city clerk on 09/16/98). Haas explained the request was for conditional use approval to construct 2 ADUs; one on each lot. The lot split was approved by city council last year. The proposed ADUs would be located above the attached garages along the alley. There would be a GMQS exemption for each house with approval of the ADUs and they requested the FAR bonus. Haas stated they were made aware there would be a condition of mandatory occupancy if the FAR bonus was granted. Haas noted the change in representatives. The Lot 1 ADU would contain a net livable 416 square feet and Lot 2 would be 423 square feet; the bonus would only count as % of what would be counted in calculating the total FAR on the lot. Each ADU would have its own entrance off the alley. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 Haas stated the applicant also requested a series of variances from the residential design standards. He said it was made very clear to the applicant during the application process there was a choice of DRAC for the volume variances or P&Z; one or the other, not both. If the one chosen did not grant the variances, there was no right to go before the other board afterwards. Haas circulated drawings with highlighted areas for the window volume variances. He said staff did not recommend approval for these variances on the east or west elevations; the windows could be re-designed to comply. The north elevation in the ADU had more than UBC required natural light and glazing areas; they were not necessary in terms of providing light. Haas said if the windows were rectilinear, they would comply. He said there was a no window zone of 9' - 12' for rectilinear or orthogonal windows; the no window zone for non-orthogonal windows was from 9' - 15'. Staff recommended the windows be re-designed to comply with the residential design standards. Haas stated the deed restriction for the ADUs would be required mandatory occupancy because the applicant was seeking an FAR bonus with a condition granting that FAR bonus. He said there would be a condition with lock-off doors between the ADUs and the main residence. He said condition #8 had to do with parking. There were conditions concerning the fencing and trees. Sara Garton inquired about referral agency comments. Haas replied that the city council did not want to see the referral agency memos; just to make the concerns part of the staff memo. He said the conditions reflected the concerns. Garton noted the land use commission needed to review engineering, housing, HPC, environmental health and fire comments if applicable. Bob Blaich questioned the memo statement on page 5 regarding the appeal decision making process. Haas clarified P&Z would be the board if they chose to go forward on the design standards review tonight; no other board would review. Ron Erickson inquired as to the enforcement of a qualified renter for the ADU. Haas replied that was part of the deed restriction. Hoefer stated a letter from the Attorney's office would be sent from a complaint. Erickson asked if tenants could be screened through the housing office. Haas said it would be the honor system to send the tenant to the housing office. Scott Sambrowski commented the old housing rules applied. Garton stated that if a FAR bonus was granted; quid pro quo would be mandatory occupancy for the ADU. There was discussion of the FAR bonus; mandatory occupancy for the ADU and the conditions of approval. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 Chris Bendon clarified the existing Housing Guidelines reflected recommendation for approval with mandatory occupancy as a deed restriction for the FAR bonus. Roger Hunt said the legal lot split should entail 2 separate addresses instead of the 934 West Francis. Haas responded that legally they could be Lots 1 & 2 of the Hower subdivision. Julie Ann Woods explained that at building permit, the addresses would be assigned. Sambrowski and Hower decided to pull the design standards from the P&Z meeting tonight. Haas explained prior to building permit, the designs would be submitted for Ordinance 30 review. If the designs would not comply, then a separate application would be required for that design review and a separate fee. The record reflects the design standards variance requests not part of any approval or reflected in the conditions of approval. Public Comments: Frances Pearce, 923 West Francis, stated concern for the parking problems in the neighborhood. She asked that no street parking be allowed from these 2 new houses; that all parking be contained on the lots. Haas said the parking was addressed with a 2 car garage per house; 1 parking pad per ADU accessed from the alley. He said any street parking would have the standard residential parking permits (1 per unit). Haas noted these parking spaces met the requirements. Klm Keilin, 939 West Francis, stated that notice was not received and would like to be notified in the future. She asked if it could be conditional to have one spot per bedroom. Haas said the site plan wouldn't allow that because of the trees. Keilin asked if the ADUs could be limited to one vehicle for each. Haas said there was a condition for one parking space per ADU on site to be indicated on the final plat. Hoefer explained the city regulations had no authority to restrict parking on public streets. Keilin asked if contractors could park on 8th Street. Hower agreed about parking problems in the area and would request the contractor to park on 8th and obtain parking passes. Lucy Talenfeld, 915 West Francis, said that she was also concerned about the parking. She said the alley would be open. Garton noted during the building permit process, the question could be posed. Sambrowski stated if parking could be in the alley they would take that opportunity; he'll check with the fire Marshall. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 Garton stated the ADUs being occupied would be a benefit to the community to house people in the urban areas. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the conditional use request for the two (2) ADUs at 934 West Francis, Aspen finding the conditions provided by the city attorney's office have been met and with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall: a. Verify with the Housing Office that the net livable floor area of each Accessory Dwelling Unit will be between 300 and 700 square feet, and the units shall be totally private, having private entrances and no rooms (i.e., mechanical rooms, etc.) that might need to be accessed by people in the principle residences; b. Verify with the Housing Office that each ADU will contain a kitchen having a minimum of a two-burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer; c. Provide the Housing Office with a signed and recorded Deed Restriction requiring mandatory occupancy, a copy of which must be obtained from the Housing Office, for each of the two ADUs; d. Clearly identify the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on building permit plans as separate one-bedroom units separated from the primary residences by lock-off doors of the variety typical of hotel suites (set of two adjoining doors); e. Provide a minimum of one 8.5' x 20' on-site parking space for each ADU, and indicate these designated parking spaces on the final plans; f. Install any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment on an easement provided by the property owner and not within the public rights-of-way; g. Locate any additional proposed construction, including trash facilities, in such a way that it does not encroach into an existing utility easement or public right-of-way; h. Agree to join any future improvement district(s) which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of-way; the agreement shall be executed and recorded concurrently upon approval of this application; i. Submit working drawings to verify all height, setback, and floor area calculations, as well as lot size and lot area calculations; j. Complete and record a Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Agreement; k. A tap permit(s) must be completed at the office of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; payment of the total connection charges shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit; 1. If either building is found to contain 5,000 square feet or more of gross area, approval and installation of an automatic fire suppression system will be required; m. Verify that the proposed plans for the ADUs will comply with all UBC requirements including but not limited to those addressing natural light and ventilation standards, as well as sound attenuation walls between each ADU and the principal residences; and, n. Submit building permit drawings which indicate all utility meter locations; utility meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage. The plans must also indicate a five (5) foot wide pedestrian usable space with a five (5) foot wide buffer for snow storage. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO), the applicant shall: a. Submit as-built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprint, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Systems Department in accordance with City GIS requirements, if and when, any exterior renovation or remodeling of the property occurs that requires a building permit; and, b. Permit Community Development Department, Engineering and Housing Office staff to inspect the property to determine compliance 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 with the conditions of approval. 3. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way; The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights-of-way. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a review of any proposed minor changes from the approvals, as set forth herein, shall be made by the Planning and Engineering Departments, or referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. The applicant shall provide a roof overhang or other sufficient means of preventing snow from falling on both the stairway leading to the doors and the area in front of the doors to the ADUs; sufficient means of preventing icing of the stairway is also required. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, any needed tree removal permit(s) must be obtained from the Parks Department for any tree(s) that is/are to be removed or relocated (including scrub oaks of three (3) inches or greater); also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s). The applicant shall also make a good faith effort to preserve the trees numbered as 8, 13, and 14 on the Site Improvement Survey. 7. The site development must meet the runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f), and the building permit application must include a drainage mitigation plan (full size - 24" x 36") and report, both signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. 8. In the driveways that serve as access to the garages of the primary residences, only parallel parking shall be permitted, and standard head-in/out parking in these driveways is prohibited due to inadequate depth. 9. All fencing located forward of the front setback lines of both lots shall be visually permeable with a height not to exceed four (4) feet from finished grade, and shall allow for compliance with the open space requirements of the zone district. 10. The applicant shall receive an FAR bonus on each lot equal to 50% of the net livable area of the ADU on that lot. 11. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by an entity having authority to do so. Bob Blaich second, roll call vote: Hunt, yes; Mooney, yes; Buettow, yes; Blaich, yes; Erickson, yes; Garton, yes; Tygre, abstain. APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 270 NORTH SPRING STREET, BRANDING GROUP RESIDENCE CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ADU, STREAM MARGIN REVIEW, AND WAIVERS OF RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS (# 2737-073-11-005) ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 Sara Garton opened the public hearing and requested proof of notice. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated the affidavit met the requirements and the commission had jurisdiction to proceed. Chris Bendon, Staff, explained the applicant was the Branding Group and they were requesting Conditional Use approval for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, Stream Margin Review and variances to the "Volume" and "Garage Placement" elements of the Residential Design Standards. He said the property was located at 270 Spring Street, Oklahoma Flats Addition. Bendon illustrated the location on bluelines showing the comer lot with Bay and Spring Streets. Bendon noted the ADU was approximately 587 square feet, deed restricted to mandatory occupancy, to be located in a space above a proposed garage; a little larger than most units with a nice deck. The garage does not comply with the residential design standards because it was not set back. The applicant was seeking a FAR bonus for the ADU (in which ~ of the ADU counts toward the allowable FAR). Bendon explained there were 2 ways to obtain the FAR bonus: (3 the unit qualify as detached (the footprint cannot exceed 450 sf; separate from the main residence); or © deed restrict for mandatory occupancy. He stated that one of the two should be decided upon. Bendon noted staff recommended approval of the window waivers but not the garage wavier from the residential design standards. Garton inquired about the two curb cuts. Bendon replied that only one curb cut was allowed per property. He said Denise Reich provided some photos and a letter regarding the parking. Bill Poss, Steve Holly and Kristeen Rosenberg were present for the hearing and review. Poss, architect, agreed with the conditions; he requested the variances for the garage and windows. He explained the current 20' set back from the property line and 25' from the street edge; the ADU balcony would be above the garage. Poss utilized colored bluelines and photos of neighboring houses to illustrate his reason for the variances. He said Bay Street was not really a curb cut because there weren't any curbs, but in the future there may be curbs. Garton asked where the ADU parking was located. Poss said it would be located on that side of the house; there would be a caretaker living in the unit. Bendon stated this commission did not have the authority to grant the curb cut as a variance. Poss said the landscaping included some deciduous trees on the comer and on the street line to soften the edge from the setback. He stated there would be a 3' very open (rail) fence to define the property. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 Tim Mooney stated the neighborhood was eclectic; the movement of the garage back would encroach on light that would enhance the living spaces. He complimented the spirit of the ADU and the house; he said the variances were justified. Mooney recommended the off street curb cut. Bob Blaich stated the design was very good and this was setting a good example. He supported what Mooney said. Steve Buettow stated the design de-emphasized the size of the garage; the building was carefully articulated. He asked to see a parking place for the ADU. Ron Erickson said that he had no problem with any of this but asked why a house couldn't be designed to conform with the code so that the commission does not have to look at moving windows. Blaich agreed that there have been enough test cases for Ordinance 30 to apply or not apply. Poss replied that he was on the committee that created Ordinance 30 and if the ordinance had to address every situation, it would be too thick. Blaich noted there were some architects that come in over and over to challenge the ordinance. He agreed with Mooney on the site specific applications for the variances. Mooney stated it was the client that drove the architect to request variances. Tygre said that the volume standard was still not addressed successfully in the design standards. She did not find this design as objectionable as others in the area. Hunt agreed. Poss said they wanted to add some trees outside the building envelope. Bendon stated that parks would have to approve what P&Z recommended. Discussions included proposed guest parking along the north side of the property which represents a second curb cut disallowed by the municipal code. Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that upon the curbing and guttering of Bay Street the City should allow for a second curb cut for the property at this location. This disposition does not create a legal or vested right. There was discussion of the conditions which were amended as stated in the motion. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the Conditional Use for a 587 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit, deed restricted to mandatory occupancy, to be located above a proposed garage, the Stream Margin Review, and the waiver of the "Volume" and "Garage Placement" elements of the Residential Design Standards are approved for the proposed Branding Group residence, 270 North Spring Street, with the following conditions: 1. Before the building permit application may be accepted, the applicant shall provide a current site improvement survey wet signed and sealed by a Registered 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 Engineer or Land Surveyor. 2. The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the 587 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit, as represented. The Zoning Officer shall measure half of the ADU's Floor Area as contributing to the maximum allowable for the parcel as the unit shall be deed restricted to mandatory occupancy. 3. Before issuance of a building permit, the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be deed restricted and registered with the Housing Authority. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Unit shall be inspected by the Housing Authority or the Zoning Officer to ensure the unit was built in substantial conformance with the permit plans and this Resolution. 4. The permit plans shall designate one on-site parking space for the Accessory Dwelling Unit which is not stacked with a space for the primary residence. 5. The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby waives the "Volume" and "Garage placement" elements of the Residential Design Standards for this project. Any substantial change to the proposed residence which necessitates an additional or different variance from the design standards shall require review and approval by the Design Review Appeal Committee, or any other board from which the project requires land use approval. 6. The building envelope for this parcel shall coincide with the zoning setbacks for this parcel. The top-of-slope does not occur within the parcel boundaries. The front yard shall be measured from the Bay Street parcel line. No development may occur outside of this building envelope accept as represented on the proposed landscape plan. The applicant shall provide a landscape plan, with the building envelope shown, with the building permit set for review and approval. 7. The building envelope shall be barricaded to protect existing vegetation prior to issuance of a building permit. Adequate construction access should be placed to minimize disturbance to the existing vegetation but does not need to be barricaded. 8. All exterior lighting shall be downcast and not used to accentuate architectural or landscape features of the property. 9. The applicant shall, to the extent practical, coordinate the relocation of the cabin and smaller accessory structure with Denise Reich, neighbor. This condition shall no~t be construed to be a condition of this development proposal. 10. A tree removal permit from the City Parks Department shall be required for the removal or relocation of trees as per Section 13.20.020 of the Code. 11. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall complete a tap permit and shall pay all connection charges due to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. The applicant shall connect the ADU to the sanitary sewer in a manner acceptable to the ACSD superintendent. 12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain a permit from the Environmental Health Department for any certified woodstoves or gas log fireplaces (new coal- & woodburning fireplaces are not allowed). 13. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a drainage report and a drainage plan, including a erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2 year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. 14. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall provide a Floodplain Elevation Certificate, demonstrating the structure has been constructed according to requirements of building within the floodplain, to the City Engineer. 15. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall complete and record an agreement to join any future improvement districts for the purpose of constructing improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula. 16. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the site improvement survey. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed. 17. The applicant must receive approval for any work within public rights-of- way from the appropriate City Department. This includes, but is not limited to, approval for a mailbox and landscaping from the City Streets Department. 18. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-way unless ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the 2 hour residential parking limitation of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. 19. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. 20. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 21. 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. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 7-0. Roger Hunt excused himself at 6:15 p.m. NEW BUSINESS: 303 E. MAIN STREET - SPECIAL REVIEW FOR TRASH AREA Amy Guthrie explained the review process went back to early 1996 with the requirement ofa 10'x20'xl0' trash area reduced in height to 8' on the first floor of the tower. She said subsequently the project was built and the tenant, Matsuhisa, utilized the entire first floor of that area for dry and cold food storage. She said this has prevented them fi'om receiving a certificate of occupancy. Guthrie stated the proposal for the trash storage area was about one quarter of what was the required trash area. There was a dumpster in this area (to be emptied daily) for Matsuhisa, the retail space, old Bacchus space and the apartment. She said there was a signed agreement with the Howling Wolf for trash disposal. Guthrie stated there were safe-guards in the conditions for the approval. Steve Buettow recalled that the Howling Wolf came in a number of years ago for a reduction in their trash area, which would make the area inadequate. Jeffrey Hafferty, representative for the applicant, stated they had met with the environmental ranger on trash requirements. He said they have placed a larger trash container at the Wolf. David Hoefer stated that they will be made to comply with all city ordinances regarding trash. Jasmine Tygre inquired about the tenant to replace Bacchus with regards to trash generation. Roget Kuhn stated there has been inquiry into that space, but no one has leased. Tygre inquired about the garage doors. Guthrie answered those were not designated parking areas but the storage area already mentioned. Hafferty stated after 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 meeting with Betsey Kipp, Environmental Health, they agreed to meet the fire code and trash storage requirements. Tim Mooney expressed adding a condition with regards to the trash storage for the term of the lease for Matsuhisa, so it would not roll over to the new tenant with different trash needs. Garton stated there were problems with this requests because the parcel had constraints, which had to met by the landlord. She noted that trash would have to be camed past another restaurant (LaCocina) in order to be placed in the Howling Wolf dumpster. Garton said there could be adjustments made to the building to provide trash removal; the restaurant located at the end of the alley should be the collection spot for trash. Erickson asked how condition ~8 would be enforced. Garton asked if the business license could be tracked through the City computer software program. The answer was that the Software was not capable. Hafferty stated the other restaurants had non-proper trash storage containment. Garton asked if Howling Wolf would be used for over flow trash only or everyday. Hafferty said all trash from the building, not just Matsuhisa, was stored in the Matsuhisa trash area; the reason the Howling Wolf dumpster was to be used. Roget Kuhn stated the design his father wanted included the trash area inside. He said they were trying to support the tenant in the storage request. Hafferty said there was a larger mechanical room where the dry storage space was supposed to go in the basement; the dry storage was now located in that trash storage area. Blaich recalled the P&Z heatings with a not favorable history of the project. He said the original agreement should be kept. Charles Fagan, attorney for Matsuhisa, stated the original design showed the storage area (garage) with both bays open; during construction there were basic physical plan engineering problems resulting in ~ of the western bay being used for mechanical and venting. Fagan said the restaurant needed that area for dry storage and were trying to make the best of a bad situation. Garton stated there were changes that needed to be made in order to make it work and would stay with the 1996 approval. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to approve Special Review for Trash Area at 303 E. Main Street with the following conditions: 1. The on-site trash storage area shall be as shown in either Scheme A or B, as shown on Exhibit C and as reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 15, 1998. 11 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 2. The attached agreement with the Howling Wolf must be signed and recorded with the City Clerk's office within 15 days of this approval. 3. The separation wall between the trash area and food storage area shall meet the requirements of the Environmental Health Department. Environmental Health must also confirm that Matsuhisa will still have adequate cold food storage with the dedication of some of the existing area to trash storage. 4. The Fire Department must confirm that the sprinkler system is adequate. 5. In transporting their garbage from 303 E. Main Street to the Howling Wolf, Matsuhisa, or any other tenants of 303 E. Main who may participate in the trash agreement with the Howling Wolf, are responsible for picking up items that fall to the ground. Failure to do so will result in a notice of violation from the City's Environmental Ranger and his recommendation that the trash storage revert to the approval as granted in 1996. 6. No fewer than five 90 gallon residential type trash containers, or an equivalent size dumpster will be placed in the on-site trash storage area and pick up for trash will be on a daily basis, as represented by the applicant. 7. At such time as a compactor is installed in the alley, the owner and tenants of 303 E. Main Street will be required to participate in that program. 8. If the agreement with the Howling Wolf becomes invalid before a compactor is installed, and no other similar agreement is in place within 10 days, this approval will be nullified and the applicant must modify the trash storage area on the site to the configuration originally approved in 1996. 9. All material representations made by the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval. Ron Erickson second. ALL AGAINST. MOTION DENIED 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 1 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................................................................. 2 MINUTES ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 934 WEST FRANCIS, CONDITIONAL USE FOR TWO ADUS ...................................................................... 2 270 NORTH SPRING STREET, BRANDING GROUP RESIDENCE CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ADU, STREAM MARGIN REVIEW, AND WAIVERS OF RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS (# 2737-073- 11-005) .................................................................................................................................................................. 6 303 E. MAIN STREET - SPECIAL REVIEW FOR TRASH AREA ............................................................... 10 12 ASPEN pLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS .............................................................................................................................. 1 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ................................................................................................... 2 934 WEST FRANCIS. CONDITIONAL USE FOR TWO ADUS ........................................................................... 2 270 NORTH SPRING STREET. BRANDING GROUP RESIDENCE CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ADU. STREAM MARGIN REVIEW. AND WAIVERS OF RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS (# 273%073- I1-005~ .......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 303 E. MAIN STREET - SPECIAL REVIEW FOR TRASH AREA .................................................................... 10