Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19990706ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 Jasmine Tygre, Vice-Chairperson, opened the regular Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting at 4:30 p.m. The following members were present: Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Ron Erickson, Tim Mooney, Steve Buettow and Tim Semrau. Roger Haneman and Bob Blaich were excused. Staff in attendance were: Amy Guthrie, Joyce Ohlson and Chris Bendon, Community Development; David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Ron Erickson said that the RFTA buses were destroying the southwestern comer of Main and Spring, and re-bar was sticking out of the curb. Jasmine Tygre announced the changes in the agenda for the continued public hearings. Roger Hunt noted there was an Aspen Mt. Drainage Meeting on July 22nd at 8:45am. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Steve Buettow said that he had a conflict of interest on the Aspen Mt. PUD. Tim Semrau stated a conflict on 488 Castle Creek Road. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: BAVARIAN INN CONCEPTUAL PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. Herb Klien asked when the continuation for the Bavarian was. David Hoefer stated that was July 20th. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the Public Hearing on the Bavarian Inn Conceptual PUD to July 20, 1999. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 6-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: SIGN CODE AMENDMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the Sign Code Amendment Public Hearing to August 3, 1999. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 6-0. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: DJUNA CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. Joyce Ohlson said the date for continuation was July 13th. Tygre stated that was for Aspen Mt. Conceptual PUD without any other items for review. Ohlson said the applicant was to go before HPC on the 14th and would be in town. The commissioners requested that the HPC hearing be first. Amy Guthrie said there were design issues with HPC that would not be necessary if P&Z did not approve the conditional use. The commissioners decided that Aspen Mt. Conceptual PUD should have the meeting to itself. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the Djuna Conditional Use Review Public Hearing to July 20, 1999. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 6-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: WILLIAMS RANCH SUBSTANTIAL PUD AMENDMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment Public Hearing to August 3, 1999. Erickson second. APPROVED 6-0. Ron CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (06/15/99): MODIFICATION OF CONSERVATION (D) ZONE DISTRICT RELATED TO FAR Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. David Hoefer, Assistant Attorney, provided the criteria sheet and noted the notice had been previously provided. Joyce Ohlson explained this was a legislative change to the land use code to add the floor areas to the conservation which were non-existent in the current code. She stated this was not site specific and there were review standards in the memo. Ohlson noted these were difficult to develop areas with constraints. Roger Hunt asked about adding FAR without the volume. Ohlson stated the Design Review standards applied to this area with a 1 O-acre lot size minimum. Chris ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 Bendon noted that FAR was part of the Community Development workload for this year. Ron Erickson stated support for the change. Tim Semrau asked how many sites this would affect. Ohlson replied there were a number of conservation lots but they did not meet the 1 O-acre minimum. Tygre noted the language was confusing for the external floor area ratio. Public Comments: Phil Rothman questioned the 6600 because it seemed to be a negotiated area and asked how it related to the site. Ohlson replied that 6600 was the maximum square footage. Roger Hunt moved to recommend City Council approve the Conservation (D) Zone District Amendment Related to FAR section 26.28.220; P&Z Resolution #99-13: 11. External floor area ratio: (Applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record): Lot Size Detached Residential Allowable Square Feet Dwellings (Square Feet) 0--3,000 80 square feet of floor area for each 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 2,400 square feet of floor area. 3,000--9,000 2,400 square feet of floor area, plus 28 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,080 square feet of floor area. 9,000--15,000 4,080 square feet of floor area, plus 7 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 4,500 square feet of floor area. 15,000--50,000 4,500 square feet of floor area, plus 6 square feet of floor area for each additional 100 square feet in lot area, up to a maximum of 6,600 square feet of floor area. 50,000+ 6,600 square feet of floor area maximum. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Erickson, yes; Mooney, yes; Semrau, yes; Hunt, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (06/01/99): 308 NORTH FIRST, ADDITION TO HISTORIC INVENTORY Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. David Hoefer stated this was a continued public hearing from June 1, 1999 and provided a criteria sheet for the commission. Amy Guthrie explained the property included a house and a couple of outbuildings, one used as a garage. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 Guthrie noted the property was included on the city's original historic inventory in 1980. She said in 1992, Katherine Levitz Lee, owner of the property at that time, requested the house be removed from the inventory. HPC agreed and removed it. Guthrie said this past spring the property came to City Council for a lot-split and City Council asked HPC to re-examine the property, to be returned to the historic inventory. HPC reviewed it on May 26, 1999 and recommended (6-1) to re-list it on the historic inventory. Guthrie stated the house was built in 1887 by a member of the Brown family and has had many alterations, even after it was placed on the inventory in 1980. She said that even though the house has been compromised, HPC felt it should be re- listed on the inventory because it was a large Victorian. Guthrie noted that HPC could help monitor, preserve and guide any additional restoration undertakings made to the building. The recommendation included that the entire parcel be listed on the inventory, Lots K, L, M and N, even though the property has been subdivided. HPC felt the empty lot was a very sensitive site. Stan Clauson, planner for the applicant, introduced Herb Klein, attorney for the applicant and William C. Nolan, applicant. Clauson stated that City Council granted the lot split and requested the house be re-listed on the historic inventory. He said ordinance 34-92 de-listed the house. He said there was nothing authentic about anything portion of the exterior of the house with the exception of the cross-gable roof. He said every other aspect has been changed. Clauson stated that no piece of historic trim was authentic on the house and this put them in a confusing situation because of the issues of land-marking the vacant lot. He utilized a blueline to illustrate the additions and changes with the foundation Clauson said the house occupied lots M and N (Lot 2) and there was a house on K and L (Lot 1) at one time, but demolished sometime after 1904. Four letters were included in the packet (record): (05/26/99) from Wayne Stryker, architect; (05/26/99) from Richard Klein, architect; (03/92) from Kathrine Levitz Lee, (07/01/99)from Herb Klein plus the (07/01/99) Stan Clauson memo. Clauson stated the code was clear as to what a historic site was and may or may not have structures on it. He said that he did not understand how the newly created Lot 1 could be on the inventory. Herb Klein stated that the code states how sites can be designated and this site did not qualify. He said the HPC had contextual concerns not recognized by the code. Klein said that being placed on the historic inventory placed a significant burden of ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 expense and time on the applicant. Klein said that there was a fairness issue with the house; Mr. Nolan bought the house in 1996 based upon the house not being on the list. Bill Nolan stated that he and his wife were aware of what had happened with the house and told Council that they were taking off an addition to the house to conform to the historic foundation. He said the new lot had nothing to do with historic designation. Roger Hunt asked if there were dimensional non-conformities of the existing structure, particularly with the making of the new lot line. Clauson responded that the new lot line follows the historic town site lot line; there was an intrusion of the original foundation. He said that normally the setback would be five feet (5') and the original foundation was two and half feet (2½') from the lot line. Clauson said the Board of Adjustment granted a variance for the intrusion into the side yard setback. Hoefer asked if it was a condition for a building permit that the deck be removed. Clauson responded that it would be a condition for a re-development of this lot. Hunt noted that Clauson used the argument that it was a historic structure to obtain a variance but now, did not want the other benefits of being historic. Clauson stated that the applicants wanted to do the right thing by the house and certainly could have forgone the slight bay that comes out. Hunt stated that he would argue that creating that lot line has created the non-conformity and did not think that was correct. Clauson answered that was addressed by the Board of Adjustment. Ron Erickson asked if this house had gone to the Board of Adjustment prior to this variance request. Clauson replied that he did not have that information. Erickson recalled that in 1984 Katherine Levitz Lee brought this house in front of the Board of Adjustment for two or three variances, one of which was for the porch and another for the turret. He said the turret was too high, but Ms. Lee told the Board that these changes would create a historically accurate restoration and expansion. He noted that in 1992 Ms. Lee argued that the house was not historical; that everything she did was not worth while to be historically designated. Erickson asked where the compliance was of what a homeowner stated to a board. He asked for clarification on who was the deciding board. Klein responded that there were historic looking structures that were not necessarily regulated and there were historic structures that fit the code. Hoefer stated that was why the resolutions were now being recorded. Erickson noted that he became cynical of the process because an applicant could building something other than what was approved. Hoefer asked Erickson to read the standard. Erickson read "Supporting. All those historic resources that have lost their original integrity, however, are "retrievable" as ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 historic structures (or sites). These structures have received substantial alterations over the years, however, with substantial effort could be considered Contributing once again." Erickson asked if this was precedent setting. Guthrie replied that the other historic sites more specifically met the definition of a historic landscape or archeological site, but not a vacant parcel. Tim Semrau inquired as to why it was de-inventoried 1992. Guthrie reiterated that every 5 years the inventory was re-studied and attitudes change as do alterations to the 260 properties on the inventory; it has to be reviewed. Semrau asked what the definition of retrievable was. Guthrie responded that it could be restored, the possibility of restoration. Hunt said someone argued the historical importance of this house before the Board of Adjustment. Tygre asked when the Board of Adjustment granted the side yard setback variance, was there a representation by the applicant that the faCade would stay the same after the porch was removed. Clauson stated there may have been an indication that it would be wonderful to bring the house back to its original condition, but cost prohibitive. He said there was no discussion of the faCade as part of the variance. Semrau stated that it never occurred to him that this was a historic house. He said it did not seem fair to impose the political change on these owners. Steve Buettow stated that from the Design Review Appeals Committee (DRAC), an architect had come to him with a plan for a very modem house to replace this house. Buettow said that this house, in its present form, adds character to the community. Tim Mooney stated that he remembered Katherine Levitz Lee and prior to her renovations, this house was historical. He said there was something between the lines here; he asked what was the motive. He asked if we wanted a Victorian style house built on the lot and if we wanted this house to be on the historic register so it wouldn't be tom down. He said this was a very speculative part of town, but he could not support this designation without the applicant's wishes. Tygre stated there was a problem with the house being listed historic, then de-listed. She asked if the structure were demolished would they be able to re-build in the non-conformity. Clauson replied that they would be able to rebuild to the non- conformity within one year if it were demolished in its entirety; if it were demolished by an act of god, they would have two years to re-build to the non- ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 conformity. Clauson said that he did not think anyone would build to that non- conformity unless they were responsive to the historic shape of the house. Hunt said the city created the non-conformity when the lot split was done. Hunt asked if the code change on non-conformity had been accomplished. Hoefer stated that the variance would only apply to this house. Bendon responded that there was no right to re-build with the non-conformity variance. Erickson asked if that building as it exists was worth while to preserve or restore; that was the question to ask. He said as much as the commission might like to control what is built on the vacant lot, it is not historic. Tygre stated that was a good summary of the discussion and called for a motion. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to recommend to City Council that 308 North First Street, Lots M and N (Lot 2) be listed on the inventory of historic sites and structures finding that criteria "C" has been met and Lots K and L (Lot 1) not be designated historic because of the creation of the non-conformity. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Mooney, no; Semrau, no; Erickson, yes; Buettow, yes; Hunt, yes; Tygre, no. DENIED 3-3. Semrau asked if the new lot line had been placed 5' over, then the house would not be historic. Hunt replied that they argued to governmental entities that this historic non-conformity exists. He said if they want to use that argument, then designate it historic. Hunt said if it was not a historic structure then the lot line should be moved to accommodate that lot line even if it has to take a piece out of someplace else to balance the lot size. Semrau paraphrased Roger Hunt that the lot line was placed close to the house by using the historic reasons argument for the variance and for the lot split. Clauson reiterated that this was a historic lot split to the town site; the house could have been demolished at the time of the lot split because it was not a historic house. He said it was not the intention of the applicant to demolish the house; he said the house had a historic shape whether or not the house was designated historic. Hoefer recapped the issue, which was if the lot with the house (Lot 2) was to be designated historic. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to recommend City Council deny 308 North First Street, Lots K and L (Lot 1), the vacant lot. Tim Semrau second. Roll call vote: Buettow, no; Hunt, yes; Mooney, yes; Semrau, yes; Erickson, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED TO DENY 5-1. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 MOTION: Steve Buettow moved to recommend City Council list 308 North First Street, Lots M and N (Lot 2) on the inventory of historic sites and structures finding that criteria "C" has been met. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Hunt, yes; Mooney, no; Semrau, no; Tygre, no; Erickson, yes; Buettow, yes. DENIED 3-3. PUBLIC HEARING: 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD REZONING Tim Semrau recused himself. Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. David Hoefer stated the notice was sufficient to proceed. Chris Bendon explained this was a rezoning request for 488 Castle Creek Road. He illustrated the triangular property on a blueline, referencing Castle Ridge, Castle Creek Road and the Marolt Housing. He said the majority of the parcel was flat but the back part of the property was very steep as it went down toward Marolt. Bendon gave the history of the area. Bendon stated the property was currently zoned R-15, with a PUD over-lay to prohibit a lot-split. The size of the property was just less than 36,000 square feet; since 1980 significant changes to the land use code and to the area have occurred. Staff recommended denial. Stan Clauson, planner for applicant, introduced the applicant, Paul Anderson. Clauson distributed a zoning map of the area. He reiterated the key changes to the land use code and area as stated in his memo; the property was annexed into the city in 1980. He said it was a portion of the original Marolt Ranch. Clauson stated that Ordinance 30 replaced the need to limit the PUD density issue and Growth Management addresses lot splits which also did not exist in 1980. He said there was nothing included in this PUD referencing a plan. Clauson asked for the members of the commission to continue this hearing after a scheduled a site visit. He said that he took exception to the conditions of the required findings and were not of public benefit to rezone this site. Clauson stated that the interest in the Marolt Ditch, 3.3 cubic feet per second water rights, held by this property could be conveyed to the city. Tygre asked Clauson what he really wanted, since the memo was not provided to the commission until today. Clauson requested tabling action to accommodate a site visit. Tygre asked if the commissioners desired a site visit. Only one commissioner, Steve Buettow, felt a site visit would be beneficial. The other commissioners felt comfortable with their knowledge of this property. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 Buettow asked the scope of development. Paul Anderson said that if the PUD were removed, then the underlying zoning would comply. He said the ADU would be rented. Anderson stated that he went to the planning department prior to buying the property and was told what was appropriate for this property, which was to remove the PUD. He said that he was told for three months that it was a great idea to remove the PUD and do a lot split. He said then three days prior to the P&Z meeting he got a letter from the head of Community Development stating the slopes were a problem and this would be denied. Anderson stated that he was then told that they wanted him to build 10 units on the property and not remove the PUD. He said he did not have the funds or inclination to do that, nor did he want to see that from an environmental standpoint. He said the neighbors did not want to see more units. Anderson said he wanted to do the ADU, donate the water to the city and the code guarantees community benefit. Roger Hunt said if the PUD were lifted how would the lot split occur, where would the access be and how many units would be built. Bendon responded that what was before the commission tonight was only the rezoning issue. He said the promise from an applicant would go towards a contractual rezoning which was not land use. Hunt replied that the consequences of lifting the PUD could be extreme in this case and he remembered the deliberations of why the PUD was placed on this property. The access was a problem. Ron Erickson asked if they were to place a PUD on a property why couldn't they have a specific plan. Hoefer responded that what Chris Bendon stated that would be contract zoning and could be lifted. Clauson responded that there could only be two house sites. Anderson stated the maximum square footage at about 4100. Tim Mooney asked if there could be conditions placed on this property rezoning if P&Z decided to approve it. Bendon replied that no conditions would be placed on a rezoning because that would be contractual zoning, not land use. He said that in 1980 that was also suggested to reduce the lot split. Erickson asked if this were approved, would P&Z review this again. Bendon replied that it would depend if there was an ADU. There were no public comments. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to recommend City Council approve the rezoning 488 Castle Creek Road from R15-A-PUD to R15-A. Steve Buettow second. Roll call vote: Erickson, no; Hunt, no; Buettow, no; Tygre, no; Mooney, no. DENIED 5-0. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING: MITTEL EUROPA CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Roger Hunt opened the public hearing on Mittel Europa, 516 East Bleeker Street, conditional use. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated the notice was provided and met the jurisdictional requirements for the Commission to proceed. He also distributed a criteria sheet to the commissioners. Chris Bendon explained this was within the S/C/I Zone District and it was the first application since the revision of the SCI Zone. He gave the rewrite history of the SCI Zone noting the uses and dimensions. The original intent of the SCI Zone was to provide an area in town that was for manufacturing or services or types of businesses that would be found within town without having to drive down-valley. The SCI Ordinance #2-99 was included in the packet. Bendon introduced Corene McGovern, applicant and BCS representative; Harris Cahn and Howard Bass, property owners; Mickey Herron, attorney for property owners. Bendon commented that up to 25% of the square foot area could be retail but required a conditional use review. The conditional uses may have some on-site or off-site impacts or additional impacts on the community in general. Bendon stated that Corene intended to do furniture repair, sell fabrics and consign retail furniture. About ½ of the store would be retail consigmnent, retail fabric sales and/or interior decorating items. Staff recommended approval. Roger Hunt asked what the other 50% of the space would be used for. McGovem replied that Jeanne Craffey does upholstery and Johanna has a workshop; they both need large spaces. McGovem stated the building was naturally divided in half. Steve Buettow asked if all the furniture for sale was being refinished or on consigmnent. McGovern answered that it was either or. Ron Erickson stated because there were so many different areas of usage, how will it be determined if the retail space goes above the 25% to 50%. Bendon responded that was the reason for the 25% retail limit and the zoning officer would be the enforcement. He said that if a complaint were made, anyone in Community Development would follow up on that complaint. Bendon noted there would be an annual up-date for all the businesses in the SCI district. 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to extend the meeting for an additional 15 minutes. Steve Buettow second. APPROVED 6-0. Public comments: Harris Cahn, co-owner of the property, stated the letter from Jay Abrahamovich (in record) was written prior to his discussion with him; Abrahamovich was now more accepting of Mittel Europa. Susan Harvey, owner of Susie's Consignment, said that she began a furniture portion to her store about six months ago; she said that she played by the rules and paid high rent. She stated that Ms. McGovem should go into the retail district with the retail consignment furniture. Vince Galluccio, Aspen Repair, stated the 25% limit made sense and stated that the fears the other retail store owners had were valid. He asked that 25% be held because this zone was to be service, commercial and industrial not a retail district. Howard Bass, co-owner of property, stated that he believed the SCI was written so that any one could be 100% consignment shop subject to the mitigations that might be needed. He noted there were about 10 retail stores like video, carpet, tile, bikes, florist and a gym. There were other businesses just like these in the commercial core. Bass cited rents throughout different parts of town. Mickey Herron stated that some of the uses were 100% acceptable for the SCI and the allowed uses can vary the conditional use. He said that it was not the P&Z or zoning laws purpose to become involved in economics of business rent costs. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to extend the meeting for an additional 15 minutes. Steve Buettow second. APPROVED 6-0. The discussions included the 25% number being retail use with the type of retail by this applicant; what was the proper number if not 25%; 50% pushed the limits; the size of the pieces or components of the consignment retail items being large; additional conditions to insure the representations, recommendations and conditions be adhered to. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to approve the conditional use for Mittel Europa, that 50% of the floor area devoted to retail and showroom activity at 516 East Bleeker Street, finding the standards have been met with the following conditions: 10 The store operator shall maintain the loading 11 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 area free and clear of obstructions. No parking shall be allowed in this loading area. 2.) Prior to issuance of a business license, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Housing Office that the proposed use does not generate more employees than the previous businesses. 3.) Any expansion or other significant change in the operation of this use will be subject to all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code which may include conditional use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. 4.) 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. 5.) 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. Roger Hunt second. Semrau, yes; Erickson, no; Buettow, yes; Hunt, yes; Mooney, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5-1. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adjourn at 7:30 p.m. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 6-0. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 12 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 6, 1999 COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS ................................................................................................. 1 DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST ............................................................................................ 1 BAVARIAN INN CONCEPTUAL PUD .............................................................................................................. 1 SIGN CODE AMENDMENT .............................................................................................................................. 1 DJUNA CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 2 WILLIAMS RANCH SUBSTANTIAL PUD AMENDMENT ............................................................................ 2 MODIFICATION OF CONSERVATION (D) ZONE DISTRICT RELATED TO FAR .................................. 2 308 NORTH FIRST, ADDITION TO HISTORIC INVENTORY ..................................................................... 3 488 CASTLE CREEK ROAD REZONING ........................................................................................................ 8 MITTEL EUROPA CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW ...................................................................................... 10 13