Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19860708 "'~ , RetlularMeetina Plannin9 and Zonin9 Commission Julv 8. 1986 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with members Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, David white, Mari Peyton, Jim Colombo and Ramona Markalunas present CO~ISSIONERSCOMMENTS 1. David White said Council has voted to put the entrance to Aspen issue to the electorate in August. There will be two questions, the existing alignment or a new alignment. MINUTES Hunt moved to approve the minutes of June 3, 1986, with a correction to page 3 paragraph 4 indicating the intention is not pick up and drop off of service vehicles on Main street but rather guest deliveries; seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes of June 17, 1986, with a correction to page 6 last paragraph adding what the size of a typical short term "studio. unit; seconded by Hunt. All in favor, motion carried. 601 ASPEN PROiJEe'!'-CONCEPTUAL REVIEW AND REZONING Alan Richman, planning director, told the Commission he received a letter from the applicant requesting this be tabled to a date certain. Richman said the applicant has appealed the scoring of the P & Z and is asking Council to act on the appeal before the rezoning is heard. Richman told P & Z he needs to discuss this with the city attorney if this is the appropriate action to take. Richman said P & Z, generally completes its business before Council takes the next step. Richman said if the appeal is supported by Council, the P & Z will have to take these other actions. The applicant has suggested tabling to a date certain late August or early September. Richman told the Board scheduling this to a date certain would avoid the necessity of re-noticing. Colombo pointed out if this is scheduled to a date certain, and it is denied, it is keeping another applicant from that meeting. The Board favored re-noticing this project. Hunt moved, at the request of the applicant, to table 601 Aspen project for conceptual review and rezoning to a date uncertain to be re-noticed by the applicant, given the circumstances of the state of this application; seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. HOTELJEReME-~LARIFICATION 1 Reaular-Meetina Plannina and Zoning Commission July 8. 1986 Perry Harvey told the P & Z, the Council approved the HPC plan and not the stepped plan recommended by P & Z. Harvey told the Board he presented both plans to Council. The planning office recommended the applicant take the conditional use approval back to P & Z. Harvey presented resolution 86-8 which granted approval for the PUD amendment, which conditions, one of which was the height on Monarch street. The conditional use approval and special review approvals were separate. Harvey said he would like the P & Z to decide whether this was intended to be two separate motions, or to re-notice a public hearing. Harvey said he would like the Commission to state that the conditional use for expansion of a hotel is still valid, even though one of the conditions for the granting of the PUD amendment was not followed by Council. Alan Richman, planning director, said P & Z is the final review body for conditional use approval, but is a recommending body on PUD amendment. Conditional use is the appropriateness of the use in the location, which includes is a hotel appropriate on the site. Richman said if the height limitation was attached to the conditional use, the public hearing will have to be repeated. If the condition was attached only to the PUD amendment, Council can over-ride that action. Anderson said the conditional use action took about 1/50 of the time for the PUD action. Ms. Markalunas said her intention was to limit the height on the corner of Monarch and Bleeker in either action. Colombo said that was not his intention. Ms. Tygre said she would have like it to be conditioned upon that; however, it is not appropriate at this point. Ms. Tygre said the conditional use for the hotel was almost certain. Ms. Tygre said it is not fair to the applicant to use the conditional use approval to get what the Commission wanted. Ms. Peyton said she was not at that meeting but would have voted to give the applicant conditional use. White said he was not at the meeting. Hunt said he also was not at the meeting but he feels the conditional use conditions would be the same as the PUD amendment conditions. (Alan Blomquist came into the meeting). Harvey said the code states for a conditional use, the Board look at if the use is compatible. Hunt said part of the use is the impact of the expansion of that use. Hunt said he feels this would be a bad precedent. Anderson said he does not think re-hearing this is a productive purpose. Anderson said he feels the conditional use approval is a separate approval from the PUD approval. Colombo moved that resolution 86-8 contained conditions 1 through 7 that appl ied to the PUD amendment recommendation and under separate motion granted conditional use approval without those conditions that because of the particular circumstances surrounding the application and the confusion at the time of 2 ,. Reaular'Meetina Plannina and- Zoning Commission July 8. 1986 original approval this should not be taken as precedence for future applications; seconded by Ms. Tygre. Anderson, Colombo and Ms. Tygre in favor; Ms. Markalunas opposed. Hunt, Ms. Peyton, White and Blomquist abstained. CODE- AMENDMEN'i' - Pools in Open Space Alan Richman, planning director, said the idea of allowing pools to be included in open space has been brought up several times. P & Z agreed they wanted to sponsor this code amendment. The Board of Adjustment has granted some variances to allow pools in open space. Richman said the intent of open space is not necessarily green space but to insure that buildings do not cover the entire lot. Richman pointed out that usable areas in open space are both active and passive. Richman said it is hard for him to understand why pools were excluded. Richman said open space can be fenced and can be, in effect, private. Richman said he feels a pool in the lodge district is a very positive amenity, as is a spa, or recreation area like horse shoes or volley ball. Richman presented 3 alternatives; a do nothing, which is not a good one because this issue has come up in most lodge applications, like the Hotel Jerome and Little Nell applications. The way this issue was dealt with in those applications was to vary the method of calculating open space. A second option would be to allow pools on a case by case basis. The third option is to set standards and allow this across the board. Richman said the P & Z has added many condi tional uses and special reviews over the years. Richman said he does not feel this is in the direction the code should be going. One good example is conditional use review for dining in open space, which is appropriate as long as it meets certain standards. Richman presented standards for pools in open space; the pool constitute no more than 1/5 of the total open space, and that the pool not be more than 4 feet above or 10 feet below grade, which is the same as other open space standards. P & Z could chose to allow pools in open space as a special review on a case by case basis. Anderson opened the public hearing. Colombo questioned who staff review in the zoning plan check process would be. Richman said the building department would measure this as setback, etc. are measured. Richman pointed out fences are allowed in open space. Colombo said most lodge pools areas do have some type of landscaping or fencing to give some privacy and safety and asked if this would disqualify it from being counted as open space. Richman said as long as the area 3 ....- :'" Reauia-r- Meetina Plannina and Zonina eommission Julv 8. 1986 open to the street is contiguous to the other open space, it will count. Ms. Tygre suggested option 3, which allows staff to review pools, should include some language about structures in pool areas, whether the pool or recreation area will adversely affect pedestrian circulation, landscaping and other design features. Richman said he feels those are too discretionary for staff. If P & Z is going to provide staff with the authority to review, they should provide specific standards. Richman said staff cannot judge the way the P & Z judges things like adequacy of pedestrian circulation. Richman said unobstructed from ground level to sky is a minimum design standard for all open space; the pool could not be covered. Hunt said he is uncomfortable with 10 feet below grade and would prefer to have it 5 feet below grade with special review if they want to go further. Anderson said this would be putting a different standard on a pool than other open space. Richman said he tried to keep the same standard as is in the code for the rest of open space criteria. Anderson said visual open space whether its concrete, grass or water is accomplishing the intent, which is relief from building. Anderson said he would prefer not to change the 10 feet below grade. White agreed these standards are simple and understandable. Ms. Peyton said she would like to see option 3 adopted as written by staff. Cliff Burdick suggested in option 3 that use of a pool in open space more than 20% of the site should be allowed by special review. Richman said the standard reads 20% of the open space, not of the site. Richman said this could be accomplished by a variance at the Board of Adjustment. Richman said the area allowed for the pool increases as the open space on site increases. Ms. Peyton asked how the pool area is measured. Richman said it is measured at the rim. Ms. McLaughlin, attorney's office, said the Board should establish a rational for limiting the size of the pooL Blomquist said the reason the size of the pool is being limiting is to reserve part of the open space as green grass and a pleasant environment. Ms. Peyton said it seems there is nothing in the code to prohibit a person from concreting all their open space. Anderson closed the public hearing. Blomquist rationale Peyton. carried. moved to approve alternative 3 as written including the reason for limiting the size of pools; seconded by Ms. All in favor, with the exception of Hunt. Motion COflE-AMENDMEN'l' - Dwelling Units in CC Zone 4 Remrlar -Meetina Plannina and Zonina CommissioITJulv ir. 1~86 Anderson stepped out of the room due to a conflict of interest. Steve Burstein, planning office, presented resolution 86-9 to reflect the Commission's previous discussion. The resolution contains 6 findings discussed by the Commission about residential units in the commercial core. The resolution contains 3 sections to change the code. Section 1 changes the intention section to allow for hotel and long term residential uses on a site by site basis. Section 2 adds a conditional use and section 6 includes dwelling units in CC to have six month minimum leases. Blomquist asked if allowing hotel and long term residential uses would eliminate the CL zone. Richman said in the code simplification process, he will recommend the elimination of about 6 zones. Hunt asked if employee housing is still an accessory use in the CC zone. Richman said the use tables have not changed. If the Board wants to be that clear about employee housing, they can add it to section 1. Ms. McLaughlin agreed it would be better to re-state it in this section to make it clear. Richman suggested added "while accessory residential uses are permitted". The Board changed the section to read "hotel and orrnciPIe long-term residential uses. The Board changed "site by site" basis to "conditional use". Ms. Peyton moved to approve resolution 86-9 as amended; seconded by Hunt. All in favor, motion carried. Cliff Burdick, representing Harley Baldwin, requested a determination that since the applicant has appeared before the Commission several times and the dwelling units in the Brand Building have been analyzed, that the applicant has fulfilled the requirements for a conditional use and the units be permitted. Richman told the P & Z this code amendment has not been before Council before, and there is no precedent for this request. Ms. Tygre moved to adjourn at 6:00 p.m.; seconded by Hunt. All in favor, motion carried. -k4~ ~-~~ Kathryn S. och, City Clerk 5