Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19860805 RECORD-oF -PROCEEDUIGS REGULAR UftING-- -PLA.liNllIG MID ~ORINGeOIUtISSIOR -AUGDS'l'-5-;u-1986 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5: 01 PM with Commissioners Roger Hunt, Mari Peyton, David White, Al Blomquist, and Jim Colombo present. COMIIISS-IORERS" COIUIEftS White said Bill Little had contacted him because he wants to move his bakery in to the nOn Office zone. white said he would like to sponsor a code amendment, allowing a bakery as a condi tional use in the 0 zone. Anderson asked if it was not already a conditional use. white said the Planning Office was not recognizing that. Hunt said he had also been contacted by Mr. Little and that he had indicated the property he was interested in was Claude Conors property at the intersection of Main and Aspen St. Hunt said if the building had a historic designation it would allow more latitude. Hunt said he felt there had been a precedent set with the Mesa Store Bakery, in a historic building, in the 0 zone. Blomquist said a restaurant was already a conditional use in the 0 zone, in a historic building. He felt the volume of baking done is no more than the volume of cooking done for a restaurant, thinking they would be the same. " Gideon Kaufm~n, applicant's attorney, said they had looked at 2 approaches. One would be to change the zoning code which would be difficult for one piece of property. Mr. Kaufman said as they examined the 0 district, clearly in an individually designated building you have the ability for certain conditional uses, which this Commission would review. Mr. Kaufman said he thought it made more sense to have the building historically designated, then apply for a conditional use. Mr. Kaufman commented that they will have a timing problem because they will have to go through a complicated process to achieve this. Mr. Kaufman said at this time they would like to ask the Commission to sponsor this proposal in order to expedite the process. Anderson said in previous use determination situations the Commission had looked at the similarity between the use proposed and existing uses. Anderson asked the Commissioners', to give the applicant a sense of their feelings, whether they thought this should be pursued from a code amendment or a historic designation for the building with a use determination as a conditional use. Blomquist said he thought the volume of this bakery and its use was very similar to a restaurant. Alan Richman, Planning Director, said the activity of the two was totally different with customers 1 RECOltDOF-- PllOCEEDIlIGS REGULAR MBB'l'ING -----I>IJ'dIHIlIG AIm ZOltlllG COIIIIISSIOlI ~--S-;-198fi entering a restaurant and rema1n1ng for a period of time before leaving, and a bakery being an in and out operation. White commented that the In & Out House was within a block of the proposed location and very similar to the small operation of a bakery. Hunt said he would be in favor of going ahead on the use determi- nation with a back up, if necessary, to sponsor a zoning change to include this as a conditional use. Motion-: white moved to sponsor the process of initiating a code amendment to add this use to the conditional use tables, and that the applicant be encouraged to proceed with the use determination route and that the code change be back up to that route; Hunt seconded. Peyton opposed, all others in favor; motion carried. Steve Burstein, planner, said he had a request for a small trail segment that Fritz Benedict has requested across his land. Burstein said the proposed trail was a connection from Ute Ave., just past the tennis courts at the Gant, coming in to the Aspen Mountain Railroad right-of-way where the existing Nordic trail is. The development is subject to the 8040 review process. Burstein showed photographs of the area, explaining the proposal would be a 6 to 8 foot wide trail. Colombo asked if the trail would become a use easement. Mr. Benedict replied yes. Anderson said he did not see a reason to go through the 8040 review process when there is no development activity, thereby being exempt. Motion: Peyton moved to not consider the trail development and therefore not subject to 8040 Greenline Review; Colombo seconded. All in favor; motion carried. MIau.LDS Juiv--22-i-l-986-: Peyton moved to approve the minutes of July 22, 1986; Colombo seconded. All in favor; motion carried. 2 RECOIm -t)F-- PROCEEDINGS REGULAR- fiE'1'I1IG ..- PfJ\lftfING--ARJ)--JOIlIlIG COIIIIISSIOIt-- A1JGUM--5.--t986 llutiun: Blomquist moved to amend the Commissions rules; adding a rule saY1ng any ad hoc agenda items shall be proposed at the beginning of the meeting and, if accepted by the Commission for inclusion, shall be scheduled at the end of the meeting; Hunt seconded. All in favor; motion carried. lIEIf-BUs-lllESS BOA<t-8tt4f)---GREElILllIE REVIEW Burstein explained this was a proposal to enclose the decks of the existing house at 1095 ute Ave. Photographs were shown to the Commissioners of the existing structure. Burstein said there would be an increase in square footage of less than 300 feet. Burstein said the Planning Office felt it would have very minimal impact on the perceived bulk of the structure, and they recommend approval. John Kelley, applicant's attorney, said the view from town was blocked off by existing trees. Additionally, there would be no effect on vegetation. Everything would be within the existing building footprint which is under the allowed FAR. Motion: Blomqui st moved to approve the 8040 Greenline Review for the requested enclosure of decks at 1095 Ute Avenue; Colombo seconded. All in favor; motion carried. SlEGEL/SMrm- 8040 mtEElIL-nm---REVIEW Burstein explained this joint application for residences on lots 3 and 5 of the Sunny Park North Subdivision. The case was tabled on June 3, 1986 based on concerns with access, site development considerations, and visual impacts. The applicants are bringing forth an amendment to that application tonight, in the form of a proposed driveway. Burstein reviewed and explained the plans. The driveway would come off of Park Circle and up to the Salvation Ditch with 2 switchbacks, servicing both houses. Other aspects of the proposal have not changed. Burstein said the Planning Office and other referral agencies had looked at the driveway proposal. The Engineering Dept. raised significant concerns, feeling the retaining structures shown may 3 - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR-fiftIlIG--- --I'IiADI~-ZOII7l1G-eOIUtrssI0ll A1JGIJS'.r-5-.--1-986 not be adequate to maintain the driveway. They estimated that perhaps 100 feet of the driveway would need to have more of a retaining structure. However, they would need to look at more studies to determine what kind of retaining structure is necessary. Burstein said from the Planning Office's point of view they felt the environmental impacts of digging in to the hillside, and the visual impacts from the Smuggler neighborhood seem to be unaccep- table. Therefore, this alternative is not favored. Burstein said Peter Dobrovolny had submitted another alternative to access off of the Salvation Ditch. Burstein said the Salvation Ditch has a trail designation on the Comprehensive plan which created concern at the first hearing. This time that aspect is not a concern through the 8040 Greenline Review process. The Planning Office was able to support the Salvation Ditch alternative for access to the property and would work out an arrangement with the County to have an access easement through the Molly Gibson Park in exchange for a trail easement. Anderson asked where the trail easement would be. Burstein replied basically alongside the Salvation Ditch alignment. Anderson then asked if the driveway and the trail would share the same general location. Burstein replied yes. Burstein said other concerns of the 8040 review were the siting of the house, revegetation scheme, and architectural features. In the first review the Planning Office raised the concern that what might be considered more compatible mountain architecture would be to step back the building along the hillside and to keep the roofline so that they approximate the predominate slope of the hillside. Burstein said they still feel that is a valid recomme- ndation. Burstein said the revegetation scheme for both lots includes basically a native revegetation of the sites. The Planning Office feels that is an important component of this proj ect and is acceptable. Burstein said the Planning Office recommends approval of the requested 8040 review subject to 6 conditions (outlined in the Planing Office memorandum dated August 5, 1986) . Gary Wright, applicant's attorney, asked if the Commission would agree to change approval condition .2 from a revegetation deadline of June 1987 to October 1987. Burstein said that was agreeable to the Planning Office. The Commissioners agreed. 4 RECOltD -t)F---PROCEEDIRGS RBGULAIt-MEBTING ---ftAlIlIING AIm JOllING COMMISSIOlI AUGUST -50--1-986 Anderson said when the proposal originally came in it was with a driveway alignment through Molly Gibson Park and on the Salvation Ditch. The application was tabled pending a determination of trail alignments as they relate to driveway alignments. Now the appl icant has come back with a different alignment. Anderson said, as he remembered, the main stumbling block at the time of the first hearing was that the applicant was not prepared to provide an accommodation for any trails through their property. Burstein replied that according to the City Attorney's office the 8040 review was not clear about review of trails and the ability for this process to require that there be a trail or easement. Burstein said they felt, rather than involve the 8040 review process and the trail issue, that it could be resolved by an arrangement with the County easement and a trading of that easement. Mr. Wright said his clients just want a reasonable review and the ability to start construction. At the last hearing the Commission indicated they tabled the matter to find out more about the Nordic Trail issue. There was a proposal made by the Planning Office to the County Commissioners which was unacceptable. At this point there are 2 lots that are along a public street and are subject to 8040 review criteria because of their elevation. The right to build a driveway to the houses is requested. Mr. Wright said he thought it was appropriate, based on the Engineering Dept. comments, that it be conditioned upon approval by the Engineering Dept. that the retaining wall etc. would be adequate. The County Commissioners had indicated they were not willing to condemn the trail but maybe an easement exchange. The Mayor of the City has also indicated that the City does not have money in the budget to condemn the property at this time. Mr. Wright said these applicants have the right to access their property from the publ ic road. Mr. Wright also said he did not think condition '6 of the approval was appropriate. Hunt said he had not heard that the County had refused an easement over the Salvation Ditch access. Mr. Wright said they had not either refused or granted at this point. Glen Horn, planner, said they went through a proposal with the County to reconfigure Lots 3,5 and 7 by adding some county property and another portion of county property to develop some employee lots that would pay for the cost of upgrading the road and bringing utilities to the site. The County Commissioners did not think the employee lots could be brought on line at a price that would be saleable to the employee market. Therefore, the Commissioners said they did not want to do the complicated solution proposed, but that they would 5 RECOltD OF PROCEEDIlIGS REG1JLAIt - MEETIIIG----- PIiAlIlIIRG-:AlII)--JOlIIIIG COMMISSIOll ----AUGUST --s.- -t986 consider access easements in return for trail easements in order to access this site. Hunt said that seemed the way to approach this problem. Anderson commented that the applicant has a right to access their property, however, this Commission has an obligation, under the Municipal Code, in the review to make sure those roads are done as sensi tively as possible. Anderson said his impression from the previous hear ing was the applicants steadfast refusal to even talk about a trail easement. Now there is an alternative plan with the entire driveway on the lots in a configuration that is not as sensitive as keeping it on top of the Salvation Ditch. Mr. Wright said at their last hearing the Commission said they could not consider the Salvation Ditch because they did not own it. Blomquist said he interpreted approval condition '6 as allowing, or at least implying, that if the trail master plan proposes a trail on the Salvation Ditch then it shall be designed and shown on the development plan. Blomquist read that as meaning ~ trail, not only trails on this project. Blomquist said he was disappointed to read the Planning Office's recommendations to go back to putting the access on the Salvation Ditch because the Salvation Ditch is the official alignment of the trail. The applicants have now provided an access that is fully legal and correct and does not preclude condemning the right-of-way for the trail. Blomquist said he would vote against this on grounds of the trail not being on the plan. Peter Dobrovolny, applicants architect, said the three major items that the design of the house evolved around were; '1 what the clients wanted, '2 being a solar house it required a lot of south facing glass, and '3 the building envelope available. Every effort was made to reduce the visual bulk of the house. FAR allows for a larger house, only 55% of the FAR available is being used. The house is also within building height limitations. Mr. Dobrovolny added that the driveway will work and is in compliance with code. It will, however, need engineering before approval. Bob Smith, owner of Lot 5, said the driveway was not necessarily their idea, but rather brought up by the Commission that they should find an alternative. Mr. Smith said they looked over the property again to find another access as was requested by the Commission. That has been done as seen with this proposal tonight. 6 REcmm OF PROCBEDIlIGS REGULAR MEETING--I>LAlftIIING AIm ZOlIING COMMISSIOIl AUGUST 5. -t986 Mr. Smith said the house being proposed is 2500 sq. ft. and they are allowed 4136 sq.ft. Mr. Smith said he was told that the house was not fit in to the hill nicely. The submitted floor plan shows a split level house with 6 levels trying to step up the side of the hill. The applicants and the architect worked very hard to step the house up the hill without cutting a big mass and having high walls. Regarding the criteria on vegetation, Mr. Smith said when they designed the plan they included trees etc., thinking it would make the property look visually appealing. The Planning Office did not like that so they agreed to plant indigenous grass seed where the soil is disturbed. They agree to have the soil tests done. Mr. Smith said they would like to have the driveway approved so they can go ahead with construction. Colombo asked why they were asked not to have trees in their plan. Burstein said they felt it should be predominately a natural vegetation but not that the applicant should not plant some trees. Mr. Smith showed their original plan for trees on the site. Burstein commented that their original plan seemed excessive. Hunt said he did not know how this got to the point where the applicant seemed to be forced to propose this poor driveway alignment. It was his opinion that access to the property should be by way of the Salvation Ditch. Hunt disagreed with the comment that there had been a road there before. This driveway proposal would be an obvious cut in the mountainside and, to Hunt, unacceptable. Hunt felt there was already access to Lot 3 via the garage level. Hunt said he was sorry for all of the confusion the applicants have had to go through, but he thought the Salvation Ditch access was the most appropriate. Anderson verbally reviewed the procedure, feelings and outcome of the first meeting on this case for the Commission members who were not present at that meeting. Anderson said the discussion broke down when the applicant's attorney said that no easement for a trail would be granted through these 2 lots. Mr. Wright said his understanding was that the Commission could not require the applicants to grant an access as a condition of 8040 Greenline Review. Mr. Wright added that was no longer the applicants position, if the County will give the applicants an easement then the Salvation Ditch can be used for access. If the County will not give an easement then they have no access. 7 RECORD-OF-- PROCEEDIlIGS REGOIJ\R --MEftING- ---PLAlftIIING--MIf)-ZOII7NG--COIUII SSIOJl -AUGUST 5-. U86 Blomquist said he had no objection to the driveway proposed tonight. His concern was with the trail. If the applicant has no problem dedicating that easement to the City, and it is kept as narrow as possible then he had no problem with the plan as proposed. Mr. Wright questioned if the appl icants were willing to grant a trail easement then the Commission would approve the driveway but not the Salvation Ditch access. Blomquist replied that was correct. Burstein said he did not think the entire trail easement question could be solved tonight. It can be done as part of the County negotiation process with the applicants. Anderson said he believed the cut across the hill was a legal access but not as good as parallelling access on what is already an existing cut. He was apologetic to the fact that the applicant had to go through the exercise of coming up with a different design but reiterated that the main problem was that the trail master plan could not be barricaded. Anderson agreed with Hunt that access along the Salvation Ditch, as long as the trail can be accommodated as well, was the preferable alternative. white said he had missed the first hearing but had talked to the applicants and their attorney about it. He felt this was going back and forth over an access thereby effecting the individual rights of people who own the property to build their house. Delaying the fact of whether they can get it in during the building season. White questioned if where the driveway was placed had any effect on where the house was built and being able to go in to the ground with the house. Can the houses be approved and let the applicant work out the Salvation Ditch or whatever other alignment in a period of time so there is an opportunity for the applicant to be able to go in to the ground in the summertime? Colombo commented there would have to be access for materials to be taken to the site. Mr. Wright said it had been indicated they could have a temporary access along the Salvation Ditch on the existing road. Anderson said approval condition '6 was vague, leaving the question up to alot of other governing bodies. Mr. Wright asked if there was a procedure whereby the Commission could give the applicant permission to begin construction, coming back for approval of either a driveway or the Salvation Ditch route. Anderson said that would be the fairest way to do it, giving the applicant the opportunity to have discussions with the County on 8 RECOIm OF "PROCEEDINGS REGOIJ\R-IIEE'l'IItG----PIiAlIlIIHG AIm ZOIUlIG COMMISSION AUGuM --S-;---.l-98fi obtaining the right to use the Salvation Ditch and make different negotiations on the easements. Colombo said he would like to have a motion to approve that the applicant go ahead with excavation, having them come back for the driveway portion only after all of the facts are in place and a decision can be made. Paul Taddune, City Attorney, said what that would be saying is if the Salvation Ditch option is not available to the applicant then this driveway proposal w ill be approved. Motion: Blomquist moved to grant the 8040 Greenline Review subject to conditions 1 through 4 as written in the Planning Office memorandum dated August 5, 1986; striking the first sentence of condition '5; striking condition .6 entirely and replacing it with a sentence that in effect says the driveway solution is accepted; and adding a condition '7 nthat the owner will dedicate a trail easement along the Salvation Ditch acceptable to the Planning Office and consistent with the official trail plann. Colombo asked if this motion would require the applicant to come back before the Commission. Blomquist replied no. Motion died for lack of second. Motion: White moved to grant the 8040 Greenline Review of the Siegel/Smith residences subject to conditions 1 through 4 as written in the Planning Office memorandum dated August 5, 1986, striking the first sentence of condition #5; changing condition #6 to read nAlignment for access to the property shall be along the Salvation Ditch, however, the Park Circle driveway is acceptable if the Salvation Ditch can not be worked out with the County; and that the applicant shall make every effort to negotiate with the County as has been represented in these proceedings, all subj ect to the recommendations of the Engineering departments memorandum dated July 29, 1986n; adding condition #7 "that the owner dedicate an easement along the Salvation Ditch acceptable to the Planning Office and consistent with the Master plan"; Peyton seconded. Anderson asked for a roll call vote: White aye Peyton aye Hunt aye 9 RECOltD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MBftING -PIiAlIlIING- AIm JONIlIG COMMISSIOR AUGUST 5. U86 Colombo Blomquist Anderson Blomquist opposed, Motion-: aye no aye all others in favor; motion carried. Hunt moved to reconsider the previous motion; White seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Anderson said there had been an oversight with regard to condition #5 in the last sentence. Since the Commission had no problem with the design a redesign would not be required. IluLlun: White moved to amend condition '5, as it was passed, deleting the last sentence of the condition; Peyton seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Anderson adjourned the meeting at 6:43 PM. -o(~-uJdkf Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 10