Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19861118 It RECORD OF- PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZQNING NOVEMBER 18. 1986 Meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Welton Anderson. Roll call was taken. Jasmine Tygre, David White, Roger Hunt and Mari Peyton were present. Jim Colombo came later. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS None. PREVIOUS MINUTES Since the minutes of the November 6, 1986 meeting were only just now received, approval will be tabled until December 2nd meeting. Motion was made by Welton Anderson to this effect with all in favor. There was a reminder here by Alan Richman of a joint meeting Tuesday, November 25, 1986 at 5:00 p.m. with the Housing Committ- ee. And on December 9, 1986 Steve invited all in this room to a joint meeting with the City Council for a presentation by the consulta- nt. LITTLE CLIFF'S - CONDITIONAL USE Welton then read into the record a letter from Florence and William Beaumont of 302 East Hopkins Street as follows: "We think it is wonderful if Bill Cliff and Ruth establish their bakery at 201 East Main Street. They are a legend in Aspen with Aspenites and tourists. Sincerely." Alan Richman then presented the request from the Littles for a condi tional use bakery at 201 East Main Street. There are two buildings on the lot. The request asks to Change the use of the front building on the lot from a residence to a bakery. Also they are requesting to make a small addition to the rear of the building which would be about 260 square feet and to build a deck on the East side of this building of about 415 square feet. This addition is exempt because it is an individually historically designated property. And there is no open space requirement to the office zone. The building at the rear of the property would be used as a residence and is somewhat a change of the use of the property al though at the present time it really does not have any particular use other than storage. In terms of the code a bakery is now a conditional use in the office zoning district pursuant to Ordinance 46. Unbeknownced to the Planning Commission when we went before the City Council we also in Ordinance 46 made a bakery a conditional use a conditional use in the C-l zone. Essentially a bakery is a conditional use in either the present zone or the potential future zonin~ and the property has been designated with an "H" overlay. Alan said as far as their own review this is within zoning code requirements which is criteria number one. Parking is to be in excess of the code requirements. The size of the building is within zoning requirements. One requirement which is that there cannot be two separate uses of this property which would be a nonconforming use of the land-the two uses must be interrelated- so there is a requirement that residents which is proposed the accessory structure that is that anybody that occupied that residence would be an employee of the principal use bakery and that is not a problem at all for the applicant. As far as consis- tency with the zoning district we have made those determinations in adding the bakery to the conditional use list and the plan as proposed is quite in scale with the Main Street character which is the basic intent of the zoning code. As far as that kind of building with the surrounding land uses which is the principal concern of this review my main concern about creating this bakery use at some distance from the downtown area is that we will be having some traffic impacts from it. The six places off the alley are one way of meeting those impacts. The neighbors in the back are concerned about the number of parking spaces being provided. I believe it will be suggested that that requirement be reduced since he has a right to 1.5 per thousand. I would not recommend that reduction. People will be driving to this use and we ought to provide substantial parking for on street and off street. I am recommending that a bike rack be placed on the property to further reduce the possibility of people driving. As far as deliveries, Burstein said he did not think there was such a volume that there would be a problem. He said the Engineering Department had no particular objections with trash dumpsters at the site. In summary he said the Planning Office is recommending the conditional use permit with 5 conditions listed. The representative for Cliffs then discussed condition #1, the Environmental Health concern with the goods being delivered to the house. He explained that for 26 years the Littles have had goods delivered to the garage on their house. This was done for two reasons. One was that it prevented a big truck from coming into the downtown area and also it was simple for storage. The items stored there are pans and big bags of flour. It is concer- ting to the Littles that there are people all through town who bake pies and goods in their homes and sell them to restaurants and that is not regulated but the fact that they store a few "2. things in their garage is regulated. He quoted from the Environmental as follows: "No operation of a food service establishment shall be conducted in any room used as a living or sleeping quarter. Food service operation shall be separated from any living or sleeping quarters by complete partitioning in solid self-closing doors." He pointed out that Cliffs would not be preparing any food there. The items coming off the truck are stored there then taken to the bakery. It is in a garage separated from the house and living areas by complete partition solid self-closing doors. So even under the Environmental Health regulations he did not understand why this was being done. That is the one area they really had a problem with because what they had tried to do is accommodate not having as many trucks come into the area, it prevents overcrowding in the bakery and has operated very nicely for 26 years and really does not violate any of the their own rules and regulations. Alan Richman then explained the Environmental Health Department were basing their comment on the letter between Kaufman and Chuck Brant which simply said bake goods once a month delivery to residence. It sounded to Alan that since it is being stored in the garage and that there was a separation, he suspected that that would take care of the Environmental Health condition and would be nothing in the condition to inhibit the operation from going forward. Welton stated he wanted to point out before opening the public hearing on this case that there has been considerable effort on the part of the Planning Office and various departments of the city to help facilitate this operation and in general the Commis- sioners support it. He then opened the public hearing. Phoebe Ryerson asked that approval be given to Little Cliffs. Chuck Brandt asked to address the Commission about the parking question. He represented the Buxbaums who own the residence across the alley from the lots where the bakery is intended to open. He said their concern is the number of off street parking spaces. By the code 6 would be the number and that is the number suggested by the applicant. He had spoken with the Kaufman and asked if the applicant would be satisfied with fewer than 6 and reduce the off street from 6 to 3. They are asking this as they are concerned with noise caused automobiles coming into the alley, parking in the off street parking, backing out, closing doors, opening doors and that sort of thing. Also the Buxbaums garage butts the alley so there is a conflict there, not major but does exist. They feel that when there is a situation of a residential zone on half of a block and a commercial category use on the other, that the alley should serve as a buffer, not as a way to enhance the commercial use and perhaps cause a conflict with the residences. Therefore, by minimizing the off street spaces off of the alley, reduction of the conflict which is inherent between the two .3 conflicting uses could be accomplished. He also stated that Engineering had noted there seemed to be adequate off street parking spaces on Aspen, which is the side street. He felt that meant spaces readily exist throughout the day. Also that a number of people who will use the bakery will be early enough in the morning that they will park right in front and not have to rely on the off street parking. He stated that one further section which he felt addresses their concern in granting a conditional use one of the standards which must be applied is to make sure that the proposed use is designed to be compatible with the surrounding land uses. He said Gideon had indicated to him earlier that fewer than 6 spaces would be acceptable to the applicant. Three spaces may be adequate now but that there may be a fourth employee later. Brandt then suggested that three spaces be designated now with the idea that should a fourth space be needed for employee use that that could be established at that time without having to come back before the Planning Commission for further approval. Alan then said that the applicant is proposing 6 spaces--3 per thousand plus for the one bedroom. The code requires 5 spaces. The minimum required with a 1.5 reduction would be 3 spaces. He said he could accept a reduction of 5 spaces but could not recommend a reduction beyond 5 spaces. If we are talking about 4 employees we are not talking about any off street parking patrons of this use. He said we would like to compatible with the neighborhood we need to make sure not only that the residents directly behind the use is having its needs met but that there will not be off street parking impacts in front of all residences in this neighborhood and he felt there is a need for off street parking. He preferred the 6 spaces proposed but would compromise to 5 which is the code requirement. There was then discussion about square foot requirements between Alan said his calculation came to 4 spaces for the bakery and one for the residence for a total of 5. Roger Hunt asked if the Buxbaum property was all garage in the back on the alley. The answer was "yes". Roger then said this was a buffer between the garage and the living quarters so he felt the noise arguments did not hold up. He was then told it is a two story building with bedrooms above the garage. Roger then said he had a problem compromising down on the parking because he does not feel it is going to be a very transient parking there and also he thinks it important to have parking for delivery vehicle and also for service vehicle. Wel ton then asked for comment from the public. He closed the public hearing and reopened it. James E. Moore stated that he sees no problem with an extra parking space in the back. He said 1- the rest of the people back there built their garages all the way to the alley. Shuchter stated that he had known the Littles all his life and having been by the bakery quite often he wanted to say that Little Cliff's is a necessary business for Aspen and also that the area around the bakery has always been a friendly and quiet atmosphere. Dan Arrow urged that the Commission to take a look at what is needed for the bakery rather than be strictly inclined to rules. Welton then asked for any other public comment. There was none and he closed the public hearing at 5:25 p.m. and asked for Commissioners comments. Al Blomquist said that all the parking should be provided. And would raise the old question of a sidewalk on Aspen Street. We cannot require sidewalks as previous conditions for approval but felt that with the increased activity that a sidewalk is appropr- iate. Mr. Little was then asked if he was planning to put in a sidewalk and he said "yes". Welton then said that if there were no further comments he would entertain a motion on this case. Roger Hunt made the with the conditions memo dated November all ayes. Al Blomquist suggested that we drop #1 on the grounds that residence is an R-15 zone on Snowbunny because only the rules of R15 apply that nothing in this should apply in this zone. Storage in another zone is only the subject of that zoning and not of this zoning. He recommended to exclude #1. motion to 1 through 18, 1986. grant approval of this application 5 according to the Planning Office This was seconded by Jasmine with Roger then modified the motion to exclude condition #1 Planing Office memo dated November 18, 1986 with conditions 2 through 5 remaining and renumbered as necessary. This was seconded by David White. Welton then said there probably is going to be some parking on Aspen Street with people all going through the yard. Would the applicant consider putting in a sidewalk if there seems to be pedestrian parking along Aspen Street. Little then said yes they do plan to put in a sidewalk. The motion was then voted on with all ayes. s- BRASS-BED INN - L-3 GMP REVIEW Alan stated that the quota available this year is 6 units. This applicant is requesting 6 units from the 86 quota and 3 from 1987. There are also 20 existing lodge rooms and one employee unit. He then explained the scoring procedures to the Board. He said the Planning office ratings for this application substantially are above the threshold both on total and individual catagories. He said this is a high quality project and quite deserving not only for the 6 units available for this year but for the 3 units requested for 1987. Alan said he did not know whether this applicant had contacted the Engineering Department about retaining drainage. Retention on-site of 100% is scored a 2. Engineering has been finding that projects which have been doing that, the neighboring parcels have been starting to see water levels rising and getting flooding in basements. They are beginning to find that 100% retention does not necessarily be an improvement service of the area. Alan gave this applicant a 1 and not a 2 for retaining 100% on site. Alan said the cri ter ia he would 1 ike to suggest whether appl ied to this applicant or whether applied at all points in the future is, if we have a drainage problem, for example a development up by the Aspen Mountain area draining on to the downtown area and we are trying avoid drainage off of one site onto another site and the problem is being corrected by retention on site, that is meritorious of a 2. If, on the other hand, we have a property that retains some of its drainage now and some of it goes into the city's drainage system and its not causing anyone a problem then he thinks retaining it on site is not called for and we should not put applicants to that extra added expense. He said we are seeing a different standard in drainage for the future in scor ing. It should be is there a problem and are we solving the problem or are we creating a problem. He said as far as the site design and architectural design, right now there is a hodgepodge of structures built throughout a ten year period of the 50s and 60s. And with this design we are cleaning up the site with desireable and attractive building and keeping with the standard in terms of the review criteria. The site design has some very desirable features but there were some trees which at a minimum are going to be replanted but there may have to be some replacement. There are some sidewalk features which he feels are positive. He hoped to see some more street trees along Durant. The other area of design problem was parking and circulation. The proposal on the sit plan was ten spaces in the alley for the 9 new lodge units and the one employee unit which does meet the code requirements. There are now spaces along Durant. People can pull off of Durant and onto the front yard. Those spaces do /. need to be replaced on the site. And the project should be scored accordingly. It is something that should be dealt with in subsequent reviews and should not inhibit the project from going forward at this time. As far as amenities he found the package to be desirable and appropriate for a lodge of this size and in fact the dining area which is dining/lounge is quite spacious and desirable and received the maximum points in our rating system. The meeting areas and the recreational areas we found to be standard. Employee housing we have on site to use one new and one rebuilt. The existing unit is not being restricted. Both new units will be restricted so we count both units in our calculations. They will house 3 people which is more than enough of employees that will be generated so they received 100% housing. They have 100% reconstruction. So the applicant gets full points in both areas. Welton then introduced Emon Antzer, the owner and operator of the Brass Bed. In regard to the 3 points that the Planning Department brought up he had something he wanted to say in regard to two of the points. Emon said that in terms of the street trees a final landscaping report has not been submitted. He said they are trying to maximize the solar plus the views. In terms of landscaping at a lower type not t interfere with any of the views of the rooms half of a level down. We are also maximizing all the solar we can get because that is a south corner and any trees on that would tend to impact that. Secondly, he said, we are a bit confused with parking. We are one of the lucky few lodges that people don I t rent cars and don I t drive to. The bus stop is half a block over to take people down to Rubey Park and down to all the other lodges. We have never had, in terms of guests, a parking problem. We do have a problem with the employees who live down at the end of Durant and the people who stay down at the Chateau Roaring Fork and those places, taking up some of our restricted parking. Therefore we have shifted parking to the back as a control. We have provided quite a few places in the back which mayor may not be necessary. Secondly we are worried about keeping some of the places in the front and how that will affect the view plain from those front units. Historically speaking parking has not been a problem and we are anxious to get the parking places in the back because we feel we can control them a little more for the guests who do have cars. Alan said this could be talked about more in special review to try to figure out what their requirements would be. Welton then opened the public hearing for comments. There were none. And the public hearing was closed. The Commission members then did their scoring. 7 . To all concerned: At this time I had to turn the tape to the other side. From here on, anything on the tape is totally garbled and sounds like cows mooing over a field of empty bathtubs in slow motion. I do not take shorthand and my own notes are only in support of what I hear at the meeting and not enough to complete minutes of the rest of the meeting. Any recall you have of the rest of the meeting, please write it down and give it to me and I will use this to complete the rest of the minutes of this meeting. GROSS STREAM HAaG IN -REVIEW This was put off till after Downtown Shuttle Resolution DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE RESOLUTION After discussion on this, there was a rearrangement of the staff recommended needs number wise. Roger Hunt then made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 86-10. This was seconded by David White. All were in favor. GROSS STREAM HAaG IN REVIEW Steve Burstein made the presentation of this and recommended conditional approval. He also discussed comments from the Engineering Department that there be no increase in the base flood elevations, the need for other vegetation, and no alteration of the watercourse. And that the applicant comply with F.E.M.A. After further discussion Roger Hunt made a motion to approve the applicant's request on the conditions of the Planning Department. This was seconded by Jasmine Tygre with all in favor. Phoebe Ryerson then asked what the bringing a project before the P&Z. instructions on this. proper procedure was for Welton Anderson gave her Meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. uty City Clerk v f