HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19890718
~p
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 18. 1989.
Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30 pm.
Answering roll call were Bruce Kerr, Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt,
Jasmine Tygre and Welton Anderson. Graeme Means, Michael Herron
and Jim Colombo were excused.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Roger: I brought to the attention of the Engineering Department
the concerns which occurred on the west end near Hopkins where
there was a recent construction. That curb is out into the
roadway by upwards to 2 feet narrowing the roadway. Also the
fence around that building is fenced out into the right-of-way
because the fence is lined up with the curb on the rest of the
block.
Then today I walked by the Hotel Jerome on the Mill Street side
and was suddenly accosted by a window air conditioner hung on the
side of the building. Knowing that air conditioners are not
particularly historic and I don't know if they have HPC approval
for it and knowing that the State Historic Society is due here on
the 28th, I don't think that is an appropriate place to hang an
air conditioner.
will the Planning Department please get with HPC or whatever is
necessary to get that issue corrected.
Welton: I spotted this add in the paper last week--Zoning Fraud.
I asked Alan to find out what exactly this was concerning.
Alan: I called them this morning and identified myself and told
them I was with the Planning Office and we were concerned that if
there was some problem like this, we wanted to know what it was
so we could correct it. And if not we felt that the add was
libelous and we might want to appoint the City Attorney to take
some action.
The person I talked to was totally ignorant of the situation.
They have absolutely no idea of what this was about. I said "The
name of your organization and your phone number has been placed
in the newspaper alleging this and we are very upset about it
here at the City". And she said "We will talk to such and such
and we will get back to you tomorrow".
If we don't hear anymore about it, I am going to send this to the
City Attorney and have some action taken. As Welton said to me
"This is really impugning on all of us as Planning Commissioners,
Planners, Zoning Officials as having acted improperly and I think
this is a bunch of lies to say the least.
PZM7.lB.89
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Saul Barnett: I think the organization and the town--there has
been a couple of letters to the editor about zoning in Aspen.
Alan: That is Sam Griffiths.
Saul: And I think that is the same one.
Alan: We thought it was Cleon and I asked if Cleon is behind
this and the response was he is not on the board of the Colorado
Association of Property Rights. At least that is what they said.
It read and sounded just like Cleon.
Saul: When those letters appeared there is a name of a community
under his name and I think it is the same communitv--Lakewood.
Alan: It could well ~-
continue to investigat
Jasmine made a motion i
Roger seconded the moti
MAIN STREET
Welton: I would like t
connection at all with t
are clients of mine
commission feel it neces
General consensus was the
Bruce: I also need to di
a tenant of mine. I don'
but I need to clear that
Welton opened the public
Tom Baker: Made presentat
The Planning Office is I
conditional use with the
record)
""...,-
J~
[) iJ
I will
td it.
{o <
E
--I have no
the bakery
Would the
...-'
<-
Iff
bakery is
,f interest
.__~~unS listed.
approve the
(attached in
2
PZM7.18.89
Welton opened the public hearing.
Kay Buxbaum: My husband and I are owners of the house which is
opposite on the alley from the building in question. And it was
a residence previous to Little Cliff's Bakery being established
there. The impact on us since it became a bakery has been quite
considerable. The impact has been that of increased alley
traffic. Sometimes congestion in the alley. Our garage and our
carport have access only to the alley. So if there is a large
delivery truck which is parked in the alley making deliveries we
are hemmed in and as you can well imagine if you have to make a
plane to the airport or something like that it can be a problem.
Someone in the past week actually had the effrontery to park his
Cadillac in our carport between our cars. The dumpster trucks
come at 7:00 in the morning and make quite a racket and so we are
having increased impact as time goes by on our house.
So in our interest I am asking that the increased use, the
addition of the tables and the seating be denied. One of the
things that came up when we built our house was that we had many
hurdles to climb to satisfy the City. We lost quite a few months
in trying to build the house. We spent thousands of dollars in
trying to satisfy the city to do what they considered making it
right.
We were only 4 people--ourselves and 2 kids. And we were
required to provide 4 on-site parking spaces which we did. And
now this request is to have a restaurant seating either 30 or 40
people and having only 6 on-site parking places. So I think that
there is no question that there will be increased unfavorable
impact on us. We have tried really hard to be good neighbors, to
keep up our place very well and it has been not only a matter of
pride for us but we think some pride to the City. This is our
house and it is often cited as a mark of Aspen's quality. And so
we are just hoping that you will see fit to deny this in an
effort to maintain the kind of quality that many of us
appreciate.
Saul Barnett, owner/representative for the applicant: Submitted
an affidavit of mailing. (attached in record)
I first would like to respond to the issue of the 30 and then the
increase to 40 seats after one year. The use of the property is
going to be intensified only to the extent that hopefully we will
be able to create a better ambience and place for people to enjoy
the food that we will be preparing.
The number of deliveries will not change whether we do not have
one more table or whether we have 40 or 50 more tables. The
3
PZM7.18.89
trash situation will be the same. The dumpsters will be there
and the trash will be picked up at regular intervals no matter
how much of an increase there is. So I don't think there will be
any increase in the noise. I don't think there will be any
increase in odor. I don't think there will be any increase in
vibrations. I don't think there will be any increase in the
negative impacts on the use of the property for that purpose by
reason of our wanting to re-configure the use of the interior of
the building.
There will be positive impacts. I think we have already
demonstrated the kind of landscaping that we have done and plan
to continue to do to the property. We have done a few things to
make the exterior more presentable and to make it more
interesting for the pUblic in general.
This property is located at the corner of Main and Aspen. The
Planning Department is welcome to do the checking that I have
done. But at 9:00 in the morning all of the parking places on
Main Street going east and west of our location and on Aspen
street going north and south are filled. And those cars are
there until well into the late afternoon. There are people who
come into the city-probably people who work and park their cars
in that area because there is no time limit. And they walk to
wherever they work. Those cars are parked in front of this
lady's house and well off on Aspen street into a combination of
residential, commercial areas.
The Main Street traffic is intense. The traffic on Aspen street
is intense also. I find that Aspen is used more than Monarch for
people coming into town as a right turn to get up into Durant and
avoid the middle core area where they can't move around in a car.
There is also the bus that uses Aspen Street.
My point is that there is a lot of traffic. There is a lot of
noise. And I am not sure what it is related to but I can tell
you that it is not related to the operation of the restaurant and
I can't believe that increasing it to allow 10 more people to sit
there would make that much of a difference in terms of negative
impact.
There are a lot of things that we can do to argue that one year
from year from now there is additional noise because of
additional 10 seats in our restaurant with all of the traffic and
all of the noise there may be as a result of traffic going to
other parts of the city. It is a commercial use next to a
residential area. That may be unfortunate. I do sympathize with
any resident being across from a commercial use. But the alley
is there and has been improved. We have talked to all of the
drivers of delivery trucks. They are well aware of the problems
4
PZM7.18.89
that exist in Aspen.
driveways.
And they make every effort not to block
I think that the increased operation--there aren't that many more
seats that we will be putting in there. How many more people
that will be coming in as a result of that, I don't know. But I
can tell you that in terms of the location it will not make any
more of a negative impact on the area than there already is as a
result of things unrelated to this existing operation.
Welton: Do you have any problems with any of the conditions? It
sounds like #7 holding it back to 30 seats and increasing it to
40 seats next year is a condition that you would just as soon see
struck.
Saul: The Planning Office's memo says conditions must be met
prior to building permit. That is normal language. Conditions 1
and 2 relate to what we are going to do to the building once we
get the conditional use. And we can't comply with that unless we
get the building permit.
We will comply with all applicable legal requirements in
connection with the use. That is a stated. All we are asking
for is an approval of a use as a form of zoning. How we use it
must comply with all the health requirements and the building
requirements and we certainly will comply with that.
Welton: It is a practice to tie any kind of a land use approval
to conditions that apply directly to the project. Whether those
conditions come from the Planning Office or whether they are
modified during the meeting with the consent of the applicant, we
need to tie it into some sort of time table so we know that it is
eventually going to take place.
Saul: Before we can use the new facility we will have complied
with all of those requirements.
Welton: Prior to the issuance of CO.
Saul: Right.
Welton: Are there any conditions you would like to modify?
Saul: Condition #3 related to the dumpster. We believe that the
dumpster is clearly located off the alley ROW. We have no
problem with the condition because it is already complied with.
There is a concrete pad that was poured some time ago in
connection with the earlier approval and it is off the alley ROW.
5
PZM7.18.89
Chuck Roth: I think they will have to get a survey in order to
show whether or not it is in the alley.
Saul: I question whether in this type of proceeding we have to
present a plat which the Engineering Dept. is talking about.
Welton: If there is any change in ground coverage on the
property then an improvement survey would be required.
Saul: There is not.
Welton: If it is all interior then you don't.
Saul: I have no problem with the condition.
the dumpster is not in the alley ROW now.
I am saying that
Welton: How about changing the condition to read "The dumpster
shall remain located out of the alley ROW".
Saul: That is fine. Condition #4--again the proceeding is for a
condi tional use approval. It is questioning the use of the
property. I don't think that the provision for putting in a
sidewalk has anything to do with any of the criteria that apply
to whether or not a conditional use should be granted. And
indeed when the Planning Dept wrote its memo listing it's
criteria and indicating it's response it mentioned sidewalks as a
part of an element necessary to satisfy the criteria. It did say
that there are adequate facilities and services to serve the
conditional use. I think the sidewalk is a public facility and
service.
The other part of it is that I have again done my own research
and during any given period of time the number of people who walk
either down Aspen Street on our side of Aspen, less than 1% of
those people come into our bakery. So a sidewalk is not
something that would specifically benefit our property
particularly when there are cars parked there all day and no one
is coming to our bakery and parking their car and getting out and
using the sidewalk.
I personally moved here so that I would have less concrete. We
are prepared to have a sidewalk there but we think that the City
ought to accrue it's assessing authority, build sidewalks and
assess all of the property owners and everybody pays their fair
share. There is no reason why when we come for a request to use
this property a particular way that the City says "Aha! This
would be the time to ask somebody for a sidewalk".
Roger: That is exactly what the city does, and should.
6
PZM7.18.89
Saul: The Engineering Dept. refers to a resolution that was
adopted in 1975 that says that there should be sidewalks in this
particular area for proposed subdivisions, PUDs, SPAs, and other
types of new construction. Well reading that a PUD is a
substantial activity, a subdivision is a substantial activity,
SPA is a substantial activity. I can understand talking about
sidewalk then. Other forms of construction--I don't know what
that means. Does it mean interior changes to a building? Or
does it mean something that has the substantialness of the SPA
and the PUD?
Also since 1975 there has been numerous construction in the area
of this property without sidewalks. The Hotel Lenado still
doesn't have a sidewalk on Hopkins. There has been construction
on Hopkins west of Aspen--no sidewalk. Paepke Park has been
improved. There are no sidewalks on 3 sides of Paepke Park. If
the City wants sidewalks I think the City should say so and do it
and assess the property owners.
Welton: Tom, in your research in the background of this did you
find anything that kicked in sidewalks on this when it became
Little cliff's from Residential?
Tom: Apparently that was not a requirement at that time.
Roger: As you can see there is a path there that is very heavily
used and in the winter it gets very muddy at times. And for you
to say that your operation or your people would not use that
sidewalk, what you are saying is that you don't have pedestrian
traffic to your restaurant, which I find not quite logical. This
brings up an additional point that has to do with Little Cliff's
approval that the sidewalk isn't a part of but there was supposed
to be some building improvements which I think were postponed but
that were agreed to in that original proposal. Where do those
sit in this?
Tom: Are you talking about the removal of the stucco to restore
the building with original brick? There was some investigation
of the feasibility of that and apparently the face of the bricks
would come off with the stucco.
Roger: Somehow or another that surface should be restored.
Saul: One of our original intentions was to take the stucco and
have the brick there. We brought in the contractor who worked on
the building when Little's went in there. They found that they
could not take off the stucco because the brick was too soft and
it destroyed the brick. And there was nothing else that could be
done.
7
PZM7.18.89
We have been advised informally that the stucco should stay. We
would love to take off the stucco and get the original brick
because that is the kind of look that we want to have.
In response to my not being very logical about people walking
down that pathway to the bakery. My comment was that in looking
at the numbers of people that walk down that walkway, maybe 1% go
into the bakery. That walkway is a public walkway that benefits
equal private residences, businesses that are well into the
commercial core.
The point of the comment is that a sidewalk being a public
facility should be bourn by the public. It should be constructed
by the City and there should be an assessment so that everybody
bears their fair share.
Welton: To get a sense of the Commission regarding condition #4.
Those in favor of keeping #4 raise their hand. (sidewalk on
Aspen street)
By the show of hands, the Condition #4 will stay.
Roger: Regarding the expansion of the conditional use, I think
it is appropriate to deal with sidewalk in this context. I have
had experience with that "lack of sidewalk" and over the years
it is very definitely utilized more since Little Cliff's went in
there than prior to that.
From what is happening there a sidewalk is very definitely needed
and it appears that since the conditional use went in, the use of
that sidewalk is increased tremendously. Maybe not all to that
conditional use but a good degree of it. And with an expansion
of that conditional use I think it is very appropriate to apply
the requirement of the sidewalk there.
Walt Connor, owner Main street Bakery: One thing that has me a
little confused here you are bringing in that the approval of the
sidewalk on Aspen street next to the Bakery. Two months ago or
so you closed the ROW of the sidewalk on Monarch street below
Carl's Pharmacy and the Chevron station. You let them come in,
put a mound there, put rocks there, put pine trees in and closed
the ROW of the sidewalk. And that is right in adjoining to where
you closed the street off to where you have people walking down
to the tent where you need a sidewalk.
Tom: The P&Z did not take any action. That was the property
owner and Roger brought that up as a concern that he had and
Engineering is checking into that right now because the
homeowners essentially landscaped in the City ROW forcing people
8
PZM7.18.89
out into the street.
Monarch there.
That is just north of the gas station on
Julie Wyckoff:
standard?
Is the 5ft width a prerequisite?
Is this the
Chuck Roth: 5ft is the legal on the books.
Welton: The Engineering Dept is generally real accommodating as
far as laying it out to avoid vegetation and or narrowing it or
widening it as site conditions dictate. They will work with you.
Roth: I don't know exactly why it would necessarily be required.
We are concerned when the sidewalk is put in if the surface area
or water can get down to the root systems. We have directly
consulted the landscape architect and they say if you water more
the less area you have that the trees will survive and will not
have problem by not having sidewalk over a portion of this drip
line.
Welton: I would recommend that we amend condition #5 concerning
tree grates to "That the applicant shall provide tree grates as
agreed between the applicant and the Engineering Dept upon final
determination of the sidewalk design".
If you can work the sidewalk so it doesn't require any tree
grates then that saves you money and saves the tree from being
concreted over.
Generally sidewalk surface is concrete or perhaps flagstone
surface would be more permeable than a continuous strip. Those
are the only 2 materials I can think that would work there--not
sod or gravel.
Welton then asked if there was any problem with 4x4 pedestal.
Saul: We don't have any problem with that. We are a tenant and
we have no control over that situation. Walt Connor who is the
property owner met with the Engineering Dept this morning at the
site. We cannot provide the easement. The owner is here and the
owner expressed to the Engineering Dept where he would like that
easement and how he would like the easement and the Engineering
Dept. is speaking to an adjacent property owner.
Roth: I will talk to the adjacent property owner tomorrow. I
don't know that if the adjacent property owner does not want to
co-operate so that the applicant can co-operate.
Roger: This says the applicant shall work with the Engineering
Dept to provide a 4x4 pedestal adjacent to the alley.
9
PZM7.18.89
Welton: #8, 9 and 10--no problems with 8, 9 and 10?
Applicant: No.
Welton: #7.
Applicant: #7--I indicated at the outset how I felt about the
phasing in of 30 and 40.
Roger: One of my problems associated with #7 has to do with the
finding that there is no increase in employees at this time. I
think built into #7 should be a review by the Housing Authority
to see as this restaurant comes on line and becomes more of a
restaurant than a bakery that the Housing Authority review their
activity more or less at the same period that #7 kicks in so that
if there is employee housing requirement generated that that
should be taken care of at that review time.
Jasmine: I agree with Roger. I think that the application is a
little more complicated in terms of the expansion of conditional
use and that it is a change in use. Now when you have that much
more seating it is not going to be as much of a place for takeout
as a place for people to sit and eat. So the pattern of people
coming to the place is going to change. You are not going to
have people coming in, grabbing a sandwich and leaving. You are
going to have people sitting there for 1/2 to an hour. You are
becoming more of a restaurant operation.
This has a lot of implications that Roger has touched on. It is
going to have an implication on your traffic pattern. It is
certainly sooner or later going to have an impact on your
employee pattern. This is something that is going to have to be
monitored. This could have serious impacts on the neighborhood
and I think that we should reserve the option of reviewing it
before it gets out of hand. It may not. I think it is
reasonable to see what happens after a year of operation at a
slight expansion--not a 4 times expansion of what is there now.
Welton: This condition addresses that the Planning Office Staff
will be the people who will review it in a year's time--not the
Planning & Zoning commission. I feel comfortable with that.
Jasmine: I feel comfortable with that also. Then if there is a
problem it would come before us and if it is not a problem there
is no reason for us to look at it.
Mari: It is OK with me for the Planning Office to review.
10
-..".'
PZM7.18.89
Bruce: If anything I would make it more restrictive and where I
am coming from is a matter of fairness. Just last week we looked
at a conditional review of a restaurant and, JUlie, you were on
the other side of the table on that thing.
I think that we all agreed that when it is a conditional use it
is a matter of privilege and not right and there must be
mitigation of impacts. Therefore I like all the conditions that
staff has proposed and in fact I would like #7 more restrictive.
Welton: Would you like to see a phrase concerning review by the
Housing Authority?
Bruce: Yes. I think when we are quadrupling the number of
seats, there will be impacts on traffic. There will be impacts
on parking and there probably will be impacts on employee
housing. I think all of those need to be looked at by staff and
the Housing Authority.
Welton: It looks like the conditions that the Planning Office
recommended are going to be retained fairly much in verbatim.
The following conditions must be met prior to the issuance of a
CO. The dumpster shall be continued to be located out of the
alley right-of-way. The sidewalks retained in #7 as well.
Roger: We weren't given any plans to show the changes but on the
initial approval of the bakery--one of the points that was looked
at was the exhaust of the bakery in relationship to the
neighbors. And that exhaust was closer to Main street than
probably what will be either a restaurant and/or bakery exhaust
now which will be closer to the alley. I think we should address
that because it has to do with the problem of fumes. This is a
transition into more of a restaurant, the characteristic of those
fumes will change as well.
We are going to have more of a kitchen exhaust where the bakery
exhaust is now and more of a bakery exhaust closer to the alley
and fumes from the original review were definitely something we
looked at. We bought off on the basis that the fumes were going
to be closer to Main street and given a distance from the alley
and the residents across the alley.
Tom: We could direct the applicant to provide the exhaust for
the rear of the building which is the bakery operation now on the
north portion of the building. Bring it as far to the north as
possible.
Neighbor: The fumes have not been a problem to me.
11
PZM7.18.89
Roger: Then in the condition the exhaust be moved as far as
practical to the north up to where the present exhaust for the
bakery is. I don't think it is necessary to go further north
than that.
MOTION
Roger: I move to recommend approval of the conditional use
expansion of the Main street Bakery and Cafe with the following
conditions which must be met prior to issuance of Certificate of
occupancy.
Conditions 1, 2 and 3 and 4 being the same as in Planning Office
memo dated July 14, 1989 (attached in record)
Condition 5 being the same as that memo with the addition of the
clause as agreed as appropriate by the Engineering Department.
Condition 6 stays the same.
Condition 8, 9 and 10 stay the same.
Condition 7
Mari: The difference between 30 and 40 is not very much but the
difference between 10 and 30 is triple.
Roger: I would prefer 25.
I will re-condition 7 from the beginning.
The applicant shall limit the indoor seating expansion to no more
than 25 indoor seats for the first year. After the first year
the operation of the applicant as to the option to increase
indoor seating to no more than 40 seats if the applicant
demonstrates to the Planning staff that the first phase seating
expansion has had no significant adverse impacts on the
neighborhood. In addition the Housing Authority will audit the
employee housing impact for generation at that same time.
Tom: Just for the record condition 3 was changed to read "the
dumpster shall continue to be located out of alley right-of-way".
Roger: I will accept that modification to the motion.
Mari seconded the motion.
Jasmine: In the number 7 we were talking about the impacts.
Should we mention specifically traffic and parking in addition to
employee generation or is that just assumed.
12
PZM7.18.89
Welton: I think "no significant impacts" means all kinds of
impacts.
Tom: We would be looking for affidavits from adjacent owners.
Roger: Condition 11--will read that the exhaust for the new
facility for the new kitchen or bakery facilities will be moved
as far north as practical up to where the present exhaust exists
for the bakery.
Mari amended her second.
Welton asked if there was any public comment. There was none and
he closed the public portion of the hearing.
Welton: If you as an applicant are not satisfied with the
judgemen~ of the Planning staff as far as whether or not your
impact 1S you can come to anyone of the members of the
Commission and ask for a re-hearing by the Commission rather than
by staff if you don't like what staff says.
Everyone voted in favor of the motion.
Welton then stepped down from the rest of the meeting because of
a possible conflict of interest.
COOPER AVENUE GREYSTONES SUBDIVISION
Jasmine opened the public hearing.
Leslie Lamont, Planning Office: Made presentation as attached in
record.
There are already 2 townhome units on the site and the addition
of the 2 others make this a multi-family project and therefore
subject to subdivision review.
since this is a pretty straight forward development and there is
no real subdivision of land the proposal meets all the
requirements of subdivision review. There is one critical issue
that is part of this proposal and that is that the lot as it
exists now is non-conforming with respect to the open space
requirement because of the 6ft masonry wall along the front of
the property line.
The code requires that open space be viewed from the street at
pedestrian level to meet the open space requirement. Although
the applicant built his 2 units with the wall pursuant to a
building permit under the old code the new code is very clear
13
PZM7.18.89
that open space must be viewed from the street to meet code
requirements.
I recognize that Buz spent considerable amount of money on this
wall and that the wall may perhaps enhance the sale value of his
units. However the applicant was made aware after the wall was
built and the 2 units were built that it is now a non-conforming
situation and therefore any further development on the land will
throw him into this predicament of increasing a non-conforming
because it is already a non-conforming situation. And we would
just hope that through subdivision and this new development of
the land that the applicant would have made an attempt to try and
mitigate this nonconforming situation and to try to come into the
spirit of the regulation that now is within the new code.
I would hope that with the new proposal he would in some way
soften the hard effect that this wall has upon passersby and
neighbors. I did hear from a neighbor who owns the property at
818, and 820 and he stresses a strong concern over the wall and
in addition over the size of the building on the site and that it
really overpowers his 2 small miners cabins that he has on East
Cooper Avenue.
Therefore under subdivision review I recommended that approval be
granted with the varied conditions outlined and that the
applicant be made to meet the open space requirement of the code.
Roger: I think we should be a little bit more specific in that I
see basically it is a panel wall and I agree with you totally.
There may a way of mitigating it by pulling out, let's say,
something like every other panel and making that like an iron
fence insert or something on that order.
I think we should be a little more specific on that to where
perhaps 40% of the wall should be transparent or I don't know how
the figure works out. We should try to aim for that kind of a
figure works out but we should try to aim for that kind of a
figure for transparency to the wall.
Jasmine asked for comments from the public. There were none.
Jasmine: I agree with Roger. I think that specifically because
even with these revisions, the applicant is not going to be
meeting code. And the least we can do is to try to come up with
some specific definition that will explain why we think it is all
right for him not to meet code and I have no idea what this
language would be.
Does the applicant have any problem in making that fence more
transparent?
14
PZM7.18.89
Buz: Yes, I do because the building permit was given to me which
is already on record as to what I was to do there. And the
Planning Dept. was fully aware as to what my aspirations were
there and what I was to do and issued me the building permit.
And I think that we have to have some consistency as the same
point as--well right next door the Planning Commission has failed
to tell anyone that there is a 6ft fence directly next door which
has existed. They keep making reference to 3ft fences in the
adjoining area.
So it sounds to me like the code has changed in the middle of my
project and now "Let's change it". I think from here on out if
you wish to change it you really have to be consistent.
Jasmine: I don't think any member of the Commission feels
comfortable in making architectural determinations of this type
because it is so much a matter of personal taste. We do have
certain code requirements however that we do have a duty to
uphold. And if we followed the code 100% you would have to tear
the fence down. So we are trying to figure a way around it as
far as I can see. We don't really have the authority to do
otherwise.
Alan, maybe I am wrong.
Alan: I think you are right. I will say that we were pretty
clear with Buz. In fact, we red tagged the property and then
found at the time that he was correct under the old code he had
every right in the world to build that fence. But then if he was
g01ng to pursue additional development--then he didn't have any
additional development plans. So for Buz to make the comment we
were under notice that he was going to develop the property--
until we have an application in front of us we cannot tell people
what to do.
The application that is in front of us now--this is the one and
only time we have to correct what is a situation where in the RMF
zone where there is an open space requirement there is an open
space requirement on the property. On the property next door
which Buz refers to, if it comes for a development application
they will be in the same position. But that fence has been there
I don't know how long. If they come in and they want to tear
down that property and rebuild they are going to be judged under
today's open space requirement and they will have "0" open space
behind that 6ft fence. That is really the only way we can fairly
deal with people. They can continue but they can't be extended.
15
PZM7.18.89
Buz: My predicament is this. I am now negotiating with people
on the sale of the property. And they see the existing fence
there. They expect it to come along with their property and it
is one of the selling points that they are somewhat protected
from the noise and the dirt coming into their homes.
Roger: What we can deal with is that the fence in front of the
new portion has to be 100% transparent as an alternative.
Jasmine: The end result is that somewhere along the line the
walls are going to have to be more transparent whether it is an
alteration to existing wall or a new wall, the question is how to
accomplish it because that is just going to have to happen.
Buz: I feel as though it is not right because I was given a
permit and any alteration should be a cost and they saw that it
went all the way across the property. I fel t that I was
perfectly within my right because you did issue a building permit
for me to do it under the old code.
Leslie: There are several alternatives that you mentioned. I
would like to try a 3rd. The one being like punching holes in
40% or taking down a portion that will be in front of the new
development. since we are making this directly to the new
development on the property or maybe a 3rd alternative would be
to chop off the top half so the fence is currently 6ft high. And
so if you took off the top 3ft then you would accomplish the
criteria which says it must be open to the view by pedestrians.
Roger: Why don't we include all the possibilities. Like the
applicant shall revise the plans to create a more transparent
fence which meets the spirit if not the letter of the open space
requirement of the code. This may be accomplished by knocking
out panels to create 40% of the fence as transparent. And that
40% includes gates and so forth.
It may be accommodated by lowering the fence across exclusive of
the gates to a 3ft height.
It may be accommodated by 100% transparency in front of the new
addition.
There are the 3 methods. You can pick and choose.
Mari: What is the height limit as far as the code for what can
be allowed and still be open space as far as the fence goes? Is
it 3ft? Is there a height limit or does it just say "Must be
visible?"
Alan: The criteria just says "Open to view".
16
PZM7.18.89
Mari: You can have a hedge, right?
Buz: People have come to the same conclusion that I have. And
their approach to doing it, although they didn't put up a
structure which they decided to put up trees an inch apart. So
they are getting around it in the spirit of because they have
found that in essence they need to accomplish the same thing that
I have needed to accomplish.
Leslie: A hedge if it was impenetrable visually could be
interpreted that it was not then open space-was not open to view.
Alan: This is the RMF--the only residential zone that has an
open space requirement. It is a different kind of property. It
is mUlti-family properties where the open space is to be enjoyed
by the community because we are providing higher density.
Jasmine: So the only real
approval would be open space.
subdivision approval.
Leslie: Yes. And condition 2 and 3 are part of the payment-in-
lieu. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are engineering concerns when the
subdivision is finally platted.
issue as far as the subdivision
So condition #1 should apply to
Roger: So 1, 4, 5, 6,7 and 8 are subdivision.
Leslie: Right.
Roger: Then 2 and 3 are the payment-in-lieu.
MOTION
Roger: I move to recommend the approval of the Greystones
Subdivision conditioned on the following:
Condition #1 taken from Planning Office memo dated July 18, 1989
will have in addition to what is stated in the 3 options as
previously stated. (attached)
Jasmine: It will be before the Planning Department and the P&Z
before review by Council. You have all these entities to please.
Roger: Condition #2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of my motion will be
conditions 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Planning Office memo dated July
18, 1989.
Mari seconded the motion with all in favor except Bruce.
17
PZM7.18.89
Bruce: No. Because I am opposed to condition #1.
Leslie: section 8-109(J) of Ordinance 47 laid out criteria for
the provision of payment-in-lieu vs. providing affordable housing
on site.
Although we do have a Housing Authority trust that is set up to
accept payment-in-lieu and this site has not been previously
identified as an affordable housing site and the applicant has
not indicated that he requires on-site service needs, I think
that the proximity of this site to the transportation services
and the City services and the ability of affordable housing to be
provided on site within this plan and the fact that it is
unlikely that when someone--a payment-in-lieu is made and then
when the free market units are built that we will have production
of affordable housing to offset those impacts. It is unlikely
that those will happen simultaneously.
I think that the payment-in-lieu of $150,000 should be adjusted
down and at least 1 I-bedroom unit should be provided on site.
Buz: In the GMP application Cash-in-lieu was a positive
alternative, the same as any other alternative. It said you
could provide on-site housing, off-site housing or cash-in-lieu.
I chose to play the game of GMP and go against all the other
competitors. I might add I hope that it is an indication to all
of us or that we are getting the message that the community feels
as though it is totally unacceptable to have this employee
housing in the midst of the free market housing.
with all of the opportunity with so many positions being open
there is not one builder turn in an application to say that he
wished to do that. It is because myself and the other party
involved are in a hardship position that I have been left with a
building that I was set in my design of a row-house looking thing
and with a blank wall. The other person I assume needed it for
some housing for his business that we apply and made application
for this. So it is really just totally, totally wrong that this
be asked of the builder in view of that you have gotten no
applications whatsoever.
I hope that we are all getting the message that people do not
want that other alternative. I went in good faith in offering
these alternatives and said this is what I will do. And I took
the lowest housing which cost the absolute most and feel as
though I have been tremendously--my feeling is that I am being
totally abused to have to give $150,000 in order to complete my
project. I feel as that is totally out of order because there
are other people in the community when you folks make the rules
18
PZM7.18.89
for all of these things and I am glad I have just a moment to
talk to you about it.
Mr Dunaway decided to put out a daily newspaper. And he needs
more and more employees. Where was his responsibility? The City
Market decided to stay open 24 hours. Where is their
responsibility? I could go on and on with restaurants and with
banks and where is their responsibility? Why am I taxed with
that I am the one that must provide this?
Either we all provide it. It is a need in our community. We all
provide their employee housing as it is needed or nobody. On top
of that the abuse is that I am required to go pay a 3% tax on all
of my material and show you all of my records. Why is not that
at the Hotel Jerome? They went out and bought a million dollars
worth of furniture out of state. They are not scrutinized. So
what I am really saying is I feel as though we should be
examining the criteria where the hardship is based on the
builders when the most wealthy people in this town are not the
builders. They are these other people that I am talking about
who are creating this need for housing and their responsibility
should be at least as much as mine and the way it is now they
have none.
So I felt as that I want you in good faith that you presented in
your application that says I may pick anyone of these types of
way to provide employee housing and I may pick and choose which
one I want and I might get knocked out but I will play the game.
Now you are saying "We want you to do something else". Well I am
appalled at that.
Jasmine: I think there may be a misunderstanding there. The
options have always been or in the last year anyway, have always
been at the option of the City government. Whether it is the
Planning & zoning or City Council. The applicant may propose to
use any of the alternative methods but the determination is at
the option of the governmental body. That has been the case for
a while.
Alan: That is since Ordinance 47. This was one of the two major
points of contention in Ordinance 47. There were only 2 things
we did in Ordinance 47. We dealt with demolition and we required
there to be 25% on-site housing in residential projects unless
the applicant could demonstrate that it was unfeasible or
inappropriate.
Buz: That is what I am saying.
that you gave us the alternative
you told me "Buz, you need not
It is inappropriate number one
and when I spoke to you, Alan,
concern yourself with that new
19
PZM7.18.89
Ordinance. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that
you are doing".
Alan: That is news to me.
Buz: As I said the project was planned in a row house
configuration and very, very difficult if it were a mass of
buildings and with little parts here and little parts there and
then it makes it feasible to the application to build a employee
housing with that in. But for right now with the row house
configuration it makes it almost impossible. And we are finding
that the answer is not doing this employee housing.
I am being credited by our mayor with instituting a whole new
approach of permanent resident zoning which I know that you will
become totally emersed in.
Jasmine: We already have.
Buz: This is the area that we will be able to provide this
needed employee housing. Just by zoning. And that it isn't
necessary for us to do this. And in view of the no applications
for GMP because the builders didn't want to do it and in view of
my whole architectural plan was set and in view of my generous
offer, I feel as though that you should abide by the guidelines
that you laid out for me and allow me to do what I proposed to
do. There is nobody else that proposed anything any better.
Nobody proposed doing one thing any more than I did. And I feel
as though that you would be going totally against your
guidelines, your rules and your credibility by telling me that I
should do something otherwise.
Jasmine: I understand a lot of your points. We have gone
through those a lot and had a lot of discussion on it. We have
gone around on this a lot of times. I would also like to hear
what members of the commission think about the Planning Office's
recommendations on 2 and 3.
Basically what the Planning Office is recommending is that the
applicant provide an on-site unit and payment-in-lieu rather than
all payment-in-lieu.
Leslie: We are recommending that a one-bedroom deed restricted
to low income be provided on-site and therefore the payment-in-
lieu be reduced to $97,500. Originally he proposed $l50, 000
payment. It is based on the fact that a one bedroom unit
provides housing for 1.75 employees. The payment-in-lieu,
$150,000, provides housing for 5 employees. And that is at the
low income scale of $30,000 per employee. So I just subtracted
20
PZM7.18.89
1.75 from the 5 and then we adjusted the $30,000 to meet the .25
per employee.
Mari: I am a little confused by the reference later on to the
caretaker unit.
Leslie: In the original application Buz said that he would
provide $150,000 payment-in-lieu or a caretaker unit. In the
city we don't really have caretaker units. We have the accessory
dwelling units. The problem with providing the accessory dwelling
units is they are not deed restricted as you know. And to meet
the affordable housing provision for GMP to accrue the number of
points you must deed restrict these units.
Mari: How could a caretaker unit fit in with these plans?
Buz: Very, very easily because what I said about a caretaker
unit I could take the bottom level of one unit and let all the
people in the condominium actually own it. I won't own it.
Nobody will own it. It will be for their own maintenance for
their own people right there on the site.
But for me to take a one bedroom unit that would entail taking
such square footage and make the whole application totally
impossible architecturally to take a one bedroom unit out of
there and then try to be left with my 2 units--it is
inconceivable for me to do that. And then to take all of that
space and then deduct $50,000 it is just totally absurd.
Mari: I am still confused. The caretaker unit would be the
bottom level of one of the townhouses?
Buz: My thought was I would take the lower level of one of the
bottom units that go back to where the garage is. And I would
fix up a nice little studio there. And then I would allow the 4
condominium owners to own that piece. Not only would they be
buying a 2 bedroom unit, they will also own 1/4 of that caretaker
unit. That will guarantee a job for someone and some housing for
someone to maintain the property.
Now they are saying take a one bedroom unit which will probably
take almost double the square footage, deed restrict it and sell
it at their guidelines or rent it at our guidelines and leave
yourself with nothing to sell. And that is what they are asking
me to do at the $50,000 reduction. It is just totally
inconceivable for me to do that.
Mari: What about deed restricting the caretaker studio?
21
PZM7.18.89
Leslie: I don't see a problem with structurally taking one--each
of the units are 3 levels. Buz proposed what he is calling a
work-out room and there is a bathroom down there and there is a
sauna and my calculation, not excluding the garage space is that
he has over a thousand square feet in the lower level.
Buz: The whole unit is roughly about 17ft6 by back to the garage
probably about 38ft. That is the entire area that is used for
all the utilities for the building upstairs which we would need
some area for. It is a bathroom down there. Some storage area
and an area that we are using as a gym or video room. It is just
inconceivable to try to take that and make that into a decent
sort of one bedroom unit that I can see.
Leslie: According to the affordable housing guidelines for a low
income one bedroom unit 5 to 600 square feet.
Buz: So that is 16.5 times say 37 inside.
Bruce: 35 by 20 would be 700sqft.
Buz: So that has no area for any laundry, utility, storage for
the other unit.
Mari: It just seems to
uni t is the way to go.
from that point.
me like deed restricting that caretaker
And then negotiating the cash-in-lieu
Jasmine: It seems to me that if you deed restrict the studio
caretaker unit it doesn't cause you a maj or problem with your
building plans and then we would adjust the cash-in-lieu
accordingly. It would be a lot easier and I think would follow
the spirit of what we are trying to do if not the exact numbers.
Bruce: That sounds fine to me. I would be willing to let him
try his hand with Council for the $150,000. I know what they are
going to do.
Buz: Has there been one unit built in Aspen under all of these
months and possibly years of discussions of trying to create the
employee housing within these free market units as opposed to us
creating the zone that I was talking about and really getting in
and really getting some job done and solving our housing problem?
Has one unit been built under these months and years of
discussions?
Mari: They have been applied for.
Alan: The list goes into the several dozen of units. We will
provide you with the list. Just come into the office.
22
PZM7.18.89
Jasmine: I think we can re-write #2 and #3 so that #3 would say
"The applicant shall deed restrict the studio unit on site to low
income subject to the jurisdiction of the Housing Authority".
Mari: It doesn't matter who owns it.
Buz: The only point that I am saying the amount is again with
the $97,000 to give and be able to pick up that free market just
seems so inappropriate, so small amount to build that type of
construction for. Is there some way to at least get it into some
middle priced category or something to make it at least the
pricing a little more appropriate?
Alan: You chose low income for the points that you were trying
to get.
Buz: But then you changed it.
Alan:
eligible
sticking
We are keeping the points that
for. You committed to low and
with here.
you are going to be
that is what we are
Jasmine: So #2 should say "Prior to the issuance of a building
permit the applicant shall make a one time payment-in-lieu
indexed to the affordable guideline of current affordable housing
guidelines in effect at the time of the payment adjusted
accordingly.
Roger: I don't think #2 has to be changed.
Leslie: #2 does not have to be changed.
Roger: Except for "effect".
Leslie:
studio.
#3 all you have to change is the one bedroom to a
Roger: Yes.
unit on site.
and rented by
The applicant shall provide an affordable
The unit shall be deed restricted to low
the Housing Authority guidelines.
studio
income
Mari: The Housing Authority is not going to rent it.
just going to provide the guidelines.
They are
Jasmine: I would entertain a motion to recommend that Council
accept the housing proposal as outlined in #2 and #3.
23
PZM7.18.89
MOTION
Roger: I move to recommend to Council that they accept payment-
in-lieu of approximately $110,000. That figure shall be
corrected for affordable housing and the one low income studio
apartment conditioned on my condition. #1 shall be taken from
condition #2 of Planning Office memo dated July 18, 1989 with the
correction of the spelling of the word "effect".
My condition #2 shall be taken from condition #3 of that same
memo modified to read "The applicant shall provide an affordable
studio unit on site. The unit shall be deed restricted to low
income and rented under the Housing Authority guidelines.
Mari seconded the motion with all in favor except Bruce.
Leslie: A studio low income is 300 to 500sqft.
Buz: If the Housing Authority has no plan as to what to do with
the money and can collect the money, that in itself is a
travesty. That we can collect money and say "We don't know what
we want to do with it yet and we have no plan for it and we will
figure out something later." Then it ought to be stricken as an
option.
MOTION
Roger: I move to
restricted studio
apartments.
waive
unit
the parking requirement for the deed
for the Cooper Avenue Greystone
Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor except Mari.
SPORTSTALKER APARTMENTS SUBDIVISION.
CONDITIONAL USE AND SPECIAL REVIEW
Alan: Made presentation as attached in record.
Jasmine opened the public hearing and asked for public comment.
Buz: I think these guys are being given much too easy of a time.
Mari: I always have a problem with waiving parking for residents
even in the downtown. I think we are on a collision course here
between waiving parking for residents and everything else that we
are trying to do. We are trying to provide housing and at the
same time, every time we approve a residential unit without
parking we are at cross purposes with other planning objectives
that we have. I just think that a time is going to come when we
are going to have to admit that these people have cars and they
24
PZM7.18.89
have to put them somewhere. We have to come up with a way of
dealing with it or saying "no" even if it is a sacred employee
project because it is getting worse and worse and worse. Isn't
anybody else worried about this?
Jasmine: Yes.
Mari: It seems like it is almost routine when it comes to
affordable housing to waive the parking requirement and because
employee housing is such a sacred cow that we can pretend like
these cars are not going to be circling around. They are going
to be circling around and around.
Jasmine: I agree with you. I think in this particular project
it is much less of a problem than it has been in others. This
seems refreshingly loaded with parking compared to some of the
others.
Mari: But it is cumulative. with every project we say "Well we
are only going to have 50 more cars than we have spaces." And
this one we are 2 parking spaces short. I think that the code
misses as far as what the actual probability is.
One of the things that I think we ought to put on our agenda for
the future is storage lots. I live in town and I really don't
use my car very often but when I need my car, I need my car. It
has to be somewhere whether I am driving it or not.
?: I just want to make you aware of one thing. Welton has been
working over this trash area design to figure out how much is
going to work. He has concluded that he can still fit 7 cars on
the parking lot and the applicant wants to keep 7 cars there.
But Welton says that he is going to need some time to work out
the dimensions and figure out whether or not some of the spots
may have to be for compact cars rather than full size cars. We
ask that you let us work with the Engineering Dept to finalize
the final mix of compact cars and full size cars on the lot.
Alan: The
with that
reduction.
only comment I would make is if you feel comfortable
it is OK to attach that to your special review
MOTION
Roger: I make a motion that the applicant shall provide 7 spaces
whose dimensions are satisfactory to the Engineering Dept.
Bruce: My question is whether this condition #7 satisfies staff
as the applicant having demonstrated that the parking needs of
the project, residents, guests etc have been met.
25
PZM7.18.89
Alan: Yes.
Roger: I move to recommend to City Council to grant subdivision
approval and exemption from GMQS with the 4 affordable housing
units to the Sportstalker apartments conditioned on conditions #1
through #6 and #10 verbatim from the Planning Office memo dated
July 14, 1989. (Attached in record)
Mary second. All approved. Motion carries.
Roger: I move that we grant conditional use approval and special
use approval to reduce the required number of parking spaces for
the affordable housing units for the Sportstalker apartments from
7 to 5 and to reduce the dimensions of the utility trash area to
that shown on the applicant's revised site plan (Attached in
record) and my conditions #1, #2 and #3 shall be taken from
Planning Office memo conditions #7, #8 and #9 dated July 14,
1989. (Attached in record)
Condition #6 of my motion shall read "The applicant shall provide
7 spaces to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department for
use by the occupants employed by the owner".
Mari seconded the motion with all in favor.
Jasmine: My suggestion would be if there are no objections from
the Commission that we move to accept the scores presented by the
Planning Office which would mean that both projects would meet
threshold.
SCORING
MOTION
Roger: I move to adopt the Planning Office scoring of both the
Cooper Avenue Greystone Apartments and the Sportstalker
Apartments because it has been evidenced that both these
applications exceed the threshold criteria and also there are
sufficient units to allocate to both.
Mari seconded the motion with all in favor.
ALLOTMENTS
MOTION
Roger: I move to recommend to Council that they set aside the
excess number of units from this year's allocation for affordable
housing.
26
PZM7.18.89
Bruce:
issue.
I am concerned about the lack of public notice on this
Alan: Good point. That is why you are a recommending body and
the code requ1res a public hearing before the Council to
determine whether to carryover. The public will be publicly
noticed on that particular issue.
Mari seconded the motion with all in favor.
Meeting was adjourned. Time was 7:15pm.
Jani
27