HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19910716
i
f
,
,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 16. 1991
vice Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll call were David Brown, Sara Garton, Richard Compton,
Bruce Kerr, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Bruce: For staff information I just observed that there is no
street sign at Main and Monarch.
Roger: There is a Neighborhood Advisory Committee meeting on the
22nd at 2:00 in the Council Chambers concerning signage. It is
going to be put on by the Park's Dept. That is primarily trail
signage and interface with trail signage.
STAFF COMMENTS
Leslie: The memo from Amy regarding the joint work session we had
with the BOCC and the city Council and both the County and City
Planning & zoning Commissioners were invited. Sara came. The
point of that meeting was to get the City Council and BOCC to help
us with this next phase of the community plan process. Basically
what we are doing is setting up subcommittee task force made up of
interested citizens who would like to help us with plans which
would be getting into the need of our issue areas.
Sara Garton and Richard compton volunteered to work on the
committee from P&Z.
Roger: I want to bring up the potential problem with the conflict
of interest rules concerning this whole thing because this is very
similar to the way I felt I was with the trolley project. The City
Attorney ruled that I didn't have a conflict of interest but
suggested I step down and not make any presentation to the
Commission.
I think it is time we got this ironed out because those on the
Committee put themselves potentially in a conflict of interest if
they are presenting anything to us. I would like to get the law
straightened out.
Diane: We will check with Jed on that.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
MINUTES
APRIL 2. 1991
Roger made a motion to adopt minutes of April 2, 1991.
David seconded the motion with all in favor.
ASPEN VILLAS pun AMENDMENT
FOR TRASH ENCLOSURE
MOTION
Roger: I move to table action and continue this public hearing to
date certain of August 6, 1991 for the Aspen Villas PUD amendment.
Sara seconded the motion with all in favor.
465 NORTH MILL STREET COND USE REVIEW FOR SATELLITE DISH
Jasmine opened the public hearing.
Leslie:
Made presentation as attached in record.
Gideon:
for the
roof.
Showed pictures regarding 2 different possible locations
dish. One was the yard location and one was shown on the
The newer dishes are a mesh which you can see through.
Roger: Can the dish be painted close to a color of the background
wall?
It was generally agreed that this was a good idea.
Bruce: Is there some reason that you have to have a satellite dish
as opposed to cable to do whatever it is that you want to do?
Seubert: Yes. To service satellite receivers it is necessary to
have a satellite signal. We can't hook up TV cable to satellite
receiver to service the--
Gideon: Many of the people in the outlying areas don't have cable.
Bruce: So he wants to get that nook of business.
Roger: Brought up problem with signage in this zone in this SCI
zone as it is a service zone.
Gideon: If we make a commitment that there will be no signs in
the windows that say "Satellite dishes for sale".
Seubert agreed to this.
2
PZM7.16.91
Leslie: It doesn't really stipulate that you shouldn't have any
advertisement. But the intent of the zone is primarily for service
oriented use. But all of those businesses have an element of sales
with their businesses.
Gideon: The practical reality is that you cannot do an all service
operation and stay in business. So they have to supplement
themselves. For example when the phone company stopped repairing
phones, they have the prime repair and as part of the repair they
also sell phones. They have a TV repair as part of that they also
sell. We have been through this with the zoning and the attorney I s
office and as long as the mix is good and there is a 50/50 mix you
can do it.
Roger: I have no quarrel with that. I just want to keep the zone
as primarily service.
Leslie: originally when we talked about the location it was placed
further out in the yard. Gideon's pictures are now showing it
closer in to the building.
Seubert: 20 to 24ft from the wall is where the dish is located in
those pictures.
David asked if the dish could be located on the roof.
Gideon: The landlord said he has had a lot of trouble with the
roof and so it is going to be very expensive to put it on the roof.
We would have to re-enforce the roof.
Richard: I would rather not see the dish above the roof line. I
walk right by that site every day and like to see the grass but it
seems to be less of an impact to have it down in the yard. The
question is how close to that northeast corner would you be able
to place it.
Gideon: We are happy as a condition to paint it a gray color of
the cinder block that Roger suggested. I think that would help a
lot. We would be happy to do that.
Jasmine: Asked for comments from members of the public. There
were none and she closed the public portion of the hearing.
Affidavit of Mailing for this public hearing is attached in record.
Roger: I have no problem with a satellite dish in this area
because it is a semi-commercial activity. This is where I would
expect to see a satellite dish. But I would have a problem with
it being on this side of the building exposed up there like a flag.
I think the ground position is preferable.
3
PZM7.16.91
It was generally agreed that the placement of the dish on the
ground was preferable.
MOTION
Bruce: I move that we approve the installation of the satellite
dish as a conditional use in the SCI zone subject to the following
conditions: #1 that it be placed in the yard no further than 24ft
away from the building. #2 that it be painted as close as possible
to match the exterior wall of the building.
Richard seconded the motion.
Roger: I would like to include in that that advertising for
satellite type of sales be either non-existent or absolutely
minimized in-the-window type of advertising.
Bruce: I will accept that as Condition #3.
Richard agreed to this as a part of the second to the motion.
David: I would also add to the motion that a couple of trees of
the applicant's choice be planted as a screening from the street.
Bruce agreed to this being added as condition #4.
Richard also agreed to this.
Everyone voted in favor of this motion.
Jasmine closed the public hearing.
EARLY LEARNING CENTER CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
Jasmine opened the public hearing.
Diane, Planning Dept: Made presentation as attached in record.
Sara: Do you have any idea of what kind of diapers are going to
be used?
David Laughren, President of Board: It will be up to the parents
who will bring their own. The Center does not provide diapers.
Sara: And they will go home dirty. There is no laundry facility
at the Early Learning Center?
There was no direct answer to this question.
Sara: will there be a laundry room at the Early Learning Center?
Laughren: Yes.
4
PZM7.16.91
Sara: Is there a laundry room there now?
Laughren: No.
Sara: That is more water and sewage?
Diane: Originally there were 240 elementary school students there
and now you are going to have approximately 120. So when you think
of impact of sewer and water I think that is considerably less.
Laughren: Approximately half the children will not be using the
stools.
Sara: will you be using the kitchen?
Diane: This application was forwarded to Environmental Health Dept
which they have to get final approvals from them.
Chuck Brandt, School Board President: In the past there was a
kitchen facility there comparable to what is being proposed now.
Roger: Are you separating what is now the open play yard into
little segmented play yards?
Glenn: The existing basketball court area will remain virtually
in tact. Then the idea is to separate the remainder of the site
into smaller play areas that are more manageable depending on the
size of the children so it will be easier for the teachers to take
care of the kids in small areas. We are not going to use the chain
link fence. We are going to have picket fence which will look a
little bit better.
Roger: The tennis net has not been up for quite some time.
recall that court was oriented more south. So in effect it
the capability of batting tennis balls. Is there sufficient
in the hot wheels/cycle area that such a thing could co-exist
that existing hard surface?
As I
lost
room
with
Glenn: I know it can't go north/south.
do it--I don't know if the dimensions are
tennis court there.
I am not sure you could
adequate for an east/west
Roger: Is there room for a half-court back stop type of thing up
against the building superimposed over the fence there?
Glenn: The building is not going to be accessible for a tennis
back stop. For management of the children it makes more sense for
those areas to be closer to the school. Also the surface is going
to change in the small areas from impervious hard surface to gravel
and hopefully some grass.
5
PZM7.16.91
Roger: I was thinking on the east side--basketball court side.
Glenn: The basketball courts are really popular. I don't whether
you can squeeze in a backstop for tennis balls to the north of that
basketball court against the wall or not. That is something we can
look at so that after hours someone could beat a tennis ball. We
can look into it.
Richard: Where will the drop off area be and how will the children
be arriving? It gets very confusing when all the parents are there
at 8:00 in the morning dropping off their kids. How do you plan
to handle the traffic?
Glenn: Right now the kids have to be there at a certain time
because that is when school starts. with the Early Leaning Center
it is going to be spread out more. There isn't going to be a big
peak as when school has to start. The drop-off is going to spread
out over a longer period of time in the morning because there is
no set time that you have to be there.
The drop-off will take place on Garmisch st. There will be these
parking spaces all along Bleeker where there are 30 spaces where
people can pull in there when they want to go in and talk to the
teacher and that sort of thing.
The total number of employees will be 19 but not necessarily all
at the same time. All the parking spaces will not be taken at the
same time. So the fast drop-offs on Garmisch and the longer ones
on Bleeker.
? A point to bring out is that the streets will not be closed off
any longer. The whole traffic flow pattern will be eased because
of that and additionally there will be less use of it.
Glenn: There are going to be 80 kids full time. 10 infants, 30
toddlers and then 40 pre-school kids.
The Board wants to experiment with a drop-in program for non-
regulars. We don't have a feel yet for the attendance for the
drop-in program. We have said it could be as few as 10 but no more
than 40. So we see on the peak days there could be 120 kids. It
is going to vary because we don't know what kind of attendance we
are going to get with the drop-in program.
Sara: Is the drop-in program for residents only?
Glenn: It is not limited right now to just residents.
Laughlin: The drop in program would be separated from the day-
to-day kids that are in the program to protect those kids from the
international germs we have in our community.
6
PZM7.16.91
Bruce: It seems to me kind of a waste of space to leave that hard
surface area out there for the hot wheels tricycles when we have
got the hard surface over at the basketball court which I assume
is not going to be used during the day when the Early Leaning
Center is in session. It seems to me that there is a lot of ground
there a good portion of which is already hard surface that maybe
this could be a combined Early Learning Center and a first-come-
first-serve free parking lot for people that park now in the
streets in that whole neighborhood. There is an awful lot of paved
ground there that could be used for some parking and put the hot
wheels over on the basketball court.
Glenn: We haven't talked about it in the neighborhood. I think
if we were to cut down on the hard surface area, we probably would
like to go toward more landscaped area and less parking. We would
be concerned about the proximity of cars to kids.
One of the things that we would really like to do is if the Board
could come up with some more money we would like to see more of
those high fences come down and get replaced with landscaping and
small fences. We are doing as much fencing as we can afford right
now but it really would be to the best interest of everybody to get
rid of as much of that chain link fence as we can.
Jasmine asked for public comment. There was none.
Roger: About the play area--I would prefer seeing it go more to
a park-like presentation as well. I would like to see a landscape
plan. This would not to be accomplished overnight but what is the
ultimate landscape plan that you work to over a period of years.
I really think this parcel should be rezoned to Public. Not
necessarily with this proposal. This is taking on more of a
character of public type facility.
Jasmine: This land is still owned by the school district. I don I t
know whether we have any standing to require them to rezone this
property if they don't want to. I do agree with you. I would like
to see it done. I don't know whether there is a mechanism for that
to be done.
Diane: I would recommend against trying to rezone to another zone
district.
Jasmine: The point is as land values keep increasing there is more
and more pressure to turn lands like this which are a conditional
use in a residential zone district. But as we were working on
plans for the red brick elementary school obviously because of
different financial considerations that is going to probably be a
mixed use project. And what we are concerned about is that a
desireable public facility that is on public land that could easily
be much more valuable if they were turned into million dollar
7
PZM7.16.91
condominiums--would be protected to a certain extent if they were
zoned something else. But since this is the District's property
I don't see that we have any right to say to them "We would like
to see this zoned Academic". That is unless they were willing to
do that as well.
Bruce: I understand Roger's point but I don't necessarily agree
with it. I am sure that I don't necessarily agree with Roger's
point. Don't get the feeling that it is unanimous up here.
Richard: I am ambivalent of the idea of rezoning. I see Roger's
point and I also understand the need of the school district to
maintain it's assets in a viable form.
Sara: I haven't thought about it. I see where when this Community
Plan is done we are going to be looking at a lot of zone districts
and changing some zoning probably. I don't think it is the time
do it now. I don't have a feeling about it right now.
Jasmine: This is something that we can consider in the future.
Brandt: One of the reasons the School District was interested in
having the Early Learning Center there and to enter into a long
term arrangement with them was to keep the building locked in the
school district and to keep our options open.
We don't know what the educational needs may be in this community
in 25 years. This way we know at least one of the sites will be
available for educational uses. To see a zoning change take place
would not only undercut the school district's options but the
community options. I would be against that sort of action because
the building is perhaps taken on more of a community flavor than
has existed there.
If we end up trading or cashing out of the red building, there is
a lot of sympathy for that being a community resource. So perhaps
the City of Aspen is the logical owner of that facility. And, yes,
it would be at a high value based upon the highest and best use of
that property, but it would enable us to take those resources and
put them into a comparable piece of land. If that zoning were
undercut which is Roger's concern--sort of playing on the highest
and best use but there is a perceived community need that we as a
school district would have to buy additional land for school
facilities. Then we would have to go back for bonds so I am not
sure that the tradeoff there that that answers your concern, Roger.
Sara: The affordable housing--not that I want to see you have to
mitigate. But we ran into this with the Silver city Grille. Were
the original 23 full time employees in the yellow brick school
house--was that housing ever mitigated?
8
PZM7.16.91
Kim: I would guess not.
Sara: So then when it changes use, how do they get away with being
on the old thing? silver City Grille didn't.
Roger: I would guess the use hasn't changed significantly from
school academic and there is going to be a reduction of employees.
What is there to mitigate?
Sara: That they were never mitigated in the first place and now
is the chance to do it.
Jasmine: But
intensification
of use.
with the Silver city Grille there was an
of use whereas in this case there is a reduction
Richard: In actual fact the teachers
moving to the new elementary school.
impacts on that site?
who are working there now are
Are they mitigating for the
Roger: That is in the county.
Jasmine: We are charged with only dealing with this site and with
this particular site there will be fewer employees.
Sara: When the radon test was done, why was there no mitigation
done at that time? When the readings were so high in the yellow
brick school?
Brandt: I don't know the answer to that. The radar is in the
basement and that is a low intense use and that basement is only
under a very small part of the building. But in terms of
mitigation I do not know the answer.
Sara: I understand that radon is damaging to young tissue and if
you open a window upstairs you are going to pull it up from the
basement.
Diane: Which is why it is important for them to meet with the
Environmental Health Dept and we have got that.
MOTION
Roger: I move to approve the conditional use for the Early Leaning
Center with the following conditions: Condition #1 through #5 on
the Planning Office memo dated July 16, 1991. (attached in record)
Bruce seconded the motion.
Roger: Do we want to get a landscape plan--within that allow them
an extended period of time to fund that plan. I would like to see
the landscape plan include the removal of the chain link fence and
9
PZM7.16.91
replace it with another type of fence of their choice. That along
with installation of trees and shrubs or whatever they are planning
to do.
Glenn: A 5 year plan could work. We are going to have to do fund
ralslng. To have some leeway would be good. They are going to
talk to the neighbors about that. They are the ones who are going
to benefit the most from it. If it can be accomplished sooner that
is fine. We can have the landscaping plan probably less than 5
years.
Roger: I would like the Planning Dept have an idea of what the
plan is going to be.
Glenn: We can come up with that.
Roger: Modify Condition #5 to read "The applicant shall forward
a copy of the landscape plan to the Parks Dept and the Planning
Dept covering the ultimate landscape plan and the approximate time
frame of how it shall be developed up to a period of 5 years.
Bruce: I second his motion. What I have a problem with is if this
applicant 5 years from now they have got programmatic changes and
I don't want to tie them to this landscaping plan that they submit
so that every time they want to move a fence around over there they
have got to come in and get our approval because they have got a
program change.
If we can do that without unnecessarily tying their hands, that is
what I would like to do.
Kim: There is a process within the code wherein the Planning
Office can make a determination and sign off.
Bruce agreed then and amended his second.
Glenn then presented the affidavit of mailing. (Attached in record)
Richard: I would like to offer a condition #6 calling for your
view of traffic circulation and safety in the area after 1 year of
operation.
Diane: Are you asking the City do that or the applicant?
Richard: I think it is important to monitor in some way. I think
we need to stay on top of it.
Roger: I suggest instead of a 1 year--a 2 year period to be
reviewed by this Commission. If there are any problems that have
come to our attention during that period of time we can review and
deal with it at that time as opposed to putting out traffic counts
now and a year down the line. We will know if there is a problem.
10
PZM7.16.91
We usually hear about it. That will be 2 years from September when
they open.
The condition will be that the Planning & Zoning commission will
review the traffic situation surrounding the Early Learning Center
2 years after opening as a review if there has been any complaints,
problems or anything that has to be addressed in that area.
Bruce: How is that going to happen? What happens if somebody says
parking and traffic is terrible? What are we going to do at that
point?
Roger: We will review it and see what we have to do about it.
Bruce: Are we conditioning their approval somehow so that 2 years
from now if somebody says the parking is terrible we withdraw that
approval? I don't know what we are doing.
Jasmine: We are giving them a conditional use permit conditioned
on their complying with these conditions of approval.
Roger: It is just if a problem develops as a result of the Early
Learning Center in the area of traffic circulation etc and it
becomes a known problem to us as opposed to having no way of
addressing the problem. This gives us some ability to say to them
"Hey, we have a problem here. How are we going to mitigate this".
Jasmine: We have done this with other conditional use reviews
which is to not grant a conditional use in perpetuity without some
kind of review to make sure that they are conforming to the
conditions that they represented at the time of application. I
don't think it is going to be a problem with this applicant but we
have done this for commercial conditional uses.
I think that if there is a problem the fact that the approval is
conditioned on their complying with this is the only way we have
any leverage to make sure that they eventually do do something
about it if it does become a problem.
Richard: I will withdraw this condition of approval.
Roger: That is fine with me because in this case I think they will
deal with it.
Jasmine: OK. Then do we have a second?
Bruce: You do since you have removed Condition #6.
Everyone then voted in favor of the motion.
Jasmine then closed the public hearing.
11
PZM7.16.91
TAYLOR GMOS EXEMPTION FOR A CHANGE IN USE
Kim made presentation as attached in record.
Jasmine: Something like this is what we had envisioned as being
acceptable in a C-1 zone of having the residential use on the
second floor.
Bruce: I don't have any problems with this approval especially
since there are some extra parking spaces. But I would point out
that this new area is called a library and den and there also
happens to be a new bathroom as well. In this case the parking
is there. But in other cases we may have somebody with a similar
application putting in a library and den and new bathroom and they
do that to avoid mitigating the extra parking space for that extra
bedroom. I want to point that out as a matter of caution.
I am not sure why with a 2-bedroom unit with already 2 baths it is
necessary to have the 3rd bath.
Kim: I had considered putting a condition in there--until I had
done the parking study--of requiring that to be a condition of
approval that it would remain as a library/den use. For the
record.
MOTION
Roger: I move to approve the expansion of the residence at 602
East Hyman unit #1 by 325sqft and approve GMQS exemption for the
change in use.
Richard seconded the motion with all in favor.
Meeting was adjourned. Time was 6:05pm.
12
PZM7.16.91