Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19920707 /J />( r" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS '-- PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 7. 1992 Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, David Brown, Richard Compton, Sara Garton, Bruce Kerr, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roger Hunt: It was my understanding when the Library was approved that access for handicapped--that the elevator was access to the handicapped parking. Right now they have the elevator locked in such a way that if you originate from the parking structure you must go out to the plaza and then down some stairs in order to get into the library. And I doubt that you can do that with a wheel chair. So I think they are supposed to keep the library access open to the main lobby during normal working hours and they apparently are not doing it. STAFF COMMENTS ACES REZONING TO PARK (SPA) Kim: The ACES rezoning--we are going to move that to August because in addition to the parcel that you had previously considered which was the subject of this confirmation discussion it has come to staff knowledge that there is a couple of other out parcels owned by ACES that should be incorporated into this rezoning request. Sara: In your memo you mentioned that you recommend that we take off "Natural Preserve" from the definition for park. Kim: No. It isn't included in the text now. But when we heard the item 2 years ago, Roger made a motion to add that--do a text amendment to create that and define it and list it in the zone district. And we just feel that that is busy work at this time. We have got a lot of other code amendments that we are trying to get to. Sara: But I don't because the whole thing That is being added to the Meadows that is down below the Conservation District? That should be called a Natural Preserve. Kim: That is called Open Space. And we created a zone district specific to that. By creating that zone district we were very specific and very strict and narrow in the allowed permitted uses and conditional uses. About the only thing you can do down there is unimproved trails and some benches. Far more strict than Park. It is not a nature preserve in a way that ACES is or a sanctuary. Nature Preserve is more pro-active. They do wildlife rescues and have staff down there etc. We created 2 new zone districts for use PZM7.7.92 '_ on the Meadows. Jasmine: It is sort of about paved trails, isn't it? That might be something we should look into anyway because a lot of the time people have ideas to improve things by paving them and we didn't want them to. I am not sure but I don't remember whether that was a specific condition of approval for the Meadows that those trails not be paved. Kim: The reason that the trails will be constructed and paved is because that trail is identified as a major commuter route. So for safety purposes we have to make some improvements because of the number of users through there. The bike and pedestrian plan is what identifies that. Jasmine: But that would be the only one that would be paved I would assume. Kim: The one coming across the bridge at the Rio Grande. Sara: You are saying that might all be paved. Kim: Yes. Roger: I think we should indicate on the Park that wildlife ',-- Preserve is one of the allowed uses. My problem is here we are creating something through the SPA that is not spelled out under the underlying zoning. And the SPA I don't think was originally designed for that. The SPA was designed as a tool as something was developing to in fact get a final use in a permitted form. Here is one of the uses which we are not going to spell out under the underlying zoning and say it is OK because we are designating it SPA. So I have a problem not adding wildlife Preserve to Park zoning. Kim: The reason why staff doesn't think it is that critical is that the SPA it says "Any land in the city may designated Specially Planned Area by the City Council is because of it's unique historic, natural, physical or location characteristic would be of great public benefit to the City for that land to be allowed design flexibility and to be planned and developed comprehensively as a multi-use development. "..,... , It would be hard to define Nature Preserve as ACES is or could be in the future. And we would neither want to set up a problem in a poor definition. SPA allows for use variations and that is why we feel it offers the most flexibility without having to try and define something that is very amorphic. And at this point what their physical plant is today may be somewhat different down the 2 PZM7.7.92 line. We feel that we have the flexibility and also the control that an SPA masterplanning process by making it an allowed use in the zone district they could apply for a building permit and not have to come before the Planning Commission to add an out building or whatever whereas you may want to have the opportunity to look that over. Roger: My point is that if you make that a conditional use in the Park you would, in fact, have the same control over it. Jasmine: I share some of the same concerns about having it an underlying zone district. Kim: Your major concern is that it should be an underlying zone- -a conditional use. Jasmine: A conditional use in the Park zone. Roger: Would that not accomplish everything with an SPA and be a bit less burdensome. afford us or afford ACES? you would want to do What would the SPA A conditional use Nature Preserve. ~- Leslie: On July 21 we have a site visit at the Zaluba property at "-">~ 3:45. I will get a car. We will meet where the road meets ute Avenue. It is the last house on the right--the long green house--Rappaport's house. Jasmine: We can I t miss the long green house. identifiable landmark. It is a very PUBLIC COMMENTS Nick Coates: The Marolt property was bought as open space and transportation. The storage down there--they are allowing cars to be parked down across from the Marolt property across from the old maintenance building down at the bottom of Sneaky Lane. And it just seems to me that the town has got to start obeying it's own rules. They consistently--if it doesn't suit their purpose they forget it. And they finally did start to block some of the parking that was going on. People were parking trucks down there for weeks at a time. But they are still using that space for storage and trucks going back and forth. That is across the street from the city shop in the elbow of the curve. This could be a really beautiful little park or a nice place. Instead they have got old sheds there and old trucks and it just needs to be cleaned up. They keep saying they will look into it "'<,,-- 3 /"'" PZM7.7.92 and they will do something and nothing happens after 3 years. Jasmine: We share a lot of your concerns about things that have happened where we feel the City doesn't follow the rules that private applicants follow. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. We spent a lot of time on that City shop rezoning and it is certainly a matter in our area. Kim: I would suggest we forward the comments on to Amy. And she can respond back to us. Leslie: Are they city cars and trucks? Coates: Yes. MINUTES MAY 19. 1992 Roger: I move to adopt minutes of May 19, 1992 and June 2, 1992. Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. GARRISH REZONING TO R-15 /'" " Jasmine opened the public hearing. \.._. Erin Hazen, attorney for applicant presented certificate of posting and certificate of mailing. (attached in record) Mike Garrish: I have lived here 80 years. And I assumed this property that is in question of zoning right now. I bought it 30 years ago from my Aunt. I inherited some old buildings and a little of it mine tailings which the Environmental Protection said that it is going to kill me if I walk on it. Anyhow I wasn't aware of this zoning until VanDoml in was quiet titling my property over there and I find out that according to an old survey by the Bureau of Reclamation Mr. Buchanan at that time was when I was settling the Aspen package. And at that time the Bureau of Reclamation had the survey there and run right through the center of my property there from the peg on the Bureau of Reclamation post to across Gibson Ave on over into the trailer camp. And Mr. Buchanan took this line which was metes and bounds line and tried to claim that part of my Aunt's property which she had owned for 50 years. He had a lot of co-operation from the Commissioners and the County Sheriff. She had to run them off with a .22 at one time when they tried to claim her property. She was just as ornery and as mean as I am, I guess. Anyhow that line runs diagonally right darned near through the '",-~, 4 PZM7.7.92 center of my property and half of it is R-15 and half of it is R- 30. Now I don't know where it is until VanDomlin tried to quiet title this and he informed me--I thought all the while this was R- 15 which the adjoining property is. Then I have the trailer court on one side. Across the river is duplexes and so I would like to have the property zoned R-15. I am asking for this change not because of anything that I have done. I don't think I am imposing on any of the regulations of the City in this respect. I have lived there 30 years and I never realized between quiet title and the zoning--trying to sell a piece of property-get out of town was such a problem. I don't know if it is that people hate me so much or people love me so much. Erin Haven: Paul Taddune was unable to be here which is why this was asked to be tabled. I don't know if you can hold this hearing now. Conclusion was that Commission could not hear this. since there was request to table by the applicant, there was nothing in the packet regarding the hearing except to table. MOTION Roger: I move that we continue this hearing to date certain of July 21, 1992 as per applicant's request and lack of material in ',_ the packet. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. ANTIOUE BROKERS OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT TEXT AMENDMENT Jasmine opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Krabacher: Regarding the Office Zone District I am allowed to do a detached residential unit right now. And so the only reason that this is necessary is because when code was drafted no one ever addressed the issue of multi uses. So I have had to basically re- write the code in this regard. I could do, without this approval, a detached unit. So what is the distinction? If it is detached, OK, you can do it. But if it is attached suddenly I can't do it. So that was the whole reason why the permitted uses were being changed. It was simply because, in my opinion, there was an oversight. When it was originally drafted it allowed a detached residential dwelling unit but does not allow attached residential dwelling unit. So really that is what sub 8 is intended to do. And then as to the exemption as it is presently written right now you get 5 PZM7.7.92 "._ an exemption if I want to do a bed and breakfast on it. So what is the rational for saying "Well if you want to live there, Joe, you are going to have to go through growth management and pay all the expenses of having to compete for one unit. But if you wanted to do a bed and breakfast there, you wouldn't have to". It doesn't make any sense to me. The intent here was to encourage mixed uses in historic landmarks. It doesn't apply to anything other than an historic landmark. And it was really designed--when the code was originally drafted no one even thought of mixed-use projects. And the Aspen Area' Comprehensive Plan is trying to encourage people to maintain their residences on Main street. This seems to be consistent with that in that all we are trying to do is not have to compete in GMQS. And it is not like I am getting out of having to mitigate for employee housing. It is not like there is any more rapid growth because my unit will reduce the quota that everyone else is competing for. It is really designed so that I don't have to compete in growth management system process. I don't know if anyone has ever gone through that but for one residential unit it doesn't seem appropriate. Especially considering the fact that if you want to increase your floor area or increase your net leasable or do a bed and breakfast you don't have to go through growth management. There is already exemption for that. I think it was a matter of oversight when the code was drafted. MOTION Bruce: Based upon the finding that the proposed code amendments are not in conflict with the land use code and the public interest and that the amendments are consistent as currently drafted I recommend approval to city council an amendment to article 5 division 2 Section 24-5-214 B.8. as follows: Mixed use buildings comprised of (i) a residential use; and (ii) permitted or conditional uses allowed in the Office (0) Zone District; provided any such conditional use shall be subject to the standards and procedures established in Article 7, Div. 3. And also to amend Article 8 Section 24-8-14 B.1.c as in the Planning Office memo dated July 7, 1992. Krabacher: Should that be residential use or an attached residential dwelling? Bruce: The assumption is that it is a mixed-use building which means that it is attached. It is all one building. And that mixed use building is going to be comprised of a residential use and a 6 /' PZM7.7.92 permitted District. attached. or conditional use already allowed in the Office Zone When you say mixed use building that implies that it is Krabacher: My intent was that I would be allowed to have an attached residential dwelling. Leslie: We should say dwelling unit. Bruce: It needs to be consistent with the rest of the code. Leslie: A residential dwelling unit. Roger: In a mixed use building? Leslie: A mixed use building. David seconded the motion with all in favor. PARK PLACE CONDOMINIUM GMOS EXEMPTION FOR COMMERCIAL EXPANSION LESS THAN 500S0FT Kim Johnson made presentation as attached in record. .r - '- Roger: It seems like $4,250 is a lot of extraction to pay for a 5X7sqft piece. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the GMQS exemption for a 5lsqft expansion at the Park Place Condominium with the following conditions which will be carried out prior to issuance of any building permits: Receipts for the following must by the applicant to the Planning Office and they are conditions #1 and #2 in the Planning Office memo dated July 7, 1992. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine adjourned the meeting. Time was 6:35pm. 7