Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19950404 FECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 1995 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bruce Kerr. Answering roll call were Steven Buettow, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, Timothy Mooney, and Jasmine Tygre. Robert Blaich and Marta Chaikovska were excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie Lamont and the commissioners discussed upcoming meetings. A date for a special meeting of the City Planning & Zoning and the County Planning & Zoning was requested, for a Growth Management Review,a work session, and a meeting regarding Aspen small lodges. Commission members' schedules were unclear for the month of May for the requested meetings, but it was suggested by Chairman Kerr to go ahead and set up a Growth Management Commission Review for the regularly scheduled meeting on May 16th and hope for a quorum. The meeting is to be held early at 4: 00 and then move into the regularly scheduled meeting agenda. There were no definite decisions on the other requested meetings. Leslie Lamont: If it is alright with everyone, I would like to move the Buckhorn Lodge first. MOTION Hunt moved to Lodge first. carried. change the order of the agenda and put the Buckhorn Seconded by Garton. All were in favor. Motion PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments. MINUTES There were no minutes. .... PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 1995 Richman responded: There were a few problems with the NC zone. The primary one is parking. Parking in that zone district is four spaces per thousand and we are not even close to that. Assuming, as part of the re-zoning, Oil2 has to bring an existing situation up to conformity for parking; which has become City policy to do. That would be in the range of 20 to 22 spaces and that's well more than we have land for. That's the primary problem. The other problems, I think, are lesser. What we are trying to do here is create offices. Hunt said offices can be done in NC, also. Richman: Although it's conditional use of NC. Hunt: That's right. Well, I'm just throwing it out, as I say. I cannot support C-1 zoning. I can support what you are doing. Garton asked if sidewalks, Chuck, go along the Kraut property on the east side on Original? Chuck: I believe so. Garton asked if the one-to-one ratio, the 32 ft. height limit, will it go in perpetuity with that building until it's raised? For any changes in that, they'd have to come in. Leslie Lamont: Approval that process. I believe I even stated that in the Condition of unless otherwise changed for a Planning Review Garton: And then on the apartment; whoever is in there will have to be approved by the Housing Authority. But will it be Sy and Nora's choice who goes in there? Richmand: Yes. Garton: You know, I don't have a lot of trouble with three people in there, and I know there's problems with it, but the kind of Housing that goes with that kind of a building, it's possible. Garton: I think the kind of people that live there will be working in the offices. It isn't the most desirable unit that we try to get, especially an ADD, but with housing within a building like that, I'm so happy to see that, that I could accept that configuration. -- \....- 3 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 1995 limit the uses allowed on this property to something resembling, or in fact, the use list of the C-1 zone district. It's a bit more contrived than your solution which is really giving it some broad community planning questions. Hunt: The question is, can we accept the this proposal with the parking as is, w~th the circumstances that it is, in effect, a down-zoning from Commercial Lodge to NC. So, do we get a balance of all these issues to where we can accept these eight spaces for this property in being tagged NC? Leslie Lamont: That would be my preference, versus coming up with a contrived use list just for this building. Garton: Are we allowed to waive parking in NC? Leslie Lamont: No. That's why I'm requesting a special review. Tygre was concerned regarding the legality issue recommended that the commission table until May 2nd and for special review for parking and re-zoning to NC and use review for the offices on the second floor. and Leslie readvertise conditional Leslie Lamont: My recommendation is, approval for the special review for the parking and trash, and approval of the changing use, and I would recommend as far as the re-zoning application goes, that we table to readvertise that we are re-zoning to NC, conditional use for offices in the text amendment for the special review for parking. Chairman Kerr asked if this is just NC or for all commercial use? Leslie Lamont: Just NC. The rest of our commercial zone districts have special review cash-in-lieu. I believe NC is the only one that does not provide for that option. Chairman Kerr asked for public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT Yvonne: Voiced concern on the zoning, particularly the offices and clarification of NC. Leslie stated she would have a copy of the NC section xeroxed for Yvonne for her use, as well as Conditional Uses. I . There were no other publlc comments. Chairman Kerr: My recommendation would be to deal with the " 5 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 1995 MOTION Hunt moved to table this item and all attendant issues for further recommendations to Council to May 2nd, 1995. Vice-Chairperson Tygre seconded. All were in favor. Motion carried. FELLMAN CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY Chairman Kerr opened the public hearing. There was no staff presentation. An Affidavit of Public Notice was presented by Gibson, representing the applicant, as attached in record. Chairman Kerr closed the public hearing. MOTION Hunt: I move to approve the conditional use of the accessory unit, 222 North Cleveland, with the conditions, 1 through 6 as outlined in the Planning memo dated 4 April 1995. Vice-Chairperson Tygre seconded. carried. All were in favor. Motion ROTHBLUM CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING Kim Johnson, Planner: Made presentation, as attached in record. Chairman Kerr opened the public hearing. MOTION Chairman Kerr: I move to approve the conditional use of approximately 300 to 371 square foot accessory dwelling unit, at 624 East Hopkins with conditions, 1 through 5 as outlined in the Planning Office memo dated 4 April 1995. Garton seconded. All were in favor. M6tion carried. Chairman Kerr closed the public comments. '- " ' 7 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 1995 Ramona Markalunas: Spoke about her concerns and presented a letter supporting her position as attached in record. Chick Collins: Stated his concerns regarding the project. Jim Markalunas: Again spoke of his concerns regarding the racetracks, ditches, trash problems and traffic problems., He also was concerned about the cottonwood trees in the area. Mac Cunningham gave a strong supportive presentation for the Physics Center. Chick Collins: Voiced again his concern on the impact to the surrounding area. Chairman Kerr closed Public Comment subject to being reopened at a later time. Chairman Kerr: I guess my number one recommendation would be to you and Chuck, and whoever you can get together with, and find out about the easements. It appears to me that the location of the structure, is in large part, based upon the locations of those easements. Those things are not operative, they can be moved, it seems to me that it would clear up a lot of problems that we may be encountering. So, that seems to be step number one, for someone to really investigate the easements. Garton: I have some comments about the conditions. First of all, I'm sure it's a cost constraint to stay within one building. Harry Teague: It's primarily, programmatic. We like to bring people together, and I can assure you that the noise is not going to get out of hand. Garton: Did you ever think of designing the building in a boomerang shape? Harry Teague: Yes. bringing certain parts space. What that had the effect of doing, was of the building closer and interrupting that Buettow: Can't you bring the boomerang closer to the other structures? Garton: What if you rotated the west end at an angle, and made a V? 9 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 1995 are we going to really understand what kind of impacts we are placing on the residents and what kind of limitations we are placing on the non-profits? We are never going to know until years after we make these decisions, so to analyze it a little bit more, would make me very happy. To see some other options as to how that building can be moved or hinged on that site would make me very happy. Vice-Chairperson Tygre: Tim marked a lot of my concerns, and I've been trying very hard not to look at this with the jaundiced attitude that has been brought about by things like the rehearsal hall, because it is a different element. I think we also have to remember that for all the years that we spent on the SPA, the main concern was to preserve and enhance the ability of the non-profit organizations to continue to function, and there was a realization that they would have to continue and they were going to expand. There were going to be more people, more physicists, there were going to be more musicians, just as there is more everything. We can't really redesign the project. My main concerns with the project are the access to the perceived open space. I think that is more important than anything else. I think a lower building, perhaps linear, is appropriate in this particular location. Because you are near relatively flat, and I think your building should be horizontally orientated. Now that we've learned how many ways we can pick apart a project, we can really give them a hard time. I really feel this is not fair. They are the ones who originally said, "We're not asking for anything now; we want the right to come in later with our plans for expansion". And now you are paying the price. I really feel bad about that. A letter from Jim and Ramona Markalunas was submitted to Chairman Kerr and passed onto the Clerk for record. It noted their concerns regarding the Physics Center. Chairman Kerr said, this is going to take some work. I don't think there's anybody at this table that's ready to sign off on this project at this point. I think there are some real concerns; concerns that we have and concerns that have been raised by the neighborhood. We are certainly recognizing the attempt that the applicant, and the architect are trying to make this work, but there are still some concerns. I just need some guidance as to how you think we should proceed, whether we want to table to May 18th? Leslie Lamont asked how much time the applicant needs to go back ane work on this? /'....'~"" Harry Teague: We do have a schedule, and we would like to have the possibility of building this September, after the summer season is , 11 ',.......,.,..- ~ PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 1995 or scenic features of the site. Garton seconded, all were in favor, motion carried. Kim Johnson, Planner: Units and acquisition at this time. Number 3 has to do with Affordable Housing thereof. Ms. Johnson recommended no action No action was taken. Kim Johnson, Planner: The last is Vested Rights. Discussion commenced regarding Vested Rights. MOTION Chairman Kerr: I move to add to Section 3-101 Definition the Planning Office's site specific development plan as stated in memo; seconded by Garton. All were in favor, motion carried. Meeting was adjourned by Chairman Kerr at 8:45 P.M. ::, rtQ,'Can '-111. 0,JlJtALU6 Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 13 ,",