Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19850402 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:00pm with commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson, David White, Roger Hunt, Mari Peyton, and alternate Ramona Markalunas present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Hunt informed the commission that he had attended the County Planning and Zoning meeting of 4/2/85. In thi s meeting they affirmed putting restaurants, in the generic form, in the master plan as a use by traditional review which he has problems with. Motion: Hunt moved to adopt a Resolution to the Board of County Commiss- ioners from the Planning and Zoning Commission expressing our displeasure with their plan of attack concerning night and summer operations of restaurants. At this time, on this master plan, it should be put nowhere, not denied and not put in for special review at this time. If they want to operate restaurants in the summertime or at night they can corne back for an amendment to the master plan. Seconded by David White. Motion carried with Perry Harvey opposed and Welton Anderson abstaining. David White told the commission that he will be running for a City Council position in the May election. MINUTES February 19. 1985,L David White requested clarification on line 8, 3rd paragraph, page 6, that the words "that gives" be added previous to "the reason for original designation". Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes of February 19, 1985 as corrected; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor; motion carried. March 5. 1985: Roger Hunt requested that the motion on page 7, paragraph 5, line 2, be amended to read "the Chairman review, authorize and sign the changes". Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes of March 5, 1985 as corrected; seconded by David White. All in favor; motion carried. March 12.1985: David White moved to approve the minutes of Mar ch 12, 1985; seconded by Roger Hunt. All in favor; motion carried. RESOLO'1'IONS/CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING A. A~n Mountain POD - Resolution Recommendin9 City Council Continue with Review Process 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2. 1985 Alan Richman, planning office, submitted Resolution 85-6, granting approval to a portion of the preliminary PUD/Subdivision and recommending associated approvals for the residential proj ects included within the Aspen Mountain PUD and Resolution 85-7, recommending that the Aspen City Council proceed with the processing of the Aspen Mountain PUD for the commissions complete review. Harvey asked if the commission could legally grant a partial approval to a preliminary PUD. Barry Edwards, city attorney's off ice, suggested the wording should say "approval to a portion of the preliminary PUD solution". Richman verbally reviewed Resolution 85-7 stating that it is required that the conceptual submission reflect the entire development plan. The code says that it is up to the Commission in the preliminary review (24-8.10) to either approve, disapprove, or approve subject to modifications. What we hope to do here is approve, subject to modifications, the modification being that we are unable to approve the entire project. Specifically, in 24-8.9 the code provides for phasing construction. Richman believes if we have the ability to provide phasing construction, we have the ability to provide the phased approval. Hunt said specif ic conditions for the phasing of construction doesn't give entrance for phasing of approval of the construction. Hunt asked if something showed up at the Top of Mill and it became entirely impractical, would that upset our decision about any of the lower development? Can't we indicate that if it became infeasible to build the Top of Mill that wouldn't change anything as far as the Aspen Mountain Lodge, 700 S. Galena, and the other properties? The Top of Mill, at this stage, is suffic- iently separable. From our point of view it makes no difference toward the planning at the bottom of the hill. Richman said the intent of having comprehensive review was to assure integrated review of site, design, architecture, circulation and that you feel that all conditions with respect to such things have been adequately addressed. If you want to add to that," so that therefore the 2 projects are now separable and there is no risk to the City" we can add that language. Hunt suggested adding "if for some reason the Top of Mill could not get approval due to some unforseen circumstances that would have no impact on the City". Richman had no objections to that language. John Doremus said he thought the significant cause, if the hazards are substantial and can't be mitigated the site runs the risk of being sterilized. That is not negative to the City, is 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2. 1985 it? Anything in between is a risk that the applicant takes. Tygre said since the concern is setting a precedent she agreed wi th Hunt's approach and fel t the commission should become even more specific. To say that even in the wor st case scenario the City will not be losing any of the facilities they are interested in acquiring. Or that an element that was an essential part of the overall PUD would be lost. Whatever potential loss there might be would be the developers rather than the City's should be emphasized. Harvey asked Richman if he would add language to Resolution 85-7 from Hunt and Tygre' s input. Richman said he would add a new Whereas based on their comments. Hunt added that it should be particularly regarding, if there is no approval granted Top of Mill then it is not the City's risk; it is the applicant particu- larly because the amenity package which the City is trying to obtain from this site is contained elsewhere in the proj ect and not at the Top of Mill. Peyton suggested that something be said to the effect that the applicant agreed that if the worst case happened and there was no approval for the Top of Mill that they can not hold the City responsible for approving part of the project. Perry suggested a Whereas that simply states that the applicants are prepared to move ahead with the processing of the Aspen Mountain PUD, while holding back the Top Mill site pending the test results. Richman asked if "the applicant is prepared to move ahead with the project and agrees to continue the studies requested by the Colorado Geologic survey" would be correct. Harvey agreed. Motion: Roger Hunt moved to approve Resolution 85-7, as amended, to be signed by the Chairman on review of its content. Fallin seconded. All in favor, motion carried. B. ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE - PRELIMINARY PUD/SUBDIVISION Alan Richman said there was one condition that had been left off of Resolution 85-6 concerning mine tailings around the Top of Mill site. He suggested the following language be added as condition number 21 to Resolution 85-6: "The applicant shall assure that all exposed mine dumps and tailings, on or around the perimeter of the PUD site, are isolated with limited exposure to inhalation or ingestion by the placement of fill material over the toxic soils and by diverting all surface water from such soils". Richman reviewed Resolution 85-6. Perry said that the Resolution 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2. 1985 confused him. It is granting preliminary approval PUD and subdivision for all of the projects but the Top of Mill and yet there are a great many conditions in the Resolution that apply to the Top of Mill. I am not comfortable sending forward something that puts on record alot of conditions that relate to Top of Mill but specifically exclude it from approval. I would rather see 2 Resolutions. Richman replied that any conditions, such as the booster pump system, that are needed for any of the other reside- ntial portions should be referenced. Anything on the Top of Mill si te that does not relate specifically to the residential components that are being approved could be on a separate Resolution so that it could be delt with separately. John Doremus said from the applicants standpoint it simply indicated they had done their homework in every area wi th the exception of one, the geologic hazards,which can't be done until after spring runoff. He did not want to lose all of the work that had been done to this point on the Top of Mill portion. You don't spend alot of money to dr ill holes f or testing until you have approval. If we can preserve the gains that have been made so far, assuming in August we get the geologic report, we can move right ahead. Richman suggested creating a section in the Resolution which would refer to Top of Mill changes that need to be made. That would separate it out and isolate it away from the section granting approval and wouldn't make it a condition of the approval that the applicant do a booster system for a project that is not approved. Richman said the first Resolved states we are delaying action on Top of Mill until such time as the following conditions are met. There could then be a section stating that upon these conditions having been met by the applicant; and then go into: And, now .... In this way the commission would not be granting anything to the applicant, simply creating a record of the work done on Top of Mill. Richman said he would move all of the references to Top of Mill out of the basic 20 condi tions and into the separate section where it is clear we are not granting anything to the Top of Mill. Harvey asked where the new condition 1121 would be placed in this format. Richman replied it should be a new "Be it also Resolved that upon compliance to the conditions above". Harvey told the commission that he had been contacted by the Ski Company and the mayor and asked to address the commission about the desire of the Ski Company to work out a new World Cup finish area in the open space easement for the Top of Mill. They feel 4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2. 1985 they could do it in that area with the exception of the drainage retention pond location. He expressed a desire to see some language in the Resolution for the applicant to work with the Ski Company to satisfy their needs and desires for World Cup finishes. John said he did not see why negotiations between 2 private parties, affecting a land exchange of some consequence, needs to be addressed in Resolution form. The only thing that appears to be in their way at this time is the retention pond which is required. If it were moved it would have to be on their land because we don't have any other sui table land. Harvey said he would just like to see something in there that addresses the issue that you will work with the Ski Company to affect some kind of mutually beneficial plan. Richman proposed language reading: the applicants demonstrate that they have taken into account and are cooperating wi th the Ski Company on their plans to approve the finish area for the World Cup. Richman asked for comments on the specific requirements placed on the applicant in Resolution 85-6. Hunt asked that the wording in the last line of 118 be changed to read "all landscaping shall be supported." Hunt also asked that 1114 be changed to include that the landscaping plan shall be supported with an irrigation plan. The requirements of the Housing Authority were discussed and Harvey felt an acceptable employee housing program was submitted. Hunt voiced a problem with 115.2 of Be It Further Resolved. Since there are now only 5 City Council members there is a possibility they could all die, are we only limited to 21 years from that point? Harvey suggested that should be changed to whichever is greater. Richman asked if the commission thought the last Be It Also needed to be included in the Resolution. Harvey suggested saying that Council delete the Trail easement and reexamine that area for a more practical alignment. Motion: Hunt moved to approve Resolution 85-6 the chairman to review the corrections. All in favor, motion carried. as amended and author ize Welton Anderson seconded. 5 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2. 1985 NEW BUSINESS / PUBLIC BEARINGS Sardv Bouse Conditional Use Review Harvey opened the public hearing. Penne briefed the commissioners on the applicants intentions of making the Sardy House a bed and breakfast lodge. There is a problem in that a boarding house is a conditional use in the "0" office zone but there is a small piece of the property still zoned R6. They would like the commissions ideas about the project and its use as a conditional use and to discuss rezoning the strip that is still zoned R6. Harvey said that the conditional use couldn't happen unless that portion of the property currently zoned R6 is rezoned. Penne said it could be said the use of the property is a bed and breakfast lodge and is alright in this location, in the office zone. By doing that you would be allowing them to do work to the inside of the old structure. The problem with that being that there are parking spaces proposed under the new addition which may be a concern of your conditional use review. If the rezoning didn't occur you would have a problem. Harvey asked Penne if the Planning off ice thought this could be seen as an over sight in the zoning map. Penne repl ied that the City Attorneys office recommendation was to rezone the property. Harvey asked if it will be a full rezoning. Are we rezoning that 25 feet to "0" office zone, or the entire property to L3. Penne replied, the 25 feet to "0" office zone. Penne said the applicants proposal includes both a parking solution and an employee sol ution. Technically they wouldn't have to provide employee housing because of the historic designation. The change in use is exempted from going through change in use review. The addition is exempted from GMP because of the historic designation. There is not a specific parking requirement but in order to get conditional use approval you need to have some parking in the alley,which they have provided. Penne recommended the commission approve this for a conditional use as a bed and breakfast lodge wi th 6 condi tions outlined in the memorandum. Harvey submitted a letter from Gracey's, an adjacent property, giving their full support to the project. 6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2. 1985 Harvey expressed concern with the number of parking spaces. It is located on Main St., probably one of the busiest intersections in town. Any impact will be attributable to this project. Penne responded that at present you can't park on Main St. because of the bus stop. The on street area in front of Gracey's or in front of the church's rectory or the Mountain Bell parking lot behind the house are locations where there would be on street parking. There is also the possibility the applicant could rent some of the Mountain Bell parking spaces. Elizabeth Jones, owner of the Hotel Lenado, addressed the commis- sion. She said that most of their guests do not arrive in cars. Kathy Costello, a library employee, addressed the commission. She thought that the library has a parking problem now. She asked if there could time limits set on the parking. Hunt asked how the trash pickup would be handled. replied that it would be put under the stairway section and rOlled out for pickup. Harvey closed the public hearing. Penne asked if the City Attorney's were unable to find a way to rezone that parcel other than through rezoning, would the Planning and Zoning Commission be willing to sponsor it. Harvey asked if anyone on the commission had a problem with sponsoring the rezoning of the back 25 feet to br ing it in to perf ormance with the rest of the property, no objection was voiced. Motion: Harry Tegan to the back Harvey entertained a motion to grant a conditional use permit for the bed and breakfast at the Sardy House with conditions 1 through 6 of the Planning Office memorandum of April 2, 1985. Fallin so moved. The motion was amended to add: the Planning and Zoning sponsorship to condition number 1. Peyton seconded. All in favor, motion carried. SCI ZONE - PRIVATELY INITIATED CODE AMENDMENT penne introduced the applicants, Terry Rose and Sarah Pletts. Penne explained the applicants request is to amend Section 24-3.2 of the Municipal Code to add "artists' studios with optional accessory dwelling unit" as a permitted use in the SCI zone and to change the intention statement for the zone to also read: "To allow for employee residences in or adjacent to professional artists studios as a permitted use." penne added, although they 7 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2. 1985 are applying for a specific building,it will be throughout the SCI zone. This use will become a permitted use. penne explained the present intention statement for the SCI zone. She said that artists studios basically fit this intention. Problems that came up were when the availability of the building for other SCI uses became a problem in terms of 3 hour fire walls, and the expense of putting them in. The condominium owners individually bought these units and the building is sold out now to people who are not doing any hazardous or noxious uses. Basically it will be the responsibility of whoever is coming in to that building to put in the new fire walls to give the separation between the residential use and the SCI use. penne said the intention statement wouldn't need to be modified if the permitted uses specifically say "artists' studios with optional accessory dwelling unit". We would suggest that an addition be made at the end of the intention statement which would read "except as expressly permitted". Hunt voiced that he could not support this as a permitted use but could as a conditional use. If this is allowed as a permitted use the entire SCI zone will be involved. Harvey said the concern is the individuals inability to get financing, as with other conditional uses. Terry Rose added they can not get permanent, long term financing under the present code because it is written as a conditional use. The only way they can get financing is to be able to live and work in an adjacent studio and the only way to do this is to permit it as a dwelling unit so long term financing is available. Harvey opened the public hearing. Bob Andrews, former owner of the building, said for the commission to avoid a charge of discrimination it should be open to everybody in the SCI zone, not just artists. We feel it is a substantial benefit to the City, in terms of low cost housing, getting the building up to speed, and preserving the SCI uses. Peyton asked,if a conditional use were granted the applicant and at a later date they decided to sell the unit would the new owner have to apply for a conditional use approval? Harvey replied they could step in and maintain that residence as long as the business was anything that is allowed under the permitted uses. penne added they also could not change living space and business space ratio. Janet Garwood, a current resident, said her permit says they have residential only as long as they own the unit. Penne said that was a very unusual, for a specific case,permit. Harvey asked Ms. Garwood to bring in her permit for a review. 8 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 2. 1985 Sarah Pletts said they need a long term agreement, on paper, to an arrangement. Harvey suggested putting Artists' studios in as a permitted use and maintain the conditional use, which is dwelling units accessory to the permitted uses then reexamine the agreement on that building. Penne said she would talk to local bankers to find out where their problem is. Motion: Harvey entertained a motion to table this until the next regular meeting and to continue the public hearing. Hunt so moved, Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:43pm. 9<~ W~ loJ- Kim Wilhoi t, Deputy City Clerk . . 9