Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19850416 - RECORD OF PROCEBDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission A,pril 16. 1985 Vice Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with commissioners Pat Fallin, Jasmine Tygre, David White and alternate Ramona Markalunas (arrived late) present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS ,. Alan Richman, planning office, told the Board there had been quite a public outcry at the last Council meeting about one aspect of the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD. One of the things that came out in the meeting was that there was probably a defect in the public hearing notice. The applicant agreed to renotice the public hearing which will be rescheduled for April 30, 1985. We will basically be reopening the entire preliminary PUD, both the lodge and the residential portions. It is very important that everyone attend the meeting. Alan Richman said the Planning office will also be submitting the work on the open space element for the April 30, 1985 meeting. If the public hearing turns out not to be very time consuming we would like to go through the open space element, if the public hearing takes up alot of time then we will postpone that discussion until a later time. PUBLIC HEARING SCI ZONE - PRIVA~ELY INITIATED CODE AMENDMENT - Continued Public Hearing Colette penne addressed the Board stating that she had been unable to meet with the local bankers, as requested at the last meeting. A letter has been written to them explaining how a conditional use works, but we do not have any feed back from them, at this time, as to whether the conditional use is going to be acceptable. Penne added, the people involved decided that this was important enough to them, as artists, to represent other artists in the community and get artists studios listed as a permitted use in the SCI zone. The code amendment that we are suggesting taking forward to Council, with the commissions recommendation, is to allow arti sts studios as a permitted use in the SCI zone and to keep the accessory dwelling unit as a conditional use. By doing it in this way if there is a problem with fire walls or other considerations it would be brought to the attention of the building department. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Apri~ 16. 1985 penne said that Sarah Pletts conditional use permit says that it is not transferable. It is the intention of Sarah Pletts,Terry Rose and Michael to come back through a conditional use review to get residences approved, in the cases of Terry and Michael, and to change Sarah's because that is not the intention of your condi tional use section of the code. If someone sets up an artist studio and gets a conditional use approval for an accessory residence, if the proportions do not change, someone buying the unit after the approval would not have to come back through a condi tional use review unless there was a significant change. We recommend that the commission recommend a code amendment to Council just to add artists' studios as a permitted use. Gideon Kaufman addressed the commission. He stated that what the applicants need is some definity as to what the conditional use gives the applicant-What we have now is a situation where each conditional use has to be reviewed every time a different artist comes in. We are saying an artists' studio should be a permitted use in the SCI zone. If you want to live in that studio you have to come satisfy the commission that that building is an appropriate building to have an arti st 1 iving in. It seems that once tha t threshold is met then it shouldn't matter who the artist is, as long as the use continues as a studio and a residence for an artist. That becomes very important because you can't get a lender to lend on something that has no stab il i ty. We need a legislative record or acknowledgment that this is the intention. Kaufman said another area of importance is, in the approval for Pletts it was said she could not have a door separating the studio from the dwelling unit. That ignores a reality of the way artists work. They sometimes work in their studio, sometimes on their bed. In addition, if the artist is up all night working, and they have an employee working for them, they need the ability to close the door and sleep while business continues. I think the concern should be making sure that it is the artist that lives there. You can deal with that by limiting the person who can live in that studio to the artist or someone working with the artist. If we acknowledge that, we can accomplish what we need and the commission can get the assurance that you need. Penne said it was important to define "artists' studio." When you approve a conditional use you are approving a division of that space into a legitimate working area and living area. When someone buys that space, they buy those particular portions of space and not a living area and occasionally do a little creative artistic work. White said when we start to try to define how much space is 2 p RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission A,pril 16. 1985 used for working vs. living we get into something that is virtually ridiculous. Artists will use whatever they can, at whatever time they feel like it, that is just the way they work. My idea was that the SCI space has been sitting vacant and is being used in several different ways, it is right next to Rio Grande which is the center of the arts community, and right next to the river. It would be beneficial for the community to have spaces for artists. If we get into too much of this locked door concept it will make it so it just doesn't work. penne replied you need to know that there is a legitimate studio use, otherwise you are encouraging residences in the SCI zone. White agreed. Ramona Markalunas arrived at 5:17pm. Anderson said any time you expand a conditional use, you have to get a building permit which would be a red flag. penne said that was the troubl e wi th the financing, the banks have to know if someone comes in with a legitimate artists studio, and is going to use the living space, they will be able to without being sUbject to conditional use review. Alan Richman, planning Office, added that the code says that a condi tional use continues if the property changes hands or changes in operation. It also provides specif ic cri ter ia that say if the operation changes the pI anning director can sign the changes off. The conditional use section of the code has been amended to allow people to change conditional uses without having to come for a public hearing and subjecting the whole permit to loss. penne replied that the bankers are upset about that element of risk, that the planning director can say he can't approve the use and that it will have to go for a condi tional use review which may be turned down. Alan answered that all conditional uses are subject to some question as to its continuance. As long as the use is continuing in the same category, the code specifically says we have no authority. Only when there is physical change going on, or a change in impacts does this commission look at it. Kaufman said the only concern was that the commission had ignored its own code when it put the requirement on Pletts that her conditional use was not transferable. What we are looking for is some legislative history in which, when you adopt this particular language, you are stating that it is not the intent of this adoption to require that a conditional use terminate when it is changed if there is no enlargement or substantial modification. Anderson asked if that kind of language would satisfy the applicant, if it were part of the resolution. Kaufman replied yes, then there would be something to take to the bankers and show them 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 16. 1985 what the code says. All we are asking is that the conditions of the code be stated, that this commission looks favorably upon not requiring an artist to have to come back for review if the studio is sold to another artist who will be utilizing the space in the same fashion. Anderson said, if everybody agrees, we can add some language in the resolution that basically states what the code states. That the particular uses can continue through different owners if there are no substantial changes. Anderson asked for further questions or comments. Michael said the applicants are interested in the commissions concerns when the artist comes for a conditional use permit, and added they would like the commissions feedback. There was a question in previous hearings regarding firewalls. We would like to get the requirement figured out. Between a residential use that has already been granted and a hazardous use comes into the building, that non-conforming use would then have to provide the necessary f ire separation? Anderson said that at the last meeting we determined that the last per son in is basically responsible for upgrading the building, if the upgrading is required by the last ,~. persons presence. Barry Edwards, assistant city attorney, said he didn't think the commission could commit to whose responsibil ity it is to comply to the building code. That is the building inspector s author i ty. Michael asked who told the building inspector what to enforce. Edwards recommended that the commission not commit to what priority, who is in charge, of putting in fire walls because it is not in the commissions jurisdiction. Kaufman said the only question he had with that was, if someone comes in for the conditional use review is it not an issue that is brought up at that time as to whether or not the specif ic use requi res some kind of upgrading to the building. Isn't it the new person to the building that is responsible for any change? In a conditional use situation is this something that would be made a condition, that the whole building has to upgrade for the last person. Richman asked if it could be said that as a matter of planning policy it would be a mistake to impose that requirement but that the commission recognizes it as a matter of building code safety? Anderson said he thought that anyone buying a unit in the building would know up front that to occupy the space they would have to meet certain requirements, depending on their use. Michael told the commission the other item they wanted to discuss was, when Pletts came in there was alot of discussion about why an artist wants to live where they work. The reason we 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission April 16. 1985 came to the commission, with our original language, was to state that an artist, as a matter of who they are and what they do, lives and works in the same place. This happens around the world. When Pletts came in she had to prove why she had to live at her studio. We feel that there is a change in sentiment on the commissions standpoint. That you now see a valid need and that a building such as ours is a good place for that activity. The applicants would like to have that addressed by the commission as to your support for artists living in a place where they work. Kaufman simplified the statement saying the question is whether or not there is going to have to be an ongoing battle on why that particular artist needs to live there. Or, are you saying that an artist living in a studio is a conditional use, as long as the conditional use criteria and the safety of the building are met, each artist doesn't have to individually justify his desire to live in the building. Tygre said the concern is that the people who are occupying the residential unit are, in fact, artists. That is a very difficult thing to def ine. Basically we are looking for an indication of the kind of work that the artist would be doing. We have to have some kind of indication of the kind of work that will be going on because the residence could very easily be abused. Our concern is with the work the artist is doing, not necessarily as a justific- ation of art in general, or their need to live there, but what is going on there. Anderson added that when the people come in for the conditional use permits a precedent will be set that legitimate artists living in their studio is an approved policy. Motion: Fallin moved to recommend to Council approval of the code amendment to add "Artists Studios" as a permitted use in the SCI zone through section 24-3.2. Tygre seconded. Discussion: White wanted to add that we might have Kaufman and Edwards work together on the intent provision to add to the resolution. Penne asked if the commission wanted it to be reviewed. Tygre replied she believed they understood. All in favor, motion carried. 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission A,pril 16. 1985 ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE - AMENDED LODGE GMP SUBMISSION Alan Richman, planning office, said the areas where the planning office has had significant changes from prior scoring are through. One is architectural design, the other is visual impact which are essentially related. The reason for the upscoring from a 1 to a 2 is the expected changes in the lodge which have solved a serious problem. In both cases we need project standard scores, we still think it is a massive project. The other change that resul ted in upscor ing came from the fact that the commission has changed the scoring system since the project last went through. There were 2 changes, one being that the employee housing formula changed, the other the addition of that conversion of existing units category. I am recommending you simply not score the project on this new category as it tends to skew the project, to view it on an area that wasn't scored before. The planning office previous recommended score was in the range of 59 and has now gone up to almost 70 points which is substantially above the threshold. The commissions previous score was 60.71 and we recommend you go through the scoring process for this amendment. I don't think there need to be any additional conditions placed on this project at the end of the scoring process because in the 2 resolutions that have been done on residential and lodge you have been extensive in the conditions set on the project. The commission scored the lodge GMP amendment. Richman told the commission the new score was 65.2 which is above where it was before. The meeting was adjourned at 6:03pm. =;( ~ iG) J~L~ Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 6