Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19850529 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MBETRG PLAlOIING AND ZONING COIUIISSION MAY 29. 1985 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. with commi ssioners Pat Fallin, Jasmi ne Tyg re, Wel ton Ander son, and Ramona Markalunas (arrived late) present. COIUII SS lONERS · COIUlBN'J.'S Perry Harvey tendered his resignation from the commission effective on the June election meeting. MIJlUTBS Aoril 30. 1985: Perry Harvey asked Alan Richman if the building department had taken care of the question with regard to the satelite dish on top of the Flor4dora building raised at this meeting. Richman replied that it was not a new structure and had been there for some time. Anderson corrected the spelling of Greybeal on page 2, paragraph 4. Anderson also corrected satelite screen to read satelite dish on page 1, Commissioners Comments. Pat Fallin moved to approve the minutes of Apr il 30, 1985, as corrected; Jasmine Tygre seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Mav 7. 1985: Pat Fallin moved to approve the minutes of May 7, 1985; Ramona Markalunas seconded. All in favor; motion carried. OLD BUSINESS AGATE COURT CONCEPTUAL POD Alan Richman, planning office, explained the applicants request, for redevelopment of Block 17. The last time this case was rev iewed there was concern about the pI acement of the proposed duplex structures on the lots closest to Seventh St. because of potential conflicts with Highway 82 planning. The information provided at that time indicated that noise problems associated with an expanded highway would resul t in those structures having to be removed. The commission asked the planning office and the applicant to come up with some way of accommodating the applicants desires and the community planning desires. At this time we have not been able to come up with anything in any different form than that seen in March. The intent of this meeting is to remind the commission of the critical issues involved and to have the commission finally come to some recommendation to City Council on this matter. 1 REGULAR MBBTRG RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLAlOIING AND ZONING COIUIISSION MAY 29. 1985 '..- The applicant is proposing 6 single family residences and 2 duplex structures on the entire block. The duplexes would occupy the 3 corner lots. The commission had asked for some site design and architecture to be done on the duplexes, which has been submitted for this meeting. There are no variances being requested by the applicant. We have a traditional subdivision according to lot lines with no use of PUD flexability. Engineering commented about the size of the entry court of the 2 duplexes, noting that it was approximately 66 feet wide. They have submitted a design showing that if the entry were narrowed there would be significantly more open space on the lot. They feel there is no need for that extensive curb cut along the alley. Also mentioned was the fact that the alley continues to open up on to Seventh St. which is a concern, particularly the movements into or exiting the alley. The planning office recommends that the alley not be used for exit purposes on to Seventh St. We do, however, like the idea of the alley access to the dupl exes, and would prefer that the alley be used for the access for all of the lots, as well as the trash dumpsters. We encourage that kind of use of the alley for protection of both Hallam and Bleeker from the excessive number of curb cuts which could occur. Harvey asked if the planning office was suggesting that the users come in to the court from Sixth. Richman replied that was what is prefered. Richman said as far as landscaping, there isn I t a particularly detailed proposal at this conceptual point. We have had an indication that there would be 6 trees on the property which would be removed, however, the applicant has more up to date information where that may be significantly less of a problem. We are anxious to get that information because we did recommend that the appl icant design around as many, if not all, the trees as possible. Parking for the duplexes is shown at 2 per unit, we have no information to indicate bedroom count in the units. The requirement would be 1 space per bedroom, therefore, I would like to know how many bedrooms there will be on this site. We would certainly not want to create an off site parking problem. Richman told the commission that in this case there is a series of trade-offs that the commission has to make. There are some positive things going on with this development. It seems that 10 units on the entire block is highly consistent with the surrounding 2 REGULAR MBETNG RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLAlOIING AND ZONING COIUIISSION MAY 29. 1985 ,"<<"". '-- neighborhood and a very acceptable density for the property. They are reducing the number of units siginificantly below that which has historically been on the property. In addition, this block is one of the most deteriorated, and at the entrance to town. Clearly the idea of upgrading is something that we have all spoken about for years. The fact that there are no variances requested, no height variations or FAR variations is positive. I don't think there is any question about this kind of development being compatible in style with the west end neighborhood. We are not concerned about the fact that the applicant hasn't provided designs for the 6 single family units since that can help them create more variety in design and be consistent with the way the blocks in the west end are developed since they are not unified single themes. Richman said we need to try to extract in our minds why this is PUD since PUD throughout the community is placed on sites either on stream banks or on mountain sides. This is one of the only sites that had a PUD placed on an absolutely flat site. We feel this was because of the v isabil ity of the site from Highway 82, but there are no records. In our review last fall we encouraged the design of 2 duplexes and a buffer zone there in hopes of achieving a beneficial relationship between Seventh St. and the design. Since that time we have looked heavily into Highway 82 and the new information about noise problems came up. It seems possible that one of the reasons that PUD was put on this property was the intent of the applicant, with the ability to achieve the density that he needs on the property, while at the same time the City achieves its basic planning purpose of maintianing a viable highway coridor. That is our biggest concern with this development, by not following the PUD, and not clustering, that good planning purpose is violated here. I don't think the community is given the opportunity to achieve what it needs to achieve, which is to avoid the potential of having to condem property, at some point in the future, when we are planning the area right now. I think we have a right to do good planning in advance of knowing the kind of highway that we want. Clearly there are people in the community that prefer this alignment to the straight shot approach for the highway. Richman said he felt the alley issue could be dealt with as a detail design issue. The landscaping is something that the applicant is ready to deal with now, and can certainly be dealt with as a detail issue. The critical question becomes, is it appropriate to approve 2 duplexes in an area that has the potential for being the highway. Is that good planning and does that achieve the 3 -- REGULAR MBBTRG RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PT.ANNING AND ZONING COIUIISSION MAY 29. 1985 }"I',....., '-",.-,,~ benef icial language that is required of PUD' s. Richman felt the answer was no, therefore, the planning office is recomending denial of this request. Harvey asked if it was correct that the duplexes were not going to be condominiumized, to which the applicant replied yes. Harvey then asked what the floor plan was for each half of the duplexes. The applicant replied that the interior floor plans had not been designed yet. They have only done the exterior, at this point, to meet the commissions requirements that were set in October, 1984. Harvey then asked how the parking could be predet- ermined without any idea of the number of bedrooms. The applicant replied that they are at the conceptual stage and are willing to state that they will meet the parking requirements. They will not ask for a variance on the parking requirements. Harvey asked Richman if he concurred with the Housing Authority about employee housing. Richman replied there was no question that the Housing Authority is correct, the code does not provide a basis for employee housing if there is no condominiumzation. Harvey asked if there would be a deed restriction placed on the duplexes, to be passed on to the purchasers, that they will not be condominiumized. The applicant replied no, they would not be deed restricted from condominiumzation in the future. Harvey questioned if they were condominiumized now would planning and the housing authority be looking for an employee housing require- ment. Richman replied yes. Harvey questioned the size of the buffer zone along Seventh St. where the city could do landscaping so that there would be screening along the street. The applicant replied that it was a 10 foot buffer zone that was requested and what they have submitted is 8 feet, which cuts back in areas to considerably more than 8 feet. The applicant added they can do it at 10 feet but it will be a straight wall and will give the effect of it being closer to Seventh St. than it does by breaking it up. Doug Allen, the applicant, gave a brief history of this application, stating it was presented to the commi ssion in October, 1984. We have attempted to follow the consensus of the commission in designing the duplexes. When we came back in March, 1985 the consensus of the commission was that the subdivision was alright except there was some concern about the 8 foot buffer zone, the curb cuts, and the trees on the property. When we came back to in May, 1985 there was concern about the highway alignment. All of the experts have said this is not the place to put the 4 REGULAR MBETNG RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLAlOIING AND ZONING COIUIISSION MAY 29. 1985 highway. There is nothing in either federal or state codes that requires these residences be removed. There has been a determination that it is not the most desireable place to live, that close to a highway. If the highway alignment does follow along Seventh St. there are other residences that will be impacted also, these residences are not going to be removed. They will have a higher decible level than is optimum for residential living. We are willing to go ahead and develop this, understanding and knowing this fact, and making a disclosure of that fact to the people who purchase the property. I don't think the highway is a legitamate concern. If the commission is going to say that we can't build within "x" number of feet of a "maybe in the future" highway, then it is subject for condemnation. Mr. Allen referred to page 2 of the Planning office memo dated May 7, 1985, end of the second paragraph, stating this sets forth what we feel we have accomplished with the plan submitted tonight. We want to maintain the character of the West End. None of us know what was in the minds of the people when they zoned this property PUD and there doesn't seem to be any record of it. It certainly seems practical and the best use of this land, to develop it as a West End block. Mr. Allen said relative to the question of the trees, we have now determined that we can develop this property with the removal of only 2 of the large trees (outlined on plans). We would like to see the question of the landscaping and trees being dealt with at the preliminary stage rather than at conceptual. We will have a more detailed landscape plan at the preliminary stage. Allen feels this development scheme achieves the best public and private purpose. There will be less intensive use of the land than there is at the present time, due to the single family struct- ures, and less than the maximum PUD allows. It is obvious that this is an unsightly tract of land, because of its present use. It has to stay in that utilization until a higher and better use is approved for it. Richman said that all of the information that the planning office has gotten on the highway planning effort indicates that the money that would be used for the highway would be Federal and State money. Federal Guidelines require that structures this close to the highway be compensated, to be effectively bought, because of the decible level. Therefore, I would like to know the applicants source on the fact that this statement is not true. To approve structures at this point in time will substantially increase the 5 REGULAR MBETRG RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLAlOIING AND ZONING COIUIISSIOH MAY 29. 1985 cost to the community of the highway development, and that is not in the best interest of the community. Harvey asked Barry Edwards, city attorney, what the liability would be in this matter, and what the city's position would be if construction were approved in that location before it is determine if the highway will go in that location. Edwards replied that he didn't think the commission could consider an inverse condemnation issue at this meeting, that is not the purpose of the meeting. He suggested the commission go ahead with the process and take the decible level into consideration. This request is basically an application for development of the property, under conditions that now exist, at a conceptual level. Fallin said when the matter was discussed at earlier meetings the commission said they liked the idea of what was happening with the 6 single family residences and that they would recommend approval of the whole thing with some condition on the duplexes pertaining to the highway. Markalunas asked if that wasn't in effect condeming the property, by not allowing them the use of the land. Richman responded that we are not suggesting no development, but real ignment of the development to create a greater buffer along Seventh St. We think the density can be achieved in other designs. This property is a PUD and we have the right to look at the design and determine whether it is appropriate for the property. Because of the planning we are doing, we don't believe this is the appropriate design. Harvey said the applicant had relayed their interest was to get going on this project and that they would agree to a partial approval so they can start to sell the back 6 single family lots. We have a "Catch 22" here, if the highway goes through the other alignment there is no problem, if the highway goes in this alignment I don't feel that the proposed set back is achieving the City's desired goals of a buffer zone when coming around that corner into town. Allen said he felt the commission was talking about condemnation here if they are not allowed to develop becuase the highway might come through there. A letter has been submitted to the City Attorney's office relative to this matter. We think the commission should deal with this on a conceptual basis tonight and then the legal question of inverse condemnation can be dealt with by the City Attorney's office and the applicants representative, if that is appropriate. Edwards said he thought the commission should process the application based upon the conditions that now exist. There is a road there that has a decible level which the applicant has to deal with and the commission is entitled to consider that factor. Whether in the 6 REGULAR MBETNG RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLAlOIING AND ZONING COIUIISSION MAY 29. 1985 'Q" future the City, or some other entity, puts a highway through that area and condems the property is not the question. Tygre asked what the square footage for the 2 duplexes was. Allen replied that it was the allowed FAR, approximately 4500 square feet. Harvey asked if the duplexes were intended to be one-story, to which Allen replied they were two-story within the height limitation. Harvey asked in terms of access, do we want the applicant to use the alley rather than curb cuts and a blocked alley at Seventh St.? Allen said the fire department wanted the alley open at the Seventh St. end so that they would have access throughout. Harvey suggested requesting One Way signage for the alley with right turn only on to Seventh St. The commission would like to see that method of access rather than curb cuts for the 6 single family residences, as well as the duplex lots. Harvey said in terms of landscaping the PUD could maintain all of the trees and buffer zone, shifting the density towards the south and center of the property. Anderson said his feelings were that there are 2 areas of the property that under PUD, are unsuitable for building right now and if the highway goes through being the 2 large trees on the property that are close to 100 feet tall and the area along the highway. The required set back is 6 foot 6 inches. The applicant has submitted plans outlining an 8 foot set back which I don't think that 1 foot 4 inches is much of an extra buffer. It should be at least one block or a 30 foot setback. From the PUD point of view, I could not go for approval unless there was a 30 foot setback on Seventh St. and some creative way of retaining the older trees on Lot 6. Tygre agreed, stating although we do not know the reason why PUD was originally imposed on this piece of property the fact is it is there and it gives the developer an opportunity to come up with a design that would better serve the community's concern about this piece of property. I don't like the idea of the 2 duplexes right on Seventh St. regar- dl ess of whether the highway goes through there or not because that is the entrance to Aspen. Fallin said the commission has maintained all along that they would like to see more of a set back with the duplexes. In addition, I would like to see the older trees retained. Markalunas said she thought the commission had to approve the plan as submitted because we can't approve it with "ifs". The applicant is entitled to just compensation for the use of his 7 - REGULAR MBETRG RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLAlOIING AND ZONING COIUIISSION MAY 29. 1985 ~,. property. I would like to see the duplexes on the other end of the block but that is not the plan that we have before us and I don't think we can redesign the plan. It meets all of the criteria for the existing zoning. I think the PUD was put on in 1974, before the Agate and that was commercial property. The applicant now has come to us with a plan that meets the residential zoning, which the property is zoned now. Harvey said the PUD is an overlay, the property is zoned R-6. My feeling is it is probably PUD because of the size of the parcel under one ownership and because of the location. Right now that location is the entrance to town and we are entitled to consider the best interest of the community in terms of the highway entrance. We also should consider the community benefits in terms of the trees that exist there. The difficulty the owner is looking at is if he is required to cluster then he has to condom- ini umize and provide undivided interest in the property as a whole. We have created a situation where it is difficult for us to do a PUD. I don't think we can get it without FAR, density,and height variations without maximizing the number of square feet you can put on that site because of the owners responsibility of providing employee housing.We are in a PUD situation and we're looking at processing this through conceptual, prel iminary and final. Why don't we do something about removing the PUD with the recommendations on the internal access. Why are we looking at this as a conventional residential block and still looking at it as a PUD? Richman replied because the property has to be subdivided to be developed. The commission denied removing the PUD from the property several months ago because they thought it was important to have the ability to deal with the questions. In addition you would get no landscaping plan in a traditional subdivision and no architectural renderings for the duplexes. Harvey asked Richman if the commission had the latitude to permit clustering condminiumzation of 10 units on the property and remove the requirement for employee housing. If our goal is to preserve trees and maintain a buffer zone then can we do that under PUD. Richman replied that the condominiumzation regulations provide P&Z and Council with the ability to impose employee housing requirements when it is appropriate to do so. You have to require the applicant to submit a plan. Tradi tionally you have come up with the 5 year deed restriction as the mitagation plan but I don't believe there is anything that would' require that kind of a program. You could, at a minimum, look at a subdivision exception, where you waive the 6 month minimum lease requirement, if you find it to be in the best interest of the community. 8 REGULAR MEETRG RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLAlOIING AND ZONING COIUIISSION MAY 29. 1985 Butch Clark, the applicant, said he was confused. He came before the commission earlier and asked what they wanted and how they wanted to go about it. It finally turned out that we were all in the same vein wi th the duplexes next to Seventh St. We were explicit in what we wanted to do, wanting no variances or probl ems. I just want to sell 6 singl e family dwellings and the commission said they wanted control of the other 3 lots. The commission asked for plot plans and elevations. We have done that. Harvey commented to Richman that it was stated in his memo dated May 7, 1985 that this does not achieve a beneficial land use relati- onship with the surrounding area. Richman replied that it does not in every respect, this is a blanket statement across the board that it is incompatable with surrounding development. I have made the statement several times that I think it is compatable from the density and use standpoint. The design problem along Seventh St. is paramount and that is overiding in terms of my decision for denial. In every other aspect I would approve the design, with the exception of landscaping and tree removal. Harvey said if anything is done in terms of a conceptual approval, it sounds as if it is going to be conditioned upon the applicant deal ing with a landscaping plan that preserves the trees and a buffer zone on Seventh St. which meets the community goals for the entrance to town. The appl icant could come up with some mitagation plan for the duplexes and work with the parks department in terms of the trees. The conditions would be access off of Agate Court, mitagating the community goals of maintaining the existing mature trees, and a landscaping design that creates an entrance to town. Richman requested the commission have him draw up a resolution to that effect rather than using the memo from the planning office dated May 7, 1985. Motion: Pat Fallin moved to instruct the Planning office to draft a resolution regarding conceptual approval with the concerns outlined; access, adequate buffer on Seventh St., and a landscaping plan with the goal of preservation of the mature vegitation on the site; Ramona Markalunas seconded. Harvey, Fallin, and Markalunas in favor, Anderson and Tygre opposed; motion carried. NEN BUSINESS MESSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH CONDITIONAL USE 9 --- REGULAR MEETRG RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLAlOIING AND ZONING COIUIISSION MAY 29. 1985 PUBLIC HEARING Alan Richman, planning office, explained the applicants request to replace an existing church of 810 sq. ft. with a new church facility of 4,611 sq. ft. We have evaluated this proposal according to the criteria for conditional use permits, consistency with the intent to purposes of the zoning regulation, and land use compat- ability. The land use compatability issue is the overriding concern. Richman said the proposal in all ways meets surrounding FAR requirements. It is under the height limit at 21 feet and there are no variances requested. The only issue, which is a zoning code requirement, is the parking. There is no set requirement for parking for this structure, in this zone district. Therefore, it is the commissions job to set the parking limit for this structure in this district. The criteria by which you set that parking are: traffic generation, site characteristics, pedestrian access and availability of public transportation. The plan submitted shows approximately 26 usabl e angle spaces, 1 handicap space and 4 parallel spaces. That 30 to 31 spaces compares favorably with the requirements in other districts which is 4 per 1000 sq. ft. Harvey asked what the current parking capacity was. Gideon Kaufman, applicants attorney, replied approximately 24 to 26 spaces. Richman added that one of the things requested in the planning office memorandum was better defination of the parking lot, which the applicant has made some attempt to do. The critical thing that the commission is going to have to deal with is the question of traffic generation and how many vehicles are likely to be generated by this use. This public hearing should provide adequate information to enable the commission to make that kind of determination between the information the applicant can provide and the information that the public can provide. The proposed capacity is a maximum of 172 persons which is considerably above that of the present congregation and building. Richman said he didn't think there was any question that the zone permits this type of use as a conditional use. In terms of the land use compatability questions, the design before the commission demonstrates overall consistency, at least from a building standpoint, with surrounding uses. The building height is below that of surrounding structures and the height allowed on the property. The question becomes the compatibility of the use, not of the building, with Mountain View Drive which is a very quiet dead end street. The church is at the end of the street so any traffic which will be generated by this use w ill clearly effect every resident on the block. The information I have been 10 REGULAR MEETNG RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLAlOIING AND ZONING COIUIISSION MAY 29. 1985 given by residents on that block indicates that generally parking does not flow onto the block in terms of weekly use. There is however, a peak problem, particularly at Christmas time, where parking has clearly been on the block. According to the Engineering department the platt on record for the subdivision indicates a 60 foot wide public right-of-way in the area. Al though the paved area on the plans is only 24 feet, there is no question in the Engineering Departments mind that from a physical standpoint the street could handle the increased traffic. There would be a problem, if there were cars parked on both sides of the street, for emergency vehicles. There is no signage on the block now that prevents someone from parking along both sides of the road. The Engineering Department has provided the commission with a design that recommends, at a minimum, that parking only be allowed on one side of the road. They are also asking that the church be responsible for putting those parking signs up, al though they would be city signs. Basically the engineering department has not found concerns upon which they would recommend against this proposal. Richman said he had looked at the amount of parking and the appropriateness of that parking. In his opinion condi tional uses have been approved by this commission with siginificantly less parking than is proposed here and less of an attempt by an applicant to deal with those parking problems. Therefore, I did not find a basis to recommend against this proposal. Richman added that he had found concerns with the landscaping, particularly the preservation of some of the trees on the site. I think these should be looked at by the Parks Director prior to a building permit being issued on the property. The only other issue Richman recommended the commission consider was that of the growth management quota system. Since this is new construction technically it could be subject to growth management. However, I don't think that the construction of a church is the kind of an activity that we developed the growth management quota system to regulate. The quota system regulates residential, commercial and lodge development and I don't think this is any of those. The commission does require that essential public facilities come forward to P&Z and City Council review so that public sector projects mitigate their impacts to the same degree as private sector projects but I don't believe this fits into that category either. Therefore, I would recommend you make a finding that this is not subject to the growth management quota system since it falls into none of the categories of growth 11 REGULAR MEETRG RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLAlOIING AND ZONING COIUIISSION MAY 29. 1985 management and therefore 24-ll.2(i) is the appropriate basis for exemption. Richman said basically the planning office's recommendation is for approval since the set back problem has been addressed. We have identified conditions in our memo dated May 21, 1985. The conditions are essentially relating to water supply testing for qual ity and quantity, that the existing church building be removed prior to certificate of occupancy being issued, and that a landscaping plan be submitted with the criteria we have established. I would also suggest that you consider, as a fourth condition, that the applicant place signs on the street eliminating parking, at least on the north side of the street. Gideon Kaufman, appl icants attorney, said it is important to remember that this is not a new conditional use, this conditional use has existed in this neighborhood for some 20 years. They are requesting an expansion of the size of the building and not a change in use. The church, as it exists, is only 800 feet. It is an overutilized and undersized building for their use. They are trying to come up with a building that more aptly meets the needs of the congregation, it is not being built in an attemp to get new congregants. The neighbors are legitimately concerned about what impacts this new structure will have. The church has addressed some of those concerns. The church is located on a duplex lot which allows them over 5000 sq. ft. in FAR, they are only building 3600 sq. ft above grade and 900 sq. ft. of basement below grade. They are clearly under their FAR, even more important there is no FAR requirement for a church. They have shown sensivity to the neighborhood by being both under the duplex and single family size requirements. In addition they are placing the new structure towards the back of the lot which mitigates its impact on most of the neighbors. The size of the church will not be much different in above grade elevation or height than the neighboring houses. Kaufman added, other issues that need to be addressed are those of safety and parking. As mentioned by Richman, the engineering department looked at this and determine there was not a safety problem, that it could be accommodated. The other issue, that of parking, I bel ieve the new parking arrangement will be a better arrangement and provide more useable parking than the existing arrangement. There will be 30 off street parking spaces. The congregation has about 90 members, some 30 of them aren't able to drive. Only 2 services per week shows that rarely will those 30 spaces be filled. It is also important to 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETNG PLAlOIING AND ZONING COIUIISSION MAY 29. 1985 point out the precedent that the commission has set on other churches in terms of parking. In 1981 the Episcopal churches request to place a parsonage in the middle of their parking lot was approved. At that time that church was approximately the same size as this church is being proposed and the commission agreed to reduce the amount of parking there to 10 spaces, even though neighbors objected. At that time the Engineering department set a standard for turf parking at 1.6 spaces per 1000 feet. This proposal is more than doubling that. If you look at the parking that is being provided, they greatly exceed the parking presented to you in the past and they meet any code requirement. Harvey said the commission is looking at the projected traffic generation of the development, pedestrian access, and availability of public transportation. I think that this is a unique application in that the traffic generation seems to be almost entirely automobile. The public transportation stops at the end of Mountain View. There is miniscule pedestrian access. A church in town has alot of potential pedestrian access, alot of side street parking, and the people approaching by automobile are coming from all directions and leaving in all directions. We have to consider that we are looking at something different here with parking and a dead end street. Kaufman responded that the Episcopal church does not have public transportation any closer than this -building. Even if we look at the full 3 spaces per 1000 feet required we have more than that. In addition there is no increase in the use of this particular building by this proposal. The seating capacity of 140 that is outlined is based on total square footage of the building, the capacity that is being proposed at this time is 60. If you look at the zone code requir- ements that counts the 140, this includes the isles, the bathrooms, the pulpit, etc. Realistically the most people that have ever attended a service at this church is around 100 and the maximum seating that can be util ized is 112. We are not looking to increase the number of people, hence we are not looking to increase the number of cars that will be generated by this use. We would be more than willing, as part of this condi tional use, to put a restriction to the 112 seating capacity and any increase in that would have to come back for conditional use. Kaufman said if you look at the requirements in the code, and the precedent that has been set in the recommendation of the planning office, I think we have met the requirements of the conditional use procedure as well as the conditional use section of the code. We are not asking for any reduction in parking, and we are providing more parking than probably any other church in this 13 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETRG PLAlOIING AND ZONING COIUIISSION MAY 29. 1985 communi ty. Markalunas said a letter had been received which brought up the matter of a pond that is used for irrigation presently and asked if it was going to be el imina ted. Kaufman repl ied that there was a pond on the north neighboring lot. with the set back of 20 feet we are not going to be changing that in any way. Harvey summarized letters he had received from neighboring property owners voicing their objections to the expansion. (the letters are on file in the City Clerk's office). Harvey also read a "Petition of Opposition to Expansion of Messiah Lutheran" from the Mountain View Dr. Homeowners Association with 0 people for the expansion, 17 against, 2 abstentions and 3 unavailable. Harvey said he was concerned if there is a problem now, is it the traffic impact or the parking. They are increasing the building about 4 1/2 times its current size, increasing the potential capacity from 60 to 112 people which is 86%. The parking is increased from 24 spaces to 26 spaces which is 15%. Kaufman said the seating that is planned presently is for 60 people but under code it could go as high as 112. Harvey asked if it wasn't realistic to assume that the 4600 sq. ft. building would create more uses and more activities. Kaufman replied no, because the applicant is willing to commit, as part of the conditional use, that there will be: a) no day care, and b) no renting out to other churches or groups. Harvey opened the publ ic hearing. Dan Gold, president of the Westview Subdivision Homeowners Association, asked Richman how many neighboring property owners he had talked to. Richman replied only one. Mr. Gold also asked when the Engineering Department did their study on traffic how many cars they based that study on. The Engineering Department representative replied with a maximum of 112 people 40 vehicles, which is an estimated 3 person maximum per vehicle, which the road could easily handle. Mr. Gold said they had done their own study and found that 50% of the vehicles had only 1 passenger, 40% had 2 passengers and 10% had greater that 2 passengers. He estimated that the congregation might be 70 people and with 70 people they would be looking at 51 cars coming into and back out of the street. He thought the impact would be devistating to the neighborhood. We believe the reason there is a conditional use hearing is because even though the church is there now and wants to expand they have to do it in a setting that the neighborhood has already created. This neighb- orhood has been single family dwelling for 30 years. In the 14 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETHG PLAlOIING AND ZONING COIUIISSION MAY 29. 1985 code it says that the proposed use has to be compatable with surrounding land uses and uses in the area. We feel the convenants that the neighborhood has created have been in effect for many years and think that they have some potential enforcement on the neighborhood. The property owners don't park on the street, why should we be sUbjected to a mass of cars and traffic on a street that is no more than 24 feet wide. We are concerned, and want the commission to consider the fact, that this will change the neighb- orhood from what it has been for more than 30 years to nothing more than a traffic zone, almost commercial at times. Ruth Little, neighborng property owner, said she had lived there for 23 years and attends Messiah Lutheran. She stated that she did not see any problem, in fact she walks to church along with alot of other people. Sally Smythe, property owner behind the church, stated her concern was with the building moving back on the lot there will be some noise pollution at her house. Right now there is not any noise and the church has very little impact on her residence, when it expands she is not sure about the impact. She questioned that the applicant says there won't be day care or renting of the facility, what are the guarantees. Kaufman replied that as part of the conditional use approval the commission is allowed to place restrictions on its conditional use. Ms. Smythe then asked what the owners could do if they felt that the use was not what it was supposed to be. Harvey replied they would call the City Zoning Enforcement Officer who would come out and enforce the conditional use conditions. Richman added that the permit can be revoked if they don't comply with their conditions. Ms. Smythe stated concern that the church has said they did not have alot of money and I wonder if you don't have alot of money, you don't have a big congregation, you are not trying to expand your congregation, and you build a bigger building, how do you pay for that building. Irene Schumacher, chairman of the Messiah Lutheran fund raising committee, stated that the complete amount to build the church has already been raised. Larry Beidleman, neighbor at 1315 Mt. View, said there hadn't been any talk about winter time. I don't know what they will do with the snow in the parking lot, it gets smaller and smaller, there is no snow removal plan. In addition, in the winter that street gets more narrow than 24 feet. 15 REGULAR MEE'.rIIG RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLAlOIING AND ZONING COIUIISSION MAY 29. 1985 Bill Gaechter, next door neighbor to the church, said the road in the winter is between 1 and 1 1/2 lanes because of the snow. The parking lot size is cut about 1/3 smaller than its original size. In the summer, I think on Wednesdays, they have an activity day. They use the present parking lot for the activities, therefore, they don't park in the parking lot area. Another point is that of the water. The church has some source of a holding tank or pond in a ditch, which is a right of way we gave them to extend their ditch through ours, to keep them from using the well to water the lawn. When they did this the other 3 homes which share the same well are out of water. Mr. Kaufman has said that this is an expansion, to me an expansion would be an addi tion to the existing building and this is a new structure altogether. Originally the pastor told me that the present church was big enough for the congregation but wasn't for the Sunday school. The reason for the expansion was primarily to have a Sunday school area and by doing this it would allow them to use the old building as a day care center. Now they are going to do away with the existing building altogether and the idea of day care. The reason I think the day care center came up was to raise money which is a concern of ours. He stated that he had lived there for 15 years and when we bought the house their neighbor to the north was Dick Right who built the church. They built that church under the understanding that it would never be enlarged and would only be the 1 building. Up until 6 years ago there weren't 10 cars that came but with the new pastor and enrollment they have really increased the size of not only the activity and use but the people involved. John Hurst, pastor of the church, said that the main reason for building the church is the Sunday school. The square footage for the sanctuary, compared to the square footage for multi-purpose educational space, should verify this. AS far as day care for money, our church has been in town for 31 years and we have never asked the community to support the church. The church wants to serve the community. We have never had bingo, garage sales, etc. I think it is a misunderstanding of our phylosophy of what a church is to say that we would do anything to get money to pay for the church. We never schedule anything during church services, so we are either using the fellowship area or the church sanctuary. We would not have 2 activities going on at the same time. In addition, we are looking at a maximum seating of 112 in 10 to 20 years. Mr. Gold said they had surveyed other churches in town to find out where their congregations come from and found most of their 16 REGULAR MEETRG RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLAlOIING AND ZONING COIUIISSION MAY 29. 1985 congregations do live in Aspen. The people of this church have mentioned that this church is going to serve the entire valley. Rev. Hurst replied that when he first came to Aspen they were the only Lutheran church for 50 miles. There were some Lutherans in the El Jebel area that asked to be served by me, so rather than ask them to drive to Aspen I said I would preach to them there. We thought we would like to give our old building to those people. Kathy Reppa, resident of 1250 Mt. View, said it was mentioned as part of the conditional use that the church would not be rented out and there would be no day care. I wonder what about other church activity, on other days. Right now they have Sunday morning, Sunday evening, Wednesday afternoon volleyball and Wednesday evening fellowship. In addition, I have heard that the church will never reach its maximum membership, if this is true expanding the building to this degree is overkill. Harvey closed the public hearing. Kaufman said the applicant would be willing to make, as a conditinal use, that there would be no day care, no renting or granting any other bodies the use of the church. In addition, when you talk about impact, a house or duplex would have no review for its size, and would have a greater impact. The parking and access have been discussed by Mr. Gold but it was not mentioned how many people showed up totally. I think when the statistics and facts are examined the City Engineering staff is probably a more reliable source of informat- ion. I also think it should be pointed out that this isn't a health club, it is not as if when they get more eminities more people will show up. There has been an increase in the size of the church membership which has to do with the introduction of a full time minister but that has leveled off at this time. The size limitations that we are talking about anticipate serving the existing congregation as it presently exists. We are willing to 1 imi t the seating capacity of the church to 112. Some concerns were raised about activity stays, by having a church that is bigger than 330 sq. ft. alot of those activities will take place inside freeing the parking lot for its intended use. It is important to point out with these conditions placed on the conditional use I think you can mitigate alot of the concerns that have been raised. All in all we have met the requirements of the code and do comply, as other churches have, as a compatable use in a residential neighborhood. Harvey said there was something in the letter submi tted by the church requesting conditional use that states the existing 17 REGULAR MEETRG RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLAlOIING AND ZONING COIUIISSION MAY 29. 1985 building should remain on the site until the new building is ready for occupancy. This is going to put a real crunch with the construction and church attendance. Criteria for granting a conditional use asks; "is it designed to be compatable with the surrounding land uses and uses in the area." We have an overwhelming amount of comment from everyone who lives on that road that they are opposed to it. I can not find anything wrong with the church's motives but absent some alternative access or parking I am having a hard time going against the immediate neighborhood and the impact on that neighborhood. Kaufman replied he didn't believe the compatablity is viewed by the interest of a number of people that live next to the project. I think it is inherant in our zoning code that a church is a compatable use in a residential neighborhood. In addition, it seems a little inconsistent to look at the church that is providing the most parking, doubling any code requirement. Harvey interrupted saying there is no other church that has that unique single approach absent alternative access which is what I am having trouble with. Kaufman said we can't change the fact that the church exists and that there is only one access for it now. I think they have done everything possible to mitigate the code concerns and more than any other church has done. Harvey asked Markal unas for her comments. She said they are a permitted use, on review, in a residential neighborhood. I think that everyone that built on that street has known that the church is there, it was there early on in that subdivision. It is not a change in use. It has been a very low impact up to this time and doesn't appear that it will be greatly increased in the next few years. Fallin said we have to look at what the neighbors have said. It is a very narrow street with one way in and one way out. It is low impact now but I can't believe there is a church in existance that doesn't want to increase its membership. I disagree that even though they are going to be the size of a duplex or single family house, the impact would be much less for a single family house, the parking, etc. I can not agree with Kaufman that they are providing more parking than any other church because the other churches are accessed onto four corners. TYgre said she tended to think of this as more of an expansion of an existing conditional use. I sense from the comments of the neighbors that the opposition to the expansion is not because they don't think it is a good thing to have a church in the 18 REGULAR MEE'ftIIG RECORD OF-PROCEEDINGS PLARHING AND ZONING COIUIISSION MAY 29. 1985 neighborhood. I think that they are rightly concerned about the impact of the vehicular traffic going down their street. Whether or not there is an increasing number of members of the church, growth does occur in all aspects of 1 ife. I think that the applicants have done alot to answer the concerns of the neighbor- hood. The additional conditions that the church has suggested, in order to be a good neighbor, could be attached to this conditional use permit. I think the residents and the church would be able to work out an amicable relationship, which they seem to have had up until this point. I think the addition of 3 conditions, in addition to those proposed by the planning office, the signage for the parking, the agreement to not have a day care center or to rent or grant the premisis to other groups or religions, and 1 imi ting the seating capaci ty to 112 people would certaily be a demonstration of good faith on the church's part. I also think there might be some other suggestions that the residents and the church could get together on to try to work things out for both of them. Anderson asked if the parking lot was filled on Sundays. Mr. Gold replied from what he had seen in the past year there are times that it is no problem and there are times when they park on the street. He said he had been told by John Oaks, resident for 30 years, that it had been a continuous problem. It is tolerable now but our biggest concern is the growth and what that will bring later on. Anderson said experience has not borne out that traffic increases are going to be necessarily as bad as everyones fears. He thought the church had done as good a job as possible to mitigate the parking. The church is low key, not as high as it could be, and not as big as it could be. I don't think that the rate of growth could continue at the rate it did when they got their new pastor. The think he questioned most was why there was such poor relations between the neighborhood and the church. Motion: TYgre moved to grant a conditional use permit for the new Messiah Lutheran Church, special review approval of the parking proposal and a finding that the project is not subject to the limitations of the quota system, as per Section 24-11.2 (i), subject to the three conditions mentioned in the planning office recommendation dated May 21, 1985 with the addition of 3 conditions; 1) that signage be provided el iminating parking on the northerly side of Mountain View, 2) that the church agree not to provide a day care center nor to rent or grant the church premisis to other groups or religions, 3) that the church agrees to limit the seating 19 REGULAR MEETRG RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLARHING AND ZONING COIUIISSION MAY 29. 1985 capacity of the new structure to 112 persons; Anderson seconded. Discussion: Anderson said this was a hard decision, considering all of the concerns within the neighborhood for increasing impacts. I understand those concerns but don't necessarily agree with them. Anderson, Markalunas, and Tygre in favor, Harvey and Fallin opposed; motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING WIENBRSTUBE CONDITIONAL USE Richman explained the applicants request, being approval to ammend their conditional use permit to provide outdoor dining serv ice in a proposed 950 to 1000 sq. ft. patio area during the summer months. The commission reviewed the proposed plans. Richman said we are trying to determine here if this is an appropriate use of open space for commercial purposes as per the code and that it doesn't interfere with the basic circulation patern in the area. This is not necessarily an attractive building and I find some of the ideas here to be enhancements, in addition this space is a very desireable and positive use of the area. Richman said we are talking here about people sitting outside instead of inside so I don't think in terms of overall impact this will increase congestion or parking problems. The Weinerstube has always operated in this way in the past. The commission has al ready found this use to be consistent with the zone district and I think this enhances that consistency. One concern that can be imagined from this type of operation would be noise and or odors. Harvey asked what the proposed hours for outside use were. The applicant replied 11: 00 am until 10: 00 pm. during the summer season. Richman said there had been a letter received from Pat Moore supporting this proposal. Engineering has looked at this and not found any reason to recommend against it. There are no parking problems, or problems with the sidewalk, associated with this request. There are no referral problems to address. The only thing is we have limited the applicant, as to code requirements, to a 500 sq ft. expansion of FAR. There is some shifting of spaces here, they cut off some eaves that cover some areas and they are covering some new areas with this proposal. I have no problem with 20 REGULAR MEETRG RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 29. 1985 P" that as long as the total addition still falls within 500 feet. Fallin asked if the patio area was going to be fenced off to which the applicant replied yes. Harvey opened the publ ic hearing, there were no comments so the public hearing was closed. Motion: Tygre moved that the commission grant conditional use approval and special review approval for the Weinerstube to operate an outdoor dining area of about 950 to 1000 sq.ft. in the location proposed subject to the applicant complying with the FAR limitations previously placed on the building which limits the cumulative addition to the entire building to no more than 500 sq. ft.; Markalunas seconded. All in favor motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:18 pm. c::t~~ Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 21