Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19851022 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANRING AIm ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 22. 1985 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Commissioners David White, Roger Hunt, Mari Peyton, Jasmine Tygre, Jim Colombo, and Ramona Markalunas present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Whi te asked if anything had been done on the West End probl em. Alan Richman, Planning Director, said at the present time it was not on their agenda as a work program item. White said he had obtained the addresses of the properties and would continue his research with the Engineering Department. MINUTES September 10. 1985: Hunt moved to approve the minutes of September 10, 1985; White seconded. All in favor; motion carried. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS (Cont'd) Clyde McFarl in addressed the Commission stating he owned the White block building on the corner of Mill and that he was interested in changing the use of the building. The building is presently in the SCI zone. One of the requested uses for the building was a restaurant. In the 1980 Rio Grande Master Plan the building was in the SPA zone, which would have allowed a restaur- ant. Mr. McFarl in said because of heal th reasons he would 1 ike to get better use out of the building. Richman said there were 2 ways this change could be accomplished: III an amendment to the use table which would change the uses allowed in the SCI zone distr ict, or #2 rezoning the property. Either of those is considered to be a private application for rezoning which this Commission can only accept on February 15 or August 15. The reason for the client being here tonight is to see if the Commission is interested in sponsoring the application off of the semi-annual application dates. Chris Apetro, interested restaurant owner, showed pictures of restaurants he currently owns in Florida, explaining they were what he had in mind for this location. Mr. Apetro said they like the location because it is on the river. Mr. Apetro said their intentions were to put in an approximate 80 seat restaurant. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANRING AIm ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 22. 1985 Anderson told the applicant that the Commission has had more discussions on the SCI designed districts, and what is appropriate for those, than probably any other area. Anderson suggested polling the Commission to see if anyone was interested in sponsoring the change. Paul Taddune, City Attorney, said the Commission would be endorsing the concept in sponsoring the zone change. Mr. Taddune's understanding was that the Commission just wanted to consider the application rather than endorsing the concept. Anderson asked for the Commissioner's comments on whether or not they would be interested in having the Planning office study further the idea of either amending the code or rezoning the property. Tygre said she would not be interested in hearing or sponsoring an amendment or rezoning. Peyton said she would be interested. Hunt said he would not be interested in hearing the case. White was not interested in hearing the case. Markalunas said she would be interested in hearing the case. Anderson was not in favor of amending the zoning code, rezoning, or that particular use in that area. Anderson said his opinion was based on several years of studying a dwindling supply of available SCI space. Markalunas said at one time there was a Master Plan for the river that incorporated the Roaring Fork Greenway and would incorporate restaurants in certain locations along the river. She did not think that should be precluded because it makes the river more a part of the community. Anderson said the majority of the Commission was not interested in sponsoring the application and told the applicant they could go to Councilor make application in February. OLD BOSINESS PARKER OOILLEN PRELIMINARY PLAT Alan Richman, Planning Director, explained the application and outlined the location on the map. Richman said the application had been remanded to this Commission by the Colorado Court of Appeals. The original application was in July 1980 as a request for a lot line adjustment through the subdivision exception process. That request was denied stating the request should go through the full subdivision process. When the request came through the full subdivision process later in 1980 and 1981 the Commission first recommended conceptual denial of the application and then City Council granted conceptual approval. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AIm ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 22. 1985 Richman said the Commission's original concern was that the applicant wanted to create one lot of approximately 30,000 sq.ft and another of 60,000 sq.ft.. Subsequent to that application the applicant would come and request a lot split, thereby creating a third lot for development purposes. The Commissions determina- tion, at both the conceptual and preliminary platt levels, was that this was inconsistent with subdivision applications in that it was attempting to do in 2 steps what you could not do in 1 step. That is getting the ability to build a third house on 2 lots that already have 2 houses. However, looking at it from the strict standards of the land use code there is nothing wrong with what the applicant was trying to do, to create lots which conform with the City zoning code and attempting use processes which are available in the land use code for that purpose. Richman said since the date of the original application lot line adjustment criteria has been adopted which would prohibit this type of lot line adjustment. However, at the time this application was submi t ted those cr iter ia did not exi st and the PI anning Office does not feel it is appropriate to apply those criteria to a case that is in essence a 1981 case. Looking back at the original review Richman thought the most important thing was that despite the concerns about the intent, the content of the applic- ation is in keeping with the City's subdivision regulations. The Planning Office recommends approval of the preliminary platt and establishment of conditions (outlined in Planning Office memorandum da ted October 22, 1985) to be accompl i shed as pa rt of that preliminary platt. Richman added that concern had been raised by neighbors about the adequacy of the road. At this point Richman was not ready to make any judgement about the roads, adding that he would like to simply get the applicant to agree to provide information on the 1 oca t i on of the r i gh t of way pr ior to Council's rev iew of the final platt. Based on that information Council will be able to determine whether an additional right of way is necessary as part of the subdivision application. Paul Taddune, City attorney, said there was an inconsistency between the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council's position on this appl ication. The attorney's office fought hard to have the courts sustain the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision. Mr. Taddune added that a month and a half before this case was decided the Colorado Court of Appeals adopted the majority rule, in other jurisdictions, that strict compliance with 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANRING AIm ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 22. 1985 subdivision regulations will entitle an applicant to approval, leaving 1 ittle discretion in instances where the application complies with subdivision regulations. That question was not addressed as clearly when this Commission made its original determination. Secondly, the people that came to the Commission with complaints about the affect of this have agreed, by stipulation with the applicant, not to contest the application any further. Hunt commented that he was concerned about the right of way situation and would not be able to vote in favor of the request without seeing the right of way. White agreed. Markalunas said she thought there should be a correction of the platt to show the right of way. Richman suggested the approach to handling this was that the Commission could decide they want to see a prel iminary platt detail, or it can be sent on for City Council. Richman thought it was reasonable to send it on to Council since the lot split was not before this Commission. The Council review will be a public hearing, therefore, the public that is concerned about this will certainly show up for the meeting and Council will then obtain the necessary right of way. Tygre said her concern was that, as a matter of procedure, a preliminary platt before this Commission is supposed to contain certain information and normally would not be approved without it. She thought the preliminary platt that the Commission approves, with respect to this case, should be in the same condition that any other platt is required to be. John Siegel, applicant's attorney, said he thought the information was only needed when there was a right of way and there is no right of way on the interior lot lines of this property. Mr. Siegel added that he thought the platt submitted met the technical requirements set forth in the code. Anderson suggested amending condition II (outlined in the Planning Office memorandum dated October 22, 1985) to read: "the applicant will submit a platt to the Engineering Department, prior to its submission to City Council, which meets the standards of Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code, particularly showing adjoining rights of way and identifying any potential needs for easements at the intersection of Red Butte and Cemetery Lane". Mr. Siegel had no problem with that condition. Motion: Tygre moved to grant preliminary platt approval to the Quillen Subdivision, subject to conditions 1 through 4 listed in the 4 "~""''''''''--+._--._. .-.".~-,.~'"'~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANRING AIm ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 22. 1985 Planning Office memorandum of October 22, 1985, with condition #1 amended to read as stated above; Markalunas seconded. Discussion: Hunt said he did not think condition #1 was adequate. Hunt opposed, all others in favor; motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING DOUBLE K PARKING CONDITIONAL USE Steve Burstein, planner, outlined the plans and explained the request, stating the application was made pursuant to a code amendment that allowed parking lots and structures to be placed in the office zone as a conditional use. Burstein said the main issues were, #1 to consider how well the lot moves internally, #2 env i ronmental conce rns, and # 3 compatibil i ty with surrounding land uses and landscaping. White commented that the parking spaces outlined on the plans were bigger on the far end of Hyman at Original. Anderson said tha twas req ui red. Whi te sa id he woul d 1 ike to see smaller spaces for compact cars on the corner of Original and Hyman because it is hard to see around that corner. Hunt thought the Hyman St. spaces were going to be difficul t to park in because of the turning radius. He recommended removal of the 2 spaces on the interior island portion of the lot to create more maneuverability. Gideon Kaufman, appl icant' s attorney, said this is not a new parking lot but has been in existence for approximately 20 years. This applicant chose to come to the City and negotiate a code amendment to allow parking lots in the office zone as a conditional use. This site location has been designated by the City and Skiing Company as a prime location for a permanent parking structure. This applicant is looking at a short term possibility of staying in this location. Mr. Kaufman thought it was unf ai r to come to an appl icant af ter all of this work and expense and ask him in addition to put in landscaping and sidewalks on a proj ect that is probably short term. Mr. Kaufman thought the solution to the situation would be to give the applicant a conditional use for a 2 year periOd and if at the end of that time it remains a parking lot then to require the improvements. 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANRING AIm ZOlUNG COMMISSION OCTOBER 22. 1985 Paul Taddune said any improvements made to the property would be compensated for when the property was sold. Mr. Kaufman said he did not think landscaping would be considered an improvement when a structure is being considered for the location. Hunt agreed wi th Kaufman. Hunt said his concern was with the function of the lot and thought it would not function well with the 2 island spaces. He thought if the 2 spaces did remain that they should be located closer to the alley to allow a turning radius without going over the sidewalk area. Anderson opened the public hearing. There were no comments so the public hearing was closed. Peyton said she thought no matter what happened in the future that a sidewalk should be there. Anderson agreed, adding, he thought Hunt's point was for the time frame for the installation of the sidewalk. White suggested adding a condition #8 to the approval that; "spaces on or near the corner of Original and Hyman should be for compact cars, not pickups, busses, vans, etc. so that they do not block the view plane of drivers negotiating that corner". Anderson asked for some sort of del ineation, in condition #5 (outlined in the Planning Office memorandum dated October 17, 1985), for boulders or some sort of physical constraint to keep parking from happening within the City right of way. Anderson suggested wording for condition #5 "A detailed sketch plan of the parking lot shall be submitted for review by the Planning Off ice and approval by the Engineering Department incl uding: the arrangement of rows and parking spaces, methods and materials used for delineation of parking spaces and rows, and methods for delineating the boundaries of the parking area to prevent parking in the public right of way." Anderson suggested changing condition #6 to read: "The applicant will construct sidewalks adjacent to the East Hyman and Original Street's property line by October 22, 1987 provided a parking lot is a continued use on the property". Motion: Tygre moved to recommend approval of the Double K Parking Condit- ional Use permit, subject to conditions 1 through 7 as listed in 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANRING AIm ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 22. 1985 the Planning Office memorandum of October 17, 1985, with i's 5 and 6 amended as described above, and the addition of condition #8 as written by Commissioner White; White seconded. All in favor; motion carried. NEW BUSINESS SAUBRT. DUPLEX COMDOMINIUMIZATION Steve Burstein, planner, explained the request. Burstein said the Building Inspector found that there were 3 dwelling units within the duplex and suggested that one be eliminated by making internal arrangements, and also noted there were deficiencies in the electrical system. Burstein also said that the Engineering Department mentioned that an encroachment license would be needed for the fence that goes in to the alley. Burstein said the other issue was the exemption from the 6 month lease restriction which is required by code. Burstein said the applicants position was that since this has been used traditionally as short term rental it should not be subject to the 6 month minimum lease restriction. The Planning Office concurs with this position. Burstein said the Planning Office is recommending approval of the request. Bob Hughes, applicant's representative, emphasized that there has been a 17 year uninterrupted course of history of short term tourist use of this unit. The applicant thinks this has a unique history and should be entitled to different treatment in that respect. Mr. Hughes had no problem with the conditions suggested by the Planning Office. Hunt asked why the fence encroached in the alley and if the Commission could recommend if the fence were to be replaced that it be in compliance with code. Mr. Hughes said the condition would be acceptable and was not sure why the fence encroached in to the alley. Tygre said she thought it was appropriate to allow short term rental in this case but questioned what specific enabling rights were in the code because she did not want to open up future problems with other applications. Burstein replied that Section 20-19 A of the Municipal Code addressed Ms. Tygre's concern. Tygre thought condition #4 (Planning Office memorandum dated October 17, 1985) should be more specific. Alan Richman, Planning Director, said Section 20-22 of the code talks about the focus being to avoid impacts on what has been historically low to moderate income housing. If the applicant can not demonstrate 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANRING AIm ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 22. 1985 that there is no impact then this Commission places certain restrictions on the property. This applicant is demonstrating that this property in no way has been part of the inventory of long term housing or low to moderate income housing, therefore, there is a unique set of circumstances in this case. Hunt thought the moving of the fence encroaching in the alley was a minimal consequence and thought it should be required that it be brought to code. Mr. Hughes said he was unsure what was on the other side of the fence so he asked if the condi tion could qualify that the applicant have the option of seeking an encroac- hment license if taking it down would involve greater economic waste. Hunt suggested amending condition #3 (outlined in the Planning Office memorandum dated October 17, 1985) to read: "The fence encroaching in to the alley shall be moved to the property line assuming there are no unreasonable physical constraints, as determined by the Engineering office." Motion: Markal unas moved to recommend approval of this subdivision exception SUbject to conditions 1 through 6 in the Planning Office memorandum dated October 17,1985 with condition #3 amended to read as stated above; Peyton seconded. All in favor; motion carried. USE DETERMINATION FINANCIAL INSTITUTION IN THE OFFICE ZONE Steve Burstein, planner, explained the applicants request for a use determination of whether a financial institution meets the definition of a business in the office zone. Burstein said the planning office feels a financial institution does not meet that definition. Burstein added that this may be reasonable if it were done per a code amendment that makes a financial institution a conditional use in that zone but as a use determination they do not see it to be either a business or anything else that would be considered in the conditional uses. Larry Yaw, appl icant' s archi teet, said this would be a small locally owned bank with a unique service concept. The business objective is to provide banking services to individual and family clients rather than commercial or institutional. Mr. Yaw felt the seal e and na t ure of th i s ki nd of bank were important as locational assets. The bank would require 3,000 sq. ft. of floor space, at the most 4,000 sq.ft. The bank would have 7 employees. 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANRING AIm ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 22. 1985 The bank is a low intensity banking operation. The site was selected specifically based on the needs of a small bank. The attributes that caused the selection of this site were: it is located in a neighborhood which it intends to serve, the location would not compete with the larger banking institutions, it is visible from Main St. and designed to intercept traffic rather than generate it, the physical nature is ideal for a building housing a bank of residential scale, easy vehicular access, and plenty of room to adequately deal with the parking needs. Sunny Vann, appl icant' s representative, said in 1975 the City adopted its new zoning regulations. At that time there were 2 office zones; an "0" Office which was the area between Hopkins and Durant on both ends of the Commercial district, and the Main St. corridor itself called "02". In neither of those districts was a financial institution listed as a use. After the adoption of the new regulations Aspen Savings and Loan came in and requested a use determination, under the new regulations, that a financial institution be construed as a business office. The Planning and Zoning Commission agreed with that finding and found that by definition a financial institution was in fact a business office. In addition that Commission had to make a determination whether or not it was a use permitted by right or if it should be a conditional use. The Commission decided to make it a conditional use because there were questions about parking and other conside- rations. The Bank of Aspen later opened a branch facility in the Truman Center. Based on those previous findings this applicant requests the Planning Office to confirm the continuing definition, and to also allow this applicant to construct a banking facility as a permitted use in the "0" zone district. This would be subject to Growth Management, HPC approval, and any other relevant review requirements of the code. Mr. Vann said the basic criteria to make a finding in this case was the compatibility with the intent of the zone district and compatibility with those uses which are currently permitted in the zone. In their opinion the Planning and Zoning Commi ssion has already made findings in the 2 previous cases that the use is compatible. The conditional uses that are currently listed in the "0" zone contain numerous uses which are by definition service/commercial. The Planning office has indicated that under the code, in the C-l and CC zone districts, a financial institution is defined as a service/commercial use and therefore should not be allowed in the "0" Office zone. Mr. Vann said in reality many of the uses currently allowed are service/commercial uses. In addition, a business office is defined as a service/commercial 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANRING AIm ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 22. 1985 use, hence, they are the same thing in terms of definition. As a result they believe that this is compatible with the existing and permitted uses in the "0" zone, and compatible with the intent of the zone. Hunt asked what happened to the previous considerations if they were a conditional use in the office zone and what was wrong with being consistent and still considering this a conditional use. Mr. Vann said the reason they were requesting a permitted use was because now, under the current code, a business office is defined as a permitted use, therefore, the simplest approach was to ask for a permitted use. Mr. Vann said he did not have a problem with reviewing this under conditional use criteria except for something that has happened in the code since the original 1975 ordinance was adopted. That is the "02" office zone was eliminated and now a conditional use can only be done in a histor ically designated structure. Markalunas asked if the applicant planned to retain the existing building on the site. Mr. Vann said it was something they were considering but at this time the architectural plan had not been developed in detail. Hunt suggested proceeding with a code amendment to include this as a conditional use in the Office zone. There are very specific things different about banks than other business offices which have to be considered. One would be traffic generation which is not considered under Growth Management. Tygre agreed. Anderson asked if there were any comments regarding the code which makes it a requirement that the conditional use only be granted for historically designated structures. Tygre thought it should be amended. Anderson agreed with Hunt and Tygre. Peyton said she was still having problems with the fact that financial institutions were named in other zones but left out in the Office zone. Mr. Vann commented that all of the uses were not anticipated. If it is made a conditional use all this Commission has done is given the applicant the right to apply. It will have to have HPC approval in order to comply with the visual considerations on Main St., and must compete successfully under Growth Management to get the right to build. Motion: Hunt moved to make a use determination that a financial institution 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AIm ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 22. 1985 is not a permitted use in the "0" Office zone; Tygre seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Motion: Hunt moved to sponsor a code amendment to consider financial institutions as a conditional use in the "0" Office zone; Tygre seconded. Peyton opposed, all others in favor; motion carried. Anderson adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m. cit~ U)AnfUf: Kim Wilhoit, Deputy City Clerk 11