Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19800408 FORM '0 c. F.HOEC~H a. a.1I L. Cl. A , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves April 08, 1980 Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on April 08, 1980 at 5:00 P.M., in the City Couneil Chambers. Members present were Olof Hedstrom, Lee Pardee, Roger Hunt, Perry Harvey, Nancy McDonnell and Joan Klar. Also present were Karen Smith and Sunny Vann and Richard Grice of the Planning Office, Gideon Kaufman, Attorney and Jim Reents, Housing Director and Wayne Chapman, City Manager. Approval of Minutes Commissionmember Comments Olof Hedstrom stated there are lots of minutes to approve and is there anyone ready to propose action on any of these. Nancy McDonnell commented on corrections. Olof Hedstrom entertained a motion to approve the minutes of March 4, 1980. Nancy McDonnell so moved. Perry Harvey seconded. All in favor, motion approved. On the minutes for February 26, 1980, Olof stated there are no corrections and entertained a motion to approve. Roger Hunt so moved, Perry Harvey, seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Olof then entertained a motion to approve the minutes of December II, 1979 with all corrections made as amended. Roger Hunt so moved, Nancy McDonnell seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Olof Hedstrom stated that there are several items coming up before this commission in the way of reports and informa- tion and before we proceed with these items, I would like to announce that the Housing Task Force meeting held this morning and will be continued tomorrow at 12:00 noon at the County Court House. A. Progress Report on Pro Shop at Golf Course: Karen Smith of the Planning Office explained that this is a statis report concerning this commission's request for progress on removing the pylon's out of the Plum Tree parking lot. After a discussion and concern that his bud- get would not allow him to make the improvements he had represented to this commission on which you would base your approval, he know beleive's he will be able to take care of this matter and move the building. B. Re-examination of Police Impound Lot at Plum Tree: Karen Smith introduced this topic to let this commission know that they have a decision point about the impound lot, mainly that the ordinance approving the Transporta- tion Overlay at the Plum Tree, which authorized the exis- tence not only of intercept parking lot but of an impound lot expires April IS, 1980. The alternative sites are at the Rio Grande and at Cemetary Lane, using the golf course property, taking it away from the Plum Tree Inn, both of which would require rezoning actions. Wayne Chapman, City Manager stated alternative sites have been discussed and we find that a lot of the town lots have been elevated to the~eyfti of employee housing and has made it impossible to put~ ~fter going over the Planning Office's anaylisis on the alternative sites and the problems involving those sites, we came to the conclusion that we would have bigger problems than we would have if we conti- nued to use the Rio Grande site on a temporary bases until the Rio Grande Master Plan is finished and authorization to use the parking lot out at Cemetary Lane and Hwy. 82, only if the fill for the Mill Street operation interferes with the operation of the compound would it be necessary to . -2- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'~ C. F. HOfCKEL 6. a. II L. C). Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 08 1980 use the Cemetary Lane site for extra space on a temporary bases only/also. Meanwhile we will approach the County and request their permission to use the Dump area as addi- tion storage for longterm holding area and this does in- clude continued use of the Plum Tree site. Olof Hedstrom commented that ultimate solution is quite a ways down the road and this is temporary and we will not be making any formal approval action at this time but as a courtesy only with this commission's thoughts and ideas for furture studies and solution's. On the question of continuation and desirablity of the existing site at the Rio Grande Site and alternative sites if the Rio Grande ceases to be available and the use of the Plum Tree Inn, be polled by this commission and the Cemetary Lane parking lot is out of the question. The members expressed favorable to these discussed ideas. C. Highway Alignment Alternatives: Karen Smith stated she will introduce this item but, Hans Gramig~r has asked to make a presentation to the commis- sion reguarding alternative alignments entering Aspen for Hwy. 82. Curt Stewart, County Transportation Director, has been reviewing this problem with the State Hwy. De- partment and has been asked to comment on what work he has been able to develope with the Highway Commission to study those two alternatives and it would be appropriate for Curt Stewart to give his update then Gramiger give his presentation. Curt Stewart Curt Stewart of the County Transportation Department com- mented on the update of action taken towards highway dev- elopment by the City and County joint efforts, concerning transportation up and down the valley, and the alternatives for this project. As a result of that work, the recommen- dation was the construction of a busway. This construc- tion and purchase of right-of-way would have to be done by t the Colorado Department of Highways, Federal Highway Administration. Three questions involved were, if we built the busway, would it be sufficient with both appeal and the ability to carry cars, then if a busway failed could that busway be used for highway use and third could Aspen and Pitkin County afford to operate buses on such a facil- ity. Two alternatives have been recognized, one being traditionally recommended is the Midland Right-of-Way and could be used as a lightrail again and the second being an extension of Main Street. The Highway Department ag- reed on a further anaylsis of this problem that would de- termine the actual operational ability of the two alterna- tives and the financing for the project. I have asked the County Engineer to look the Midland Right-of-Way to see whether or not that Pat Dobie agrees or not on this site. Ron Stock Ron Stock asked Curt Stewart concerning the red line on the map he presented, being this is for a busway going on the Souths ide of the Airport, have we eliminated the possibility of enlarging the Airport to accommodate the larger planes? Curt Stewart answered that the County is about ready to present an update on the Airport Master Plan, which includes the ability to expand the Airport, and this would include moving the current highway down to a more southern location and moving the highway to the Souths ide of the Airport. I ' , -3- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'~ C. F, HO EC~ Fl a. a. II L, Cl. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning commission April 08, 1980 Hans Gramiger Hans Gramiger of Aspen introduced his material he has gethered covering studies and research items concerning the planning of the present and future of Aspen and Pitkin County transportation and according to the Highway Depart- ment, we can have anything that is beneficial to the com- munity and do not have to settle for a packaged deal. What the big fight was many years ago was, do we want a four lane highway into Aspen, therefore starting West and coming into Aspen. Then why have a political fight and solve this by starting with the transportation problems where the biggest bottlenecks are and that is in the City of Aspen and going Westward. The maps introduced are of studies made many years ago and I have put them together because they can be applied to the present problems and solve the Airport enlargment and the transportation pro- blem. To concentrate at the Aspen approach which would have Main Street as a parkway and remove the paralell parking, we could have the most beautiful parkway with landscaping on both sides and the median strip and still have four lanes. What is being proposed is a new approach into Aspen and all these documents I have with me, first is the study done in Transportation including rails, and a compiling of what people have done with a General Master Plan, the Highway Department study, the Transportation Forehead Plan, the Halpin study of Hwy. 82, which strongly states that Ruby Park will not suffice for bus transpor- tation once it has acheived it's goals, and suggest the Rio Grande site for a terminal station also that the Main Street be extended with a new bridge over Castle Creek and this will eliminate or solve the five problem areas in question. The Highway Department's position is if this community will once and forall address this with- out commentment and just take this segment with the new bridge and combine as one package, that they will do what they can to accommodate the community. According to a report made by Bill Dunaway, which was more thorough than the minutes of the Pitkin County Zoning Commission, on this matter and asked Olof Hedstrom to read the report of Sep- tember 27, 1977. Olof Hedstrom read: "County Official's have taken a new look at alternative plans to approve the intersection of Castle/Maroon Creek roads with Hwy. 82, just West of the city of Aspen. Planner Joe Wells presented three al- ternatives to members of the County P & Z last week and as a result a suggestion was made at that session as to preparing two more. County Manager, George Oates told P & Z members that too many people are protecting their own interest when it comes to selecting one of the alter- natives, there has to be some compromise. The competing interest are the hospital, scheduled to open on the Castle Creek Road the lOth of October, the Meadowood Subdivision, and the Prince of Peace Chapel, must also be considered in the alternative proposals and a bike trail leading to the schools on Maroon Creek Road, are still another com- plication. P.Z. Potter's Highway Realignment, several alternatives have been considered, one to straighten out Maroon Creek Road to hit Hwy. 82 by the Plum Tree Inn and the other would realign the Castle Creek Road through the open meadows til it hit Hwy. 82 at Cemetary Lane. Joe Wells said like it or not the ultimate solution of property would have to be grade seperation of some kind with some roads passing under Hwy. 82." fORM,l C.f.HOFCKfLB.a.IlL-.CJ. ,,0' , -4- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting April 08, 1980 Water Plant Housing Project- Greenline Review Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Hans continued, that the Water Plant Housing and the annexation of the Marolt Property opened an opprotunity to reserve that right-of-way and because of the housing project how is the impact of this employee housing going to be resolved by the transit people. Some people have suggested that the alternative is to bring the Castle Creek Road, instead of where it is, right through the meadow and intercept with the Cemetary Lane traffic, but with all the additional traffic on Castle Creek Road along with the housing project, would be adding insult to injury to anyone going through that intersection. The City owns a small bit of land and Jim Moore owns the rest of the property at the corner of said intersection and will either sell or donate this to move the proposed inter- change further West and please a lot of people. The Commissionmembers all agreed and felt that necessary steps should be taken, such as generating a resolution to City Council to recommend fOllowing this direction, to review and move forward with plans to solve this problem. Hans Gramiger stated that the highway department head over the commission, said before you come to us, there must be three things addressed, and the strings attached is the exclusive busway, that they would help apply for would have to be one that is compatible with the future highway design if it was necessary. What is this commission going to do to solve or help this problem? Olof Hedstrom stated that the commission is asking Karen Smith of the Planning Office to put on the agenda for our next regular meeting, this subject with the idea in mind of preparing a resolution expressing the commissions in- tensions and conclusions and instructions for drafting a resolution. Karen commented that with the information needed, we would not be able to present any until the meeting of May 6th. Richard Grice of the Planning Office introduced the Water Plant Housing Project-Greenline Review and stated that the Engineering Department has made an analysis of the inter- section alternatives of the Water Plant and Castle Creek Road, and have two proposals, one of requiring utilization of the hospital parking and the second being made assuming the hospital will not allow the use of any of their land. Jay Hammond of the Engineering Department commented that we are trying to incorporate the Water Plant housing and the design laws that will presumably put on Castle Creek Rd. and projecting into the future. He then presented three drawings showing first the utilization of hospital property turning off of our property, T into the existing driveway for the hospital and bring both the accessess in to Castle Creek Rd. with a simple T-intersection. Each of these designs incorporate a bus turn around, which is lo- cated on water plant housing property. The third alter- nate is an attempt to incorporate the same type of design into a possible Castel Creek realignment along the Marolt Property. Olof Hedstrom and the other members agreed they are satis- fied with the presentation of their concerns and showed a preferance for design #1. The commission approves design #1, but if #1 can not work because the hospital will not agree, then the alternative chose would be #2 with incor- FORM" C.F.HOE'[~Ha.B.1l L. L.J. ,- -5- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Lodge Condomini- umization/Lodge Preservation Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 08, 1980 porating #3. Olof Hedstrom entertained a motion to approve the Water Plant Housing Project-8040 Greenline Review, subject to satisfing the conditions enumerated 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 in the memorandum dated April 3, 1980 by Richard Grice of the Planning Office. Roger Hunt so moved provided with recog- nition of design #2, that due caution is included that if #2 is excepted, everyone should realize the combination of conflicting traffic and potential hazard of that inter- section and showing strong favor of design #1. Olof Hedstrom stated he would except this into he entertained motion. Roger Hunt stated that he would also move with this. Perry Harvey, seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Richard Grice of the Planning Office commented his memo- randum dated April 4, 1980, which consolidates these two issues once again, so that they can proceed from first to second reading before City Council in an orderly manner. The Lodge Condominiumization document in substance is in the packet for information only, which includes the recom- mendations and the only question left is to Section 20-3 (s) (2) Section 1, be amended, deleting the wording at the end of and after, "for time-sharing dwelling units: or" and the purpose is to make clear that time-sharing will require additional subdivision review, which amends the definition of subdivision. Olof Hedstrom stated that it appears to be practical poli- tics and administration to now recommend approval of Sec- tion 1 of the proposed ordinance. Olof entertained a motion to approve. Perry Harvey moved to recommend appro- val of Section 1, of the Ordinance, amending Section 20-3 and amending Section 20-9(c) and adopting a new section 20-23 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, to allow for the Condominiumization of Lodges. Perry restated his motion to recommend approval of Section 1 of the Lodge Condominiumization Ordinance. Nancy McDonnell seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Richard Grice introduced the Lodge Preservation Ordinance and summarized that there are three sections noted in the wording of the prohibition clause of Section 24-12.2, 24- 12.4 and 24-12.5 and what is being deleted is the regula- tions governing nonconforming uses of land, nonconforming of structure or structures of premises in combination and the section that is the prohibition on or limitation on repairs and maintenance. The effect on purely nonconform- ing structures or nonconforming lots to record, are not being deleted. Then we are reinacting the regulations which will govern these nonconforming lodges in the future. They are listed 1 - 4: 1) needs to include 50% of recon- struction, 2) should include number of units or square footage shall be allowed, 3) and 4) or both items that came from sections which were deleted but contained these two specfic items which are relevant, that is that any change in use shall not be to a use of a lower or less restrictive classification, but rather to a use of the same or higher classification, and that requires that any change in use can change but to a more conformity use. In the forth condition, requires that in the event any of the nonconforming uses of the land should cease for a " -6- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM" C. F. HO~C~fL a. B. II L, <>l. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning commission April 08, 1980 period of one year, that a subsequent use of land shall conform. Lee Pardee questioned, in Section 24-12.10, it says conti- nually so used thereafter, thereafter what date? Ron Stock, city Attorney, stated the date that they were esta- blished, lawfully established and continually used as a lodge from that date to now, essentially since 1975. Lee asked secondly, to verify #1, really says that any nonconforming lodge that chooses to renovate, remodel, raise it and build, has to then conform,to all set backs, to all height and bulk and area and might be a reduction to some. The members felt not all this is fair and asked for changes as follows: 1) adding 50% of reconstruction, 2) as is, 3) No increase in square footage shall be allow- ed, with the exception that a lodge or hotel located in a district that has an established FAR, may increase to that FAR, change 3) to 4) as is, change 4) to 5) obtaining of a building permit, will stop the one year period, pro- vided the lodge use is commenced within 30 days after the issuance of certification of occupancy is obtained, and allows toll usage to start at that time. Karen Smith felt the Lodge Overlay Proposal, originally suggested as one mechanism, is the best approach preser- ving a mix of lodges in their current scale. We support amendments to the nonconforming uses section as a stop gap measure to accomplish the result in removing the very restrictive provisions that prevent them from upgrading. For expansion or scale reasons, then the Lodge Overlay can be applied to see and preserve the effects. Olof Hedstrom commented that after listening to the com- ments of this commission, my impression is that the com- mission will want to go with that next step evently. Ron Stock commented that this could possibly be tabled and take further consideration of the whole ordinance. We have always had the concept that we prefered Lodge Preser- vation and Condominiumization to go together but doesn't mean simply because we prefer that, that is the outcome we have to push for at this time. Lee Pardee felt the definition of reconstruction and re- novation should be 50% of the replacement cost because after condominiumization the increased value could be sUbstancely over appraized and cause the increase of the building ability to be unbalanced with the nonconforming uses. Olof Hedstrom then asked the members if they agree with Lee on this matter? Four of the members wish to agree with Ron Stock and Lee Pardee and Nancy McDonnell agreed on a new definition. Karen Smith commented that there is not an FAR in the MultiFamily Zone District except for dormitories and is that what you want to extend to all of the uses? Olof Hedstrom commented that it is obvious this ordinance is not satisfactory to the P & Z Commission except as a temporary stage of the progress toward better and final solutions to the questions and problems. Roger Hunt FORM" C.F.HOfCKELB.a.IlL.CJ. L -7- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Repeal of Sections 20-22(c) and (d) Blake Stream Margin Review Naiman Subdivi- sion Exemption Murphy Subdivision Exception Aspen Planning and Zoning commission April 08, 1980 moved to adopt and send to Council the proposed Ordinance for the Lodge Preservation as amended in our discussions. Lee Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Karen Smith stated that the Repeal of Sections 20-22(c) and (d) and is a major undertaking and has not been before you because it is a major overturning of something this commission has recommended to Council in terms of dis- placement effects of condominiumization. This would re- quire considerable time to review. Olof Hedstrom suggested that this discussion and action on item B under New Business to the next regular meeting. Sunny Vann introduced the Blake Stream Margin Review and the applicant proposes to build a four bedroom two story single family residence on Red Butte Drive and since part of the structure is within 100 feet of the Roaring Fork River and is subject to stream margin review. The Engi- neering Department recommends approval as stated in the memorandum of April 4, 1980. The Planning Office recom- mends approval without condition of the Blake Stream Margin Review. Olof Hedstrom entertained a motion to approve the Blake Stream Margin Review without conditions. Nancy McDonnell so moved and Lee Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Sunny Vann introduced the Naiman Subdivision Exemption a duplex located on Cemetary Lane. This does not fall within the employee housing price guidelines. The Engi nee ring Department recommends approval subject to con- ditions stated in Jay Hammond's memorandum of April 1, 1980. The City Attorney recommends approval SUbject to complying with the notice and option and six month min- imum lease restrictions of Section 20-22 of the Muni- cipal Code. The Planning Office recommends approval SUbject the the conditions set by the Engineering Depart- ment and the City Attorney. Perry Harvey moved to approve the Naiman Subdivision Ex- emption subject to the Engineering conditions in their April 3, 1980 and SUbject to owner/applicant complying with the notice and option and six month minimum lease restrictions of Section 20-22. Lee Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Sunny Vann introduced the Murphy Subdivision Exception stating the applicant is requesting an exception from the strict application of the City's subdivision regulations in order to subdivide a 14,200 sq.ft. parcel of land lo- cated on Gillespie Avenue. This has an existing single family residence and proposes to create a 7,200 sq.ft. lot for a new residence and a 7,000 sq. ft. lot for the existing single-family dwelling. The Engineering Depart- ment recommends approval of exception form full subdivi- sion procedures subject to conditions set out in the Planning Offices memorandum of April 4, 1980. The Plan- ning Office recommends approval subject to Engineering's conditions and additional stipulation that the proposed new residence be subject to the 6 month minimum lease restriction of Section 20-22. -8- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM" C.F.HOrCKELB.8.aL.C,). Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 08, 1980 Perry Harvey moved to recommend approval of the Murphy Subdivision Exception, Block 91, Hallam's Addition condi- tioned upon the Engineering Department's comments in memo of January 11, 1980 and SUbject the applicant's improve- ment survey being accepted as a conceptual plat and the applicant submitting a final plat to the Engineering De- partment pursuant to Section 20-14 and 15 of the Munici- pal Code prior to being placed on the Council agenda and the new residence be subject to the 6 month minimum lease restriction of Section 20-22, and the applicant supply an encroachment agreement for the support cribbing located in the City's right-of-way. Lee Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Perry Harvey motion to adjourn the meeting. Lee Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. j~, ~OJlriJ Sandi Meredith, Deputy City Clerk