Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19800422 ~, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM 'I C. F. HOrCKEL B. e. I> L C.), Reqular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 22, 1980 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on April 22, 1980 at 5:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Olof Hedstrom, Lee Pardee, Nancy McDonnell and Welton Anderson. Also present were Ron Stock, City Attorney, Curt Stewart of the County Transportation Department, Hans Gramiger of Aspen, Lennie Oates, Attorney, Giddeon Kaufmann, Attorney, Jack Little of Aspen and Karen Smith of the Planning Office and Sunny Vann and Ashley Anderson, Attorney. Approval of Minutes Olof Hedstrom commented that the commission still has a few old minutes to be approved and would like to cover these in one motion. Minutes of November 20, 1979, on page 1, last paragraph, fifth line from the bottom, the word may should be nay. Minutes of December 18, 1979, again in all meetings where it says I have made motions, it should say I have entertained motions, and the name missing is Jack Little. Minutes of January 22, 1980, there are no corrections needed. Minutes of February 5, 1980, again instead of my making motions, I entertained motions, also page 1, paragraph 2, on should be and. I will entertain a motion to approve all the minutes stated with the corrections mentioned, the minutes of November 20, 1979, December 18, 1979, January 22, 1980 and February 5, 1980. Nancy McDonnell so moved. Lee Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Commission's Comments Olof Hedstrom asked if all have received Perry Harvey's letter stating that he and the rest of this commission have been named in a law suit filed by the Institute. "I am personally and monetarially liable in any resolu- tion on behalf of the Institute. I find it unconscio- nable that a volunter appointee being personally liable in this action, is non the less, the current statis. The Institute has not indicated approval to constitute a settlement of this suit. My consideration of the Institute application and any subsequent vote may be tainted by both my desire to placate the applicant with a generous approval and my emotional reaction being named in the suit. Any further involvment on my part can not improve my position but would definitely increase my exposure. My untenable situation renders me involun- tarily impotent. Therefore I must obstain from all dis- cussion and sUbsequent voting on this application." Olof Hedstrom asked the other members how they felt on this matter? Lee Pardee commented that he had talked with an attorney and since I had never voted on one Institute proceeding, and for every reason Perry has mentioned, plus the fact that I have not done any, I certainly will not start now. So as long as there is a suit that I am named personally and monetarially liable, I will also obstain. Welton Anderson commented that he needed to talk to Council first. Nancy McDonnell commented that she is involved in this matter but has no comment at this time. Ron Stock stated that as council for the City of Aspen, that there is no personal liability for a member acting on a voluntary commission for decisions made but the court has not dismissed you as individual parties. I beleive that my interpertation is that you do not now have nor can you ever have personal liability. If I am incorrect, and you do have personal liability for the F ORM'~ C. F. HOECK f L a. 8. 8: l. C ,l. , . ,....... '2.- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Highway Alignment 4/8/80 Curt Stewart Hans Gramiger Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 22, 1980 action that you have already taken, whether or not you consider anything further, is certainly not going to effect that. I advised Perry that when he took this office and agreed to perform the duties of it, he ex- cepted the responsibility and that the City expects that he would infact do his duty in the jOb that he has agreed to perform. I can certainly understand the frustrations that he has exhibited and perhaps each and everyone of you have, for being named personally in a law suit. The court has not seen fit to dismiss you and we will be filing a further motion for your dismissal, so this proposal, that maybe a settlement/taNgo through the process and we would ask that if you are going to obstain,that at least you would appear and be present to constitute a quorum so the commission may go forward with it's work. We have asked the Institute to reconsider their position and as a sign of good faith, to dismiss those claims. We will have an answer before the public hearing scheduled on May 13, 1980. Olof Hedstrom commented that we had a fine presentation from Hans Gramiger and information from Curt Stewart on first hearing at the April 8, 1980 meeting. Olof asked Karen Smith what kind of action might be appropriately taken at this time? Karen Smith stated that there is not a formal issue but make a statement in resolution format for the City Council, considered as advisory only. I beleive Curt Stewart could bring you up to date on the progress that he has made since the last meeting but no final answers or recommendations will result from this but allows for more information. Curt Stewart commented that he had a meeting with the District Engineer and spoke with two of the County Com- missioner's about the alignment alternatives and they felt the Main Street extension made the most sense and with the busway and received a positive response from the District Engineer. He then stated this proposal needs to be taken to the Executive Director of the High- way Department, Kisslinger and find out of the impact this would have on the work the preliminary studies we want to do to bring this thing about. The response at this time on that is nothing and a decision to proceed with more money and actual preliminary engineering work to see if the design feasibility is there or not. The concern is over the open space and needs the City to designate the alignment for this use. The direction this commission should take would be to get the Highway Depart- ment active first in their actions. Hans Gramiger commented that this issue has been brought before the community before because of the Hospital Emergency Vehicles and it was in the hands of the County P & Z. Now we have annexed the land and it is in your hands and the Highway Department wants an encouragement from the community, but need the government of the City to establish the needs. There will be a few people in the community to complain but they will be compensated and will be satisfied. The Highway Department needs a formaw statement from the City, to help with the problem of all the red tape they will have to go through. We do have a traffic problem with five things as the 7th and Mason corner, the Forest corner, the bridge itself, the Cementary Lane and the interchange between Maroon FOIlM\O C. F.IWE:CKELB. n.1I L C), ,"" -3- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 22, 1980 Repeal of Section 20-22 (c) & (d) Aspen Skiing Corp- oration Public Hearing Creek/Castle Creek/Hwy. 82 , all have to be solved local- ly without any commitment to the four lanes from town to Buttermilk. Nancy McDonnell commented that she wished to move in a positive direction to do something about the Highway system but, I don't feel that I have enough information to make a clear judgement. Lee Pardee commented concern of how the busway came into existence and after an explanation, he felt he has no objections to approving this matter. Olof Hedstrom questioned if a formal action was called for and since not then he asked the Planning Office to prepare a letter to Council stating the P & Z's interest and position as expressed so then to take action. Karen Smith commented that this proposal of alternative to the current code rules on Condominiumization as they look at displacement as they reguard the impact on the housing supply of this community. I have had a chance to look at other communities and the proposed code amendments that have been adopted and particularly in California, and find there are thousands of different proposals and non totally appropriate to this community. I would like to ask this commission to drop this item from the agenda at this time with the promise that we will bring this back on May 20th and in the interm the Planning Office will do a study of the Condominiumiza- tions that have occured to see in fact how they are being used, and bring back a compromised proposal. Olof Hedstrom commented that we would appreciate hearing this matter again after more consideration. Sunny Vann of the Planning Office introduced the Condi- tional Use Application of the Aspen Skiing Corporation which wishes to construct a ticket sales facility adje- cent to the Little Nell Building. The building is ap- proximately 10' X 22', to be utilized primarily for the sale tickets and some minor office use or adminis- trative use. The parcel of property this is on is zoned Conservation, and requires conditional approval based on conditions stated in my memorandum dated April 17, 1980 and the Engineering Departments memorandum dated April 17, 1980. The City Attorney also concurs with our recommendations. Linnie Oates, Attorney for the Aspen Skiing Corporat~on, explained the size of the building should be 12' x 24' and hopefully this would not cause any problem. Olof Hedstrom entertained a motion that the Aspen Skiing Corporation construction of a 12' X 24' approximate, ticket sales office as shown on the proposed plan as a conditional use in the Conservation Zone and approval is conditioned on the satisfaction of the Engineering De; partment's conditions listed in their memorandum of April 17, 1980. Lee Pardee, so moved. Nancy McDonnell seconded. All in favor, motion carried. FORM \! C. F. HOEC~fL B. B. II l. C,l. -4- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting captain's Anchorage Conditional Use Expansion Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 22, 1980 Sunny Vann of the Planning Office introduced the request of modification and expansion of the Captain's Anchorage Restaurant, which is in a L-l Zone with a conditional use review and approval required. The previous approvals have been conditioned on the applicant renovating the restaurant in such a fashion to make the entire complex compatible with the zoning regulations primarily the open space requirement and the floor area ratios that are appli- cable in that L-l Zone. There was an agreement executed between the City Attorney and Mr. Cantrup, stating the stipulations under which that renovation would take place. The Planning Office finds that the expansion of the struc- ture is consistent with the zoning code requirements and the proposed use is consistent with the objectives of the zoning district and therefore recommends approval sUbject to the stipulations in the memorandum from the Planning Office dated April 18, 1980 and the agreement executed by the City Attorney and Mr. Cantrup. Ashley Anderson, Attorney, stated he has no problem with the requests. Giddeon Kaufman commented he is representing the Aspen Alps and their concern of the traffic situation on South Spring Street, which is a busy street during the day time. If the lobby is not allowed to be used from So. Spring St., then the traffic situation can be better controlled. Olof Hedstrom questioned how the remodeling would increase the traffic and congestion on South Spring St.? Jack Little explained that the parking on Spring St. this year has had the parking eliminated because of the con- gestion and we do not have a problem with this and we all have our own parking areas. Olof Hedstrom questioned if it is an advantage or disadvantage to have the entrance to the restaurant the same as to the lobby? Jack stated the hotel is closed four months a year, so I have to have a seperate entrance to gain access to the Anchorage. It does not harm me or do me any good and I have no objection to this. Jerry Hewing, manager of the Aspen Alps, commented that there has been a problem with So. Spring St., and also a saftey problem and the impact with the additional traffic could become hazardous. Lee Pardee moved that the Captain's Anchorage be consi- dered an appropriate conditional use in the L-l Zone, provided that the final plans be consistent with the area and bulk requirements of the L-l Zone, which will be de- termined at the time of sUbmitting for a building permit. That the plans also be consistent with the agreement drawn-up between Hans Cantrup and the City Attorney, con- cerning the open space and parking and that the bus pro- blem on South Spring St. and/or Durant St., be worked out between the applicant and Aspen Alps and the City Engineer prior to the pulling of the building permit of the expan- sion of a conditional use in the L-l Zone, and if an agree- ment is not worked out, the applicant and the contestors will come before the P and Z and we will work it out, how- ever a building permit will not be granted until this is done. Nancy McDonnell seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. FORM" C. F. HOECKEL a. B. Ii l. ~,). ,"""'- -5- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 00 Leaves Regular Meeting Fisher Subdivision Exemptions Carters' Venture Subdivision Exemption Independence Re- zoning/Subdivision Approval Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 22, 1980 Giddeon Kaufman requested this item be tabled indefinitely. Olof Hedstrom entertained a motion to table the Fisher Subdivision Exemption, item 5 A. so moved, Nancy McDonnell seconded. All in carried. action on Lee Pardee favor, motion Sunny Vann introduced the Carters' Venture Subdivision Exemption, Lot 21, West Aspen Subdivision, Filing #1, 1500 Homestake Drive. This is a proposed duplex in an R-15 Zone. The Engineering Department recommends approval subject to the revisions of the improvement survey listed in the memorandum dated April 11, 1980 and it's resubmis- sion prior to being placed on the City Council agenda. The applicant also shall be required to join a curb, gutter and sidewalk improvement district in the event one is formed. City Attorney recommends approval subject to six- month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenan- cies in a calendar year. The Planning Office recommends approval subject to the conditions outlined in the Engi- neering Department's memorandum with the additional sti- pulation that the proposed duplex be subject to the six- month minimum lease restriction of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code. Welton Anderson asked to step down due to conflict of interest. Nancy McDonnell recommended approval of the CArters' Venture Subdivision Exemption subject to the Engineering Department's memorandum dated April 11, 1980 and the stipulation that the proposed duplex be subject to the six-month minimum lease restrictions. Lee Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Sunny Vann introduced the Independence Rezoning Subdivi- sion Approval request and stated this was adopted by the City Council in Ordinance 31 of June 11, 1979, which rezoned Lots 4, 5 and 6 from R-15 to R-6. In addition, the Council approved the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission for a subdivision exception in con- nection with the creation of two larger parcels, Lots 4A and SA, from the three smaller lots. The applicant, upon receipt of Council approval for subdivision exception, failed to record the final plat within the specified time frame and failure to do so requires he get approval again from P and Z and approval again from City Council. The Engineering Department has reviewed the re-submitted plat and recommends approval subject to the applicant complying with the stipulations outlined in the Depart- ment's memorandum dated April 4, 1979. Also required is that the plat be revised to include updated signature blocks and a surveyor's signature and seal prior to re- cording. The Planning Office concurs with the Engineer- ing Department's stipulations and recommends approval subject to the above conditions. Olof Hedstrom entertained a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of the Independence Rezoning Sub- division, subject to the Engineering Department's memoran- dum and requirements dated April 4, 1979. Nancy McDonnell so moved. Lee Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion carried. fORM" C.F.HOE:CKELB.B.IlL.C.J. - -6- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning and Zoning commission April 22, 1980 Regular Meeting Aspen Martial Arts & Dance Studio Use Determination Sunny Vann introduced the request for the Planning and Zoning Commission's interpretation of permitted uses in the S/C/I Zone. There is not a memorandum in the packets because this was included at the last minute due to a request by the City Attorney. The history surrounding this application is that the applicant had approached the City seeking to secure space for a dance studio in the Plum Tree and when the litigation involving the Plum Tree came about and the Studio has made arrangements to lease space in the Obermeyer building which is in an S/C/I Zone. According to the Code, the Studio usage falls under the Office Zone of conditional uses but not in the S/C/I Zone of permitted uses. This is a problem of extenuating cir- cumstances and in all actuality should be included in the code for permitted uses in the S/C/I Zone. The Planning Office recommends and concludes that the dance studio usage should be a determined usage and be included in the permitted uses in the S/C/I Zone with the condition of reviewing each applicant in the future for such determina- tion in the S/C/I Zones. Ashley Anderson commented that the use of the Martial Arts and Dance Studio is of less intensity than the uses stated in the S/C/I Zone at present. Lee Pardee moved to except the Aspen Martial Arts and Dance Studio as a conditional use in the S/C/I Zone and this usage be as described in Garfield & Hecht's letter to the Planning and Zoning Commission dated April 17, 1980. Nancy McDonnell seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Lee Pardee moved to enter act procedure to amend the zoning code to include a dance studio and martial arts as a per- mitted use in the S/C/I Zone. Nancy McDonnell seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Lee Pardee moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 P.M. Nancy McDonnell seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 P.M. All in favor. cdawL ~oritiu Deputy City Clerk