Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19800819 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FO~M \~ C. F. HOECKEL B. D. &- L. co. Regular ~1eeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 1980 Olof Hedstrom called the meeting to order with members Hunt, Anderson and Ms. Klar present. Also present Sunny Vann, Jolene Vrchota, planning office; Fritz Bruggermeier and Jay Hammond, engineering department. Minutes Hunt moved to approve the minutes of June 3, 17, 1980 with corrections; seconded by Ms. Klar. All in favor, motion carried. , Public Hearing Prospector Lodge Expansion - Conditional Use Sunny Vann said this is a request to consider a request to renovate and expand the Prospector Lodge, which is a conditional use in the CC zone. This is located on the southeast corner of Hyman and Monarch; it is non-conforming primarily because of its intrusion into the Wheeler Opera House view plane. Vann showed where the view plane crossed. There are non~conformities with regard to the area and bulk requirements. Vann reminded the Board a non-conform- ing structure may be expanded or modified so long as the non-conformity is not increased. In this case, the struc- ture could be torn down and reconstructed as long as the intrusion into the view plane is not increased. The applicant proposes to maintain the same degree of non- conformity. The Code also requires that when a view place exists to restrict maximum height, any application must be processed as a PUD. The P & Z may exempt an application from that process if it determines that com- pliance is unnecessary. The existing lodge is two-story and contains 19 units and an employee housing units; sits on four lots of approximately 12,000 square feet. There is no on-site parking; none is required in the CC district. The renovation will maintain the lodge unit, employee housing mix and will have an underground 17 spot parking garage. The applicant is proposing the expand the size of the rooms and will increase to 17,400 square feet. The maximum FAR on this property is 18,000 square feet. There will be no increase in the number of lodge rooms; therefore, no GMP allotment will be required. The HPC must approve the design prior to building permit. The applicant has received preliminary approval. The applicant is proposing to deed restrict the employee housing unit, which will require special review from P & Z and Council. Vann said for the P & Z to grant a conditional use expan- sion, they must determine whether the proposed use other- wise complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning code, and the proposed use is consistent with the objectivef of the zone district, and whether it is compatible with the area. Vann said the planning office has reviewed this application and feels it is consistent with the district and appears to be consistent with the zoning code. The only exception would be the lack of a trash facility. Planning office recommends approval of the applicant's request to renovate and expand the Prospector Lodge subject to (1) no increase in non-conformity can occur without P & Z approval via the PUD process; however, existing non-conformities may be reduced or eliminated without further P & Z review; (2) the retention and deed restric- tion of existing employee housing unit prior to issuance of building permit; (3) review HPC approval prior to Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 1980 issuance of a building permit; (4) final determination of compliance with the zoning requirements be made as such time as working drawings are submitted for building permit. Vann told the Board the planning office sees no benefit to be gained by requiring the application to proceed through PUD as there will be no increase in the non-conformity in the view plan, and all other existing non-conformities will be maintained in their present state or removed. Vann recommended the applicant's request for exemption from mandatory PUD be approved. Vann said another non-conformity deals with location of open space, which must front on the street; current open space located on the back. It will be maintained in a different configuation but will meet the 25 per cent requirement. The roof overhangs protrude over the property line and there are no sidewalks. The new structure removes the overhangs and adds sidewalks. Ms. Klar asked if the trees would have to be removed for the sidewalk. Vann answered the majority of the trees will be retained. Dave Gibson, architect, showed slides of the model and the property. Hedstrom opened the public hearing. Someone mumbled some- thing about the view plane. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. Hunt requested a floor plan. Hunt auestioned how a lodge could stay a lodge with 147 square feet of office space and no common area. The commission examined the floor plans. There is no common area enclosed except a roof top. Every room now has their own fireplace. Vann told P & Z in the code there is no definition of what constitutes a lodge in terms of common area, etc. Ashley Anderson, representing the applicant, said the only thing that constitutes a lodge room is that it does not have a kitchen. Hunt said this should have the facilities of a lodge if it is going to be a lodge, in this plan all the common area got lost. Vann said this cannot be used for residential purposes in the CC zone. Hedstrom said as desirable as common areas, etc. may be, there is no basis in the Code. Hedstrom agreed with Hunt, and stated he did not see hO\~ the applicant could claim they were improving the quality of the lodge by doing away with a lobby. Hedstrom said he could not find justification in paragraph 2 of the requirements for expansion of a condition use, any basis for denial. Ms. Klar moved to approve exemption from mandatory PUD of the Prospector Lodge as the proposed renovation and expan- sion will not increase the non-conformity of the existing lodge with respect to the Wheeler view plane since no further visual intrusion is requested and all remaining non-conformities will be removed or maintained; no signifi- cant benefit is ganed by requiring the application to proceed with the provisions of PUD; seconded by Anderson. Hunt stated he considered this an expansion of a conditional use and it is to the detriment of the welfare of the commun- ity because it eliminates services to the tourists. Hunt, nay; Anderson, abstained; Klar, aye: Hedstrom, aye. Motion carried. Ms. Klar moved to approve conditional use expansion of the Prospector Lodge subject to the four requirements listed in Vann's memo August 13, 1980; seconded by Anderson. Hunt, nay; Anderson, abstained, Klar, aye; Hedstrom, aye. Motion carried. ,..." ~.. -- - fORM!! C.F.HOECKELB.8.&L.CO. ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 1980 City Market Expansion Popeil 8040 Greenline Review Hanson Stream Margin Review Latta Subdivision Exception Resubmission . Ashley Anderson requested this item be tabled until there was a full Commission Hunt moved to table the City Market expansion to the next regular meeting; seconded by Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. Jolene Vrchota, planning office, told P & Z the building department received an application for construction and expansion of an existing unit at lot 3 of the Tipple Wood subdivision. The application is for the addition of a three-story area to include jacuzzi, storage for water. Ms. Vrchota said this will not protrude. Ms. Vrchota said the criteria in the Code regarding 8040 greenline deal with maintenance of vegetaion and an appropriate construc- tion in a mountain setting. Ms. Vrchota told the Board the planning office and engineering department reviewed this and determined all but one criteria were met. One portion of the expansion is 3 feet higher than allowed in the L-2 zone. There has been a revised application to deal with this problem; however, the bulk and massing of the building is fairly out of scale with the context of a mountain setting. The building is already out of scale, and Ms. Vrchota said the expansion is not that critical. The planning office does recommend approval at this time. Ms. Klar moved to approve 8040 special review for the Popeil property; seconded by Anderson. Hunt said the P & Z should have a site inspection. All in favor, with the exception of Hunt. Motion carried. Ms. Vrchota said this application is for stream margin review for a duplex located in Oklahoma Flats, currently existing. Ms. Vrchota showed the location of the duplex and the floor plain line. This will not be an addition into the existing flood plain, but the application is for an addition on the second floor. The only obstruction into the flood hazard area are two posts to support the structure. The engineering department recommendation was for approval based on the understanding there would be no distrubance or removal of vegetation and no soil erosion in that area. Hunt moved to approve the Hanson stream margin review; seconded by Ms. Klar. All in favor, motion carried. Gideon Kaufman reminded the Board this was done as an excep- tion rather than an exemption and they ran into the 90 day recording deadline. Ms. Vrchota told the P & Z there is no change in the application. The resale restrictions were placed on the unit for the existing tenant to purchase. The resale restriction and the city's 90 day option will run three years. Hunt moved to reapprove the Latta subdivision exception with all previous conditions and terms as it went through the approval process; seconded by Ms. Klar. All in favor, motion carried. ;:( -3- Regular Meeting Employee Units in Lodges Resolution Christ Episcopal Church Condition Use Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 1980 Hunt asked if the staff were going to do something about the 90 day limit for subdivision exceptions. Hunt suggested an automatic 45 day extension which would save time. Ms. Smith said the people working on revising the Code will look at this. Hedstrom said the Christ Episcopal Church public hearing would be held later. Karen Smith, planning director, told the Board the staff had misread the Board's wishes on this resolution. The Board had wanted to be more liberal in the single family zone district and review an unlimited amount of expansion by special review. Anderson moved to approve and adopt Resolution 80-09 and to strike the word "or" in the second line of the first para- graph; seconded by Ms. Klar. All in favor, with the exception of Hunt. Motion carried. Karen Smith said this was discussed at a previous P & Z meeting; she is ready to answer questions and to bring to the Board a compromise worked out by staff, the Church and neighbors. Ms. Smith said there was a question whether this required conditional use; it does because it is the location of parking on the lot of a conditional use in the R-6 zone. The Church is a conditional use and any expansion or modification requires approval. P & Z is being asked to approved a reduction of parking and to approve the config- uration of that parking. Ms. Smith recommended as a compromise that the parking be reduced from 14 to 12 with 4 implemented right now and 8 spaces held in abeyance to demo parking on the streets. Ms. Smith presented a revised site plan; the 4 spaces to be implemented now are to be behind the Rectory with an access driveway off the alley. The conditions of this approval should be with the understanding that the Rectory is not on a separate parcel; the five lots comprise one undivided parcel. Any division in interest would require subdivision or exception. Separating the lots would dimin- ish the ability to service the Church with parking. Another condition is to reserve the right, if parking is insufficient, for any party to be able to seek review of the parking with increase to 14, or the reconfiguration of parking through a condition use hearing. The soonest this should be reconsidered is in one year. It has been sug- guested a landscaping plan should be given to the planning office; there has been no agreement on this. Jay Hammond, engineering department, said he is not inclined, from an engineering standpoint, to recommend a reduction to 4 spaces. Hammond had recommended there be 10 spaces. The configuration is a special consideration in view of the neighborhood; however, Hammond said he was not that comfortable with 4 spaces. Ms. Smith said two of the spaces will be used for the Rectory. The parking is accessed off the alley and people will probably tend to use the street. The neighborhood feels that the sporadic park- ing is tolerable. Hedstrom agreed the planning office and P & Z should accede to compromise dictated by the wishes of the neighbors and the need of the Church. Hedstrom opened the public hearing. Nick McGrath, representing Charles Collins who resides directly across the alley from the Church. McGrath stated -- ~,.~...., - -" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM!' C.F.HOECKELB.O.&l.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 1980 generally supports the reduction in parking and realizes no matter how much parking is behind the Church will not fulfill the needs of the Church. A problem with putting too much parking behind the Rectory is the alley itself. The alley entrance is very narrow and in the winter it is difficult to use. McGrath said his client would prefer parking, if any, to the front of the Church with a curb cut, which would improve traffic flow. McGrath supported asking the Church to file a landscaping plan with the planning office. Charles Shepard, the Church, said they supported the reduc- tion. They originally thought a large amount of parking was required. Shepard said they do intend to landscape; however, he would prefer not to be tied down to a specific plan. But if the P & Z directs they have a plan, they will. Hunt asked if the parking were to be increased to 12 or 14, would the parking lot be paved. Otherwise there would be a terrible dust problem. Ms. Smith said that was discussed but was not part of the recommendation but it could be included with the review criteria. Hedstrom asked about the parking in the front and the idea that it may be preferable. Ms. Smith said it was discussed and the engineering department expressed reservation at the time. Ms. Smith said this is mainly an engineering matter. Ms. Smith said she felt the visual impact on the front would be even greater. The Church is neutral on this question. Hedstrom said the parking in the front of the Church was probably continue until the city enforces a curb and gutter in that area. Anderson said with the Codes the parking could not be done in front. Ms. Klar agreed the impact seemed to be landscaping over parking, and that is the direction they should head. George Stark supported McGrath's view point. Pam Beck questioned parking in the alley and having the snow plowed. It may be impossible to park there at all. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. Hunt moved to recommend the reduction in parking from 14 to 12; approving the parking configuration of 4 spaces now as proposed with 8 held in abeyance and conditioned upon (1) five lots constituting one undivided development and (2) right is reserved to review numbers and configuation of parking including requirement to pave spaces and alley on an annual basis in response to complaint of interested party, and (3) file a landscape plan; Hunt amended His ~ motion to include in condition number 1 that the five lots constituting one undivided development and that the entire parcel is integral to the parking needs of the Church; seconded by Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. Anderson moved to adjourn at 7:15 p.m.; seconded by Ms. Klar. All in favor, mo~ion carried.