Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19800902 -. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C. F. HOECKE~ B. B. It L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission September 2,1980 Olof Hedstrom called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. with members Lea Pardee, Roger Hunt, Welton Anderson, Joan Klar and Jasmine Tygre present. Present from the planning officer were Karen Smith, Sunny Vann and Jolene Vrchota. Commission Comments Lee Pardee suggested to the Commission that rather than taking up Hans Cantrup's many alternatives on a piece meal basis, the Commission meet with Cantrup and review plans for all the things he can do; first class hotel, conference center, Institute, and offer to work with Cantrup and come up with a program which will have the least devastating effect on the City's Codes. Hedstrom agreed the suggestion is a good one. The Commission did not want to see the Rio Grande property develop piece meal and wanted a total overview. This seems to be comparable. Pardee said it is worth time to work with Cantrup and come up with a solid recommendation. Hedstrom asked the planning office to investigate a proper vehicle to do this, devised in such a way to be completely official and to avoid any taint of non-public discussions. The Commission agreed this was a good idea and Pardee, Ms. Klar and Hunt were appointed as the committee. Election of Officers Hedstrom suggested a policy be adopted to rotate the chairman- ship from year to year. This gives members a good opportunity and would strengthen the Commission. Hunt nominated Welton Anderson; seconded by Ms. Tygre. Anderson nominated Hedstrom; seconded by Pardee. Commission voted by ballot; Hedstrom was elected Chairman. Hedstrom opened the floor to nominations for vice-Chairman. Anderston nominated Joan Klar; seconded by Pardee. Hunt nominated Anderson; seconded by Ms. Tygre. Commission voted by ballot; Anderson was elected vice-Chairman. Alternate Members Karen Smith reminded the Commission they had discussed with Council the idea of having at least one alternate. Council could not decide how many and wanted the Commission's input. Anderson said he was opposed to an alternate because of the frequency and length of speeches. Anderson stated he has changed his mind and likes the conservative approach of just one alternate. Pardee concurred but felt it should be stipulated if seven regular members are present, the alternate is not voting and is not discussing. Hedstrom agreed the Commission needs to keep moving and to limit the discussion. Hunt stated one alternative is one too many; any more than that is untolerable. Hunt said he did not feel alternates were beneficial; however, if the alternate is sitting as a replace, he should have full speech and voting rights. Ms. Klar moved to recommend to City Council that they appoint one alternate member to the City Planning and Zoning Commission; seconded by Pardee. Hunt stated he did not feel there was a crying need for an alternate. There is no inducement for someone to sit and listen and not be able to vote. All in favor, with the exception of Hunt. Motion carried. Regular Meeting City Market Request for Variance Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 1980 Sunny Vann, planning office, told the Board this is a request for a variance from the use square footage limitations of Section 24-3.5. This is the only variance the Code allows the P & Z to grant. The use square footage limitations restrict the size of food markets to 12,000 square feet gross floor area with an additional 3,000 square feet for storage and accessory uses. A variance may be granted by P & z when it should determine that there are either practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships created by the strict application, or that public need and demand require increased floor area for specific use. Vann told P & Z that the applicant wished to add 1200 square foot addition on the front of the existing market. Vann showed the proposed addition. The applicant proposes to remodel the existing ground floor and use a portion of the basement. The primary reason for the expansion is to improve circulation in the check out area, and to relocated operational areas to the basement, providing additional room to expand the floor sales area. Vann said the existing store is approximately 12,000 square feet and is confined the the ground floor; they would have an additional 1200 square feet on the front and 2300 square feet in the basement. The result is 15,500 square foot food store; if the eligible storage areas are deducted from the 15,500 square feet of 2800 square feet, the applicant exceeds the l2,000 square foot limitation for a food market by 700 square feet. The applicant is located on 9 city lots in an N/C zone. Vann stated all the area and bulk requirements, with the exception of FAR and open space requirements are established through a pun process. The FAR is 1:1 and the open space requirement is 25 per cent. If this application is approved, it would have to be processed through pun. This store predates the N/C zone and there is no development plan of record. Vann told P & Z the off-street parking requirements in this zone is 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet, and this market at 12,000 square feet would require 48 parking spaces. There are presently 33. The expansion of 3500 square feet would require an additional 15 spaces; the applicant is required only to provide those required by the additional square footage. It if were up to Code, the total required parking would be 62 spaces. The property is non-conforming with respect to the parking requirements by existing 15 spaces and the additional 14. There is no provision for additional parking in the application as submitted. Vann pointed out the City Market is also non-conforming with respect to the open space requirement. Non-conforming structurE may be enlarged, however the degree of non-conformity cannot be enlarged. The increase in commercial space, which would increase the parking requirement, would increase the non- conformity. Any approval in expansion of this would also require a reduction in the parking requirement from either the Board of Adjustment or the pun process, Vann told the Board that generally with a variance of this size the planning office would recommend approVal since it could be argued there are practical difficulties or hardships. Also this expansion would not jeopardize the intent of the N/C zone. However, with the existing parking deficiciency as well as the additional parking required, the planning office can not approve this request. Vann said if the P & Z chooses to approve this request, the approval should be conditioned upon .. "...,,'\ -. -" .. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 C. F. HOECKEL B. B.!II LCD. September 2, 1980 Regular Meeting Clarendon Condominiums Amendmen t to pun Plan Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission the applicant receiving a reduction in the parking requirement. Vann pointed out P & Z approval could be inferred to be approval of the pun plan as well. Vann said the applicant must go through the pun process for the expansion. Hunt said he was very familiar with City Market's problem; they have a business and the problem is there. Most of what they are doing is trying to turn over people faster. Hunt said the number of people going to City Market will not change. Improving the existing service through check out lines and adding additional space in the sales area will not increase the supply of people coming into the store. Hunt pointed out the outside sales space is really already there. Anderson said aside from any other reasons, the public need and demand is absolutely there. Anderson said this change is making the business more efficient. Hunt said that the parking situation does need to be improved. Also, the expansion will probably not create any additional increase in the parking problem. Pardee moved that the planning and zoning commission approve a variance under Section 24-3.5 of the Municipal Code for City Market to make an expansion as described in the planning office packet dated August 25, 1980 with the stipulation that no reliance be given on the matter of parking; seconded by Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. Jolene Vrchota, planning office, told the Board this is an application for an amendment of the pun plan for the Clarendon condominiums, which plan was approved in 1975. Ms. Vrchota said there have been some minor changes made, which the plan- ning director can approve. According to the Municipal Code, one cannot make changes that will increase the density larger than 1 per cent of the building. This application is for a 250 square foot bedroom, which will add 1.13 per cent to the building. Ms. Vrchota told the Board there will be little disturbance to the land or the building. The addition will be compatible with the rest of the building. Ms. Vrchota told the Board the engineering department has no problem with the change; the planning office has recommended approval. The condominium association has given unanimous approval. Ms. Vrchota raised the point of setting a precedent; there are 8 other two-bedroom units with the potentiai of ask- ing for additions. The planning office is basing its recom- mendation on the fact the addition does aesthetically fit in with the rest of the building; there is minimal disturbance to the site and the configuration of the building. Also any other increases would have to come before this Board. Pardee asked if there are any area and bulk requirements or any maximum size. Ms. Vrchota said she didn't think so. Joe Edwards, representing the applicant, said there is no floor area ratio in the R-6 zone. There is a density allowed of 15.75 units. There is a height limitation, but this does not change the height. Pardee said he was concerned that every condominium in town may come in and ask for expansion. Hunt pointed out there was a total square footage allowed in the original project after considerable negotiations with the city. -3- Chatmas Amendment to Condominiumiza- tion Condition By piece mealing, they could expand the building up to 10 per cent. Hunt said the Commission ought to look at the whole building and put a maximum size on it. The building has already been increased 8 per cent through administration. Pardee said the Commission should consider this in perspective of many units around town doing this. Anderson said he felt this expansion should be looked at it on its own merits not the whole picture. Hunt asked if the condominium association was willing to agree to allow no further expansion in any circumstances. The original pun set the size of this project. Pardee said the growth management plan might apply to this. Ms. Vrchota said this is not adding units. Edwards told the Board the spectre of everybody coming in will not be a reality because it requires the agreement of condominium association. Hedstrom said in a quality complex like the Clarendon, this Commission should place some reliance on the integrity and concern of the owners to maintain in the quality that has been established. Ms. Vrchota suggested this does not mean every other applicatior for expansion is the same. The~are grounds for making a denial; expansion requests should be reviewed on a case by case basis. Hunt pointed out the original pun process required public input. There is no input on this amendment to the pun. Edwards pointed out Section 24.8-6 does not provide for a public hearing. All the condominium owners have been notified of this. Ms. Tygre pointed out if the owner wanted a 220 squarE foot expansion, this would fall under the 1 per cent rule and would not have to come before P & Z. Ms. Tygre asked why the expansion was not made smaller. Edwards answered that it had to be this size to fit in with the existing architecture of the building. Pardee moved that P & Z recommend approval to Council of the amendment to Clarendon pun to allow for an additional 250 square feet bedroom to unit 12, including in the recommendation that it was made because there was no change in footprint and maintaining architectural integrity of the complex as a whole; seconded by Ms. Klar Hunt said he felt all pun changes should come to P & Z. Also it gets harder and harder to disapprovethese minimal increases because of precedent. Hunt said it is incumbent upon the applicant to come in and state a maximum square footage and in no circumstances to come in for a change. All in favor, with the exception of Hunt. Motion carried. Welton Anderson stepped down from discussion and voting. Ms. Vrchota told P& Z this application is for an amendment to the condominiumization agreement for the Garret"six unit complex. One of the smaller units fell within the housing price guide- lines, but in exchange they deed restricted the five-bedroom unit for 10 years, rather than the normal five years. This was an offer by the applicant. The owner now finds there are financing problems in replacing the unit and upgrade a sub- standard unit. The applicant is requesting a 5 year rather than 10 year restriction on that unit. The housing director feels it would be preferable to have a new unit for 5 years. The building department made an inspection and found the unit to be unsafe. There is also a proposal to decrease the size of the new unit from 5 bedrooms to 4; the restriction would be maintained to moderate price guide guidelines. The planning office now does support the change of 10-year restriction on 5 bedroom unit to a 5 year restriction in the moderate price guidelines. #",''-~ .",., - -' FORM 10 C. F. HOECKEL B. B. It L. C~. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 1980 Conference Space in Non-conforming Lodges Gideon Kaufman told the Board the unit is 1100 square feet and it is impossible to rebuild 5 bedrooms. Hunt said the City is loosing a bedroom and 5 years. Ms. Vrchota noted that a one-bedroom unit fell within the price guidelines and the applicant offered a 5 bedroom unit, so they technically offered 4 extra bedrooms above what required under circumstances. Also this is a new unit rather than an old unit. Pardee said when this originally came before P & Z, the Board was concerned about health and safety of units. Subsequently, the Board passed a requirement that anything that gets condominiumized will be inspected. Ms. Vrchota said this hasn't been passed and is in a new condominiumi- zation legislation. Pardee stated he was disturbed this has not been done. Hedstrom pointed out as it stands, the Board has no basis for an inspection. Pardee said he wanted an inspection on the front units. Ms. Vrchota said this is only an amendment to the restriction on one unit. Ms. Klar moved to recommend approval of an amendment of the conditions imposed on the condominiumization of the Garret condominiumization concerninq the one 5-bedroom unit changing the restriction from a 10 year price restriction for five-bedrooms to a 5 year restriction to the moderate income category for four-bedrooms; and the reduction being contingent on the complete rebuilding and modernization as well as conversion from five-bedrooms to four-bedrooms in that unit; seconded by Hunt. Hedstrom said he agreed with the concerns of the Commission but the Board is penalizing the applicant for something over which he has no control, and also attempting to refuse approval something for which the P & Z has no specific authority. Fred Crowley, building inspector, told the Board he has been pushing to have all condominiumizations and employee units inspected before they come to P & Z. Crowley said the condition of this unit is not something he would like to live in. If these were allowed to be taken down and rebuilt to Code, they would be safer and nicer. Hunt stated he resented having to get someone's irons out of the fire, where the original applicant aannot hold to his agreement. Kaufman said five years is all any other applicant has requested. Roll call vote; Pardee abstain; Tygre, abstain; Klar, aye; Hunt, nay; Hedstrom, aye. Motion carried. Pardee stated he was not voting on any condominiumizations until there are inspections. Ashley Anderson told the Board this was put on the agenda to have P & Z sponsor an amendment to the code. The applicant is in a hurry; they need conference business this winter in addition to the rest of the year. Anderson said because of the time problem, he was going to take this off P & z's agenda and put on Council's agenda to see if they will sponsor the amendment. Ms. Smith said she would have preferred P & Z sponsoring the code amendment, have dis- cussions to get input to try to tailor a better solution. The planning office is not comfortable with the final solution. Hedstrom said they would hear this in due process -5- Regular Meeting Werning Apartments 50:50 Proposal Preliminary Discussion Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 1980 (Welton Anderson stepped down from the discussion) Sunny Vann told P & Z there is no action required on this item; it is submitted for preliminary discussion because of problems. This is an application to redevelop existing Werning apartments at the intersection of Park Avenue and Park Circle. The applicant wishes to take advantage of the new residential bonus in order to increase the density. There are 13 units existing in 4 buildings; 8 units would be retained and an additional 12 constructed and 50 per cent of the 20 units would be deed restricted to employee housing. The site is approximately 4/10 acre, and the density increase would result in 50 units per acre. The planning office has raised several concerns. This will be going through full subdivision and PUD. BilDunaway asked if the illegal unit had been taken out as requested a couple of years ago. Kaufman said he was not told there were any illegal units. Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, told P & Z the reason they are before the Board is that the planning office has raised objections to this project. Kaufman said he felt this project epitomizes everything looked at when the over- lay was passed. Right now there are 13 free market units, which could be condominiumized and sold. The applicant wants to build more units and end up with 10 free market and 10 employee units. Kaufman said this is not in the middle of a single family neighborhood. This project already has density existing. This is an opportunity to get 10 employee units where there are none, or to lose 13 units. Welton Anderson said the current zoning would allow 17 studios. The proposal for 20 units will also provide 18 on-site parking sites. Jay Hammond, engineering department, said his main concern is that the project is utilizing parking along Park Avenue. The configuration of parking is improper because it utilizes a continuous curb cut. Vann commented the zone probably would allow 17 units, it would be subject to growth management approval for the additional units. The 50:50 ordinance does provide for an increase in density in the R/MF zone; it is subject to a site by site review, based on the ability of the surround- ing area to absorb the density. Vann said this project, while only increasing the underlying zone by 3 units, it uses all of the property. Vann said this project cannot comply with PUD requirements in open space, clustering of development, etc. Housing studies have shown the Smuggler area to be prime for employee development. Vann stated that 20 units is inappropriate for this specific site. Vann said there is a proposal to use some adjacent land belong to Midland Park as open space. There has been no indication that this is possible. The basic concerns are if the applicant cannot use the 6 parking space on the side of the property, there will be a difficult resolving the parking requirement, which will be deficient in this case. Vann pointed out if this were condominiumized the way it exists, it would be subject to some deed restriction. The site plan, as proposed, is consistent with objectives of PUD and does not represent the best interest of this location. Vann said the rock retaining wall on Park is not part of their property' any improvements to Park Avenue would remove that. Kaufman told P & Z the applicant is trying to get the rights to landscape some open space that belongs to Midland Park and treat it as open space. There is a problem with the existing parking, and when this project is built there will - ~, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.&l.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 1980 Kaufman stated there is no such thing as a perfect employee project; there will be problems. The Board has to decide given the location, what is existing now, and what the town will get, isn't this what the Board envisioned when they passed 50:50. Kaufman said this project would benefit the community. Hunt asked if the Midland Park parcel, which would be land- scaped as part of this project, was used to calculate the density for Midland Park. Anderson said it is not being used to calculate density for the Werning project. Kaufman said even if they don't get the legal right to the property, it is open space. Hunt said the P & Z continually makes a box that is too small for what they would like to put in it, and cannot approve an otherwise beneficial project. All the aspects of the Code are continually work- ing against each other. All the little specifics are creating such a small box, a viable project cannot get into it. Hedstrom asked if sidewalks were appropriate in this area. Hammond answered he felt they were because this is a dense residential area with a substantial amount of pedestrian traffic. Ms. Klar said she supported the project. Hedstrom said this is an informational discussion for the application to evaluate the reaction of the Commission and anything the P & Z tells the applicant is not guaranteed to be the action they will take when it appears formally. Pardee said when the Commission gave guidelines in employee housing, they made a rule of thumb regarding square footage/ number of bedrooms. Ms. Smith said the guidelines for bedrooms was 1.5 to 2 across the employee portion. In the 70/30 the guideline for FAR was 60 per cent employee portion Pardee pointed out this is not very far from that, it is 37 per cent total square footage and 39 per cent bedrooms with 50 per cent of the units. Vann said there are numerous deficiencies in this applica- tion; they have tried to discuss reducing density to solve some of the problems. Vann said he had a problem recom- mending what amounts to maximumization of building on this site in the name of employee housing, especially with the deficiencies - lack of parking, extent of ground coverage, lack of open space, circulation problems. Kaufman told P & Z the applicant could have come in and applied for 40 units, but tailored it to maximize employee units. Vann stated the trade off in the eyes of the planning office is not that good of a trade. Hedstrom said regardless of who has the Midland Park open space, it will still serve as open space. Pardee said the Commission should go walk the property before making any firm recommendations. Pardee said the units appeared attractive and should be looked at in context with the neighborhood. The P & Z should be willing to take some inconsistencies from established way in trade off for employee units. Hedstrom agreed, and the concessions need to be looked at for this particular site. Kaufman said the housing director supports this, and they have worked with the city attorney on this. Hedstrom pointed out the P & Z is subject to another law suit from Parker Quillan. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission September 2, 1980 Hunt brought up the City's employee project at the water plant. Pardee said the P & Z approved a landscaping plan which the project had better have. Pardee moved to adjourn at 7:30 p.m.; seconded by Ms. Klar. All in favor, motion carried. ~~,~f ~ ';'" .-"""""lj. - --