Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19800916 ~_~_~,.>>"_____"_._,,___..'r__.~",,_____ _~___"-""___~"~_~___'_ _A* -" ,- -~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM <\I C. F. HO~CKEl B. B. lit l. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission September ]6, ]980 Olof Hedstrom called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with members Harvey, Hunt, Pardee, Tygre, Anderson, and Klar. Present from the Planning office were Vann, Smith, Vrchota, Jay HAmmond from Engineering and Bob Gruetter, interim City Attorney. Minutes Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes of September 2, 1980 with corrections; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. Commission's Comments Roger Hun~ in his first comment, expressed concern in regard tothis committee's approval of the Clarendon project. In this and like expansions, where there was public input in the original approval it is the respon- sible thing to do to go back to the projects history and know what foundation we're working on before we ap- prove something piecemeal. Also, didn't the addition of a bedroom require an additional parking space? Secondly, Hunt asked the Planning office what was the current status of the Prospector Lodge Conditional use expansion? Vann stated that the P&Z has approved the application for expansion in a conditional use and the applicant has permission to proceed. Also, that as a result of P&Z concerns the architect discussed it with the owner and they mutually agreed that they would ben- efit if they increased the size of that area. Hunt wanted to know what will prevent a future buyer of the lodge from condominiumizing, if they should so desire? Can the City deny condominiumization? Hunt stated that that entire development should come up for reconsidering the previous motion, however, he cannot do it since he voted against it. Hunt stated he shall leave it up to those who voted for that motion. Vann then remem- bered that there was only one approval standing between them and a building permit; HPC approval with a meeting scheduled for Tuesday September 23, i980. Olof stated he would make a note to bring the subject up again to see if anyone would wish to pursue Hunt's idea. Perry Harvey followed up with Karen Smith regarding the first reading in the Times of the ordinance concerning employee housing in non-conforming lodges. He stated his feeling had been that the P&Z had taken the word, existing, (basement) out to give a lodge the opportunity when reconstructing to put in a basement and add em- ployee housing if they did not have it. Smith said they had checked on it and the word existing was in on the first reading, but will be removed for the second reading. In addition, Smith informed the P&Z that the Council had passed on first reading a limitation to 700 square feet in the R-6 through R-40 zone which is contrary to the P&Z recommendation. The P&Z may wish to send a representative to the second reading, October 14,1980. Restaurant in the C-l Zone as a Conditional Use Ulrych Rezoning Olof asked for additional comments and Karen Smith said she had the following announcements: 1.) Smith and Pardee had both contacted Ashley Anderson about meeting with Hans Cantrup. Ashley and Hans were both agreeable so they scheduled a sub- committee meeting for noon, Monday, September 22, 1980. Smith also recommended that the P&Z meet with Hans Cantrup to better anticipate his plans rather than get caught at the last minute. Olof stated that Lee, Roger and Joan make up the committee for that purpose. 2.) Karen Smith introduced Bob Grueter - Interim City Attorney. Grueter stated that normally Bob Edmundson from his office will be handling P&Z matters. 3,) Smith said Council will consider next Monday night an ordinance for creating the alternate member position. She thought it was the first reading, so it will go ,:to two readings. Olof opened the public hearing with the case of restaurants in the C-l Zone as a Conditional Use. Gideon Kaufman stated that the applicant has decided not to pursue this at the present time. Jolene Vr0chota, officially stated that the Ulrych Rezoning, as well, would be withdrawn from the agenda this evening. The reason being they did not have a com- plete list of adjacent landowners for notification. Therefore, they will republish announcements in the Times. Olof said this rescheduling is an imposition on those citizens that came to discuss this issue. How can this be avoided in the future? Vrchota stated that it is the responsibility of the applicant to supply the Plan- ning office with a list of adjacent landowners. Pardee stated that the system is faulty for relying on the applicants list of adjacent landowners. Kaufman added that if they aren't given proper notifi- cation then someone can object to the passage, so the burden falls on the applicant. Smith said she doesn't know how to handle it any other way. The fact being that an enormous amount of time would be needed to go to the assessor's office and double check on each or the applicant's list. Pardee asked if the applicant's are made fully aware of the 300 yard radius? Smith said yes they are. Pardee asked then how come the ap- plicant messed up so badly? Jolene said he missed people across the street, and he had someone doing it who didn't quite know what they were doing. Smith had one suggestion - that being possibly the Planning office could draft a hand-out to be given to applicants outlining the procedure to ensure they cover the bases. Joan Klar suggested this makes more sense and could operate as a check list. Olof asked if it would be worthwhile if the Commission was provided with a list of the people the applicant should have contacted? The reason for this being that the members of the Commission are generally familiar with the particular area. He expressed the importance of proper neighbor- hood notification. Vrchota noted that the P&Z aren't available before the 15 day notification period nec- essary for the adjacent landowners. Vann added that it's been more than a year since this has happened. Karen and Olof agreed on trying the hand-out idea as an improvement. Roger Hunt expressed an interest in temporarily going back to the C-l Zone if there were people present interested. Pardee stated he would prefer to have an applicant present that could counter any arguments. Olof asked for opinions and Harvey agreed with Lee. As did Olof. ....... FORM 10 C.F.HO~CKElB.a.ftL.CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Photography Studio as a Conditional Use in S/C/I Zone Resolution II 80-12 White - Connally Conditional use application Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 1980 Sunny Vann said this is a request on behalf of the Planning office for the P&Z to sponsor an amendment to Section 24-3.2 of the Municipal Code to include "Commercial photography studio" as a conditional use in the S/C/I Zone district. Conditional uses currently permitted within the S/C/I Zone include: "full service gas station, dance studio, martial arts studio, catalogue sales store, and accessory dwelling units." He further stated that the Planning office is of the opinion that the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the S/C/I Zone, and therefore recommends that P&Z amend Section 24-3.2 as above stated. Olof asked the Commission for questions. Lee Pardee asked for a definicion of commercial photo- graphy studio. Vann stated that in this case the studio would be utilized for advertising type art, where there is needed a larger space to set-up sets as opposed to a small commercial photography shop that sells film, receives film for processing, etc, Pardee would like the record to reflect that. Vann reminds the members that in a conditional use code they have the right to review each application indiv- idually. Hunt thought based on Vann's definition of commercial art-type studio he agreed that it would be appropriate for that zone, Hunt moved to initiate the Code amendment for dis- cussion purposes. Welton Anderson seconded, No discussion. The motion was unanimously carried, The amendment is initiated. There was no public comment, Joan Klar moved to approve Resolution 80-12. Harvey seconded the motion. Resolution 80-12 was unanimously approved. Jolene Vrchota, Planning office, introduced the pro- posal of White and Connally. Their application requests conditional use approval for a restaurant facility in a park, The applicant's wish to place the Chuck Wagon on the southeast corner of Rubey Park for use as a restaurant for carry-out breakfasts and lunches. In addition, a 4 foot X 4 foot restroom would be located behind the structure. The property in question is owned by the City of Aspen, Vrchota stated the planning office recommends denial based on the following considerations; 1,) The intent of the zone will at some point be subverted, in that) "How many structures can you put on a park and still have a park?" 2.) There is a very long list of improvements that have to be made. She added, however, that if all of those conditions can be met satisfactorily, it may be appropriate to grant this conditional use approval. Peter White, applicant, introduced himself and his partner John Connally. White said he understands there are certain problems associated with the use of this city owned property. He and Connally have been looking at the idea for quite some time and still feel they would be providing a necessary service for the many people that use Rubey Park. They feel their solutions are not only workable, but could benefit the City of Aspen and the park as well. White, in summary, responded to the City's conditions and recommendations with the following proposed solutions; ~the offering of a ski rack so persons waiting at this park for Highlands ski buses wouldn't have to lean their skis on the stop sign. *installation of a 6' brick walkway. *sprinkler system rerouting *trash pick-up of grounds - 4 times daily. *construction of wood enclosed trash bin for behind the Chuck Wagon. *payments for provision of power, water and sewer hook-ups, *escrow account *6" foundation under the restrooms. *pads underneath the Chuck Wagon. *wooden skirt around Wagon rather than using wheels. *trash receptacles on both sides of bldg. - attached, *food service approval/license, *temporary boardwalk for food and supply deliveries. Olof opened the public hearing. Ms, Vrchota entered a letter from Lee Miller, manager of Faushing House. His letter stated opposition to this project but didn't say why he opposed. Miller was not present to comment. Ashley Anderson representing the Highlands expressed the unfeasibility of this proposal. Anderson stated that the Highlands ski buses park in this area during the winter season. The area is generally very con- gested in the mornings and evenings, and according to Anderson this restaurant would not only eliminate the Highlands maze, but would also draw additional persons to that area. He clearly stated opposition to this proposal. Ken Sterling, condominium owner in the North of Nell Building, expressed his opposition to the proposal based on traffic congestion and park encroachment. Gary Krumley, former Mall Commission member said that Rubey Park is a transportation center and will con- tinue to be. Considerable changes and future improve- ments will be needed in this area and allowing uses such as this would be unwise. Bert Goodwell, landowner within 300 feet of subject area, said he also asks the question, "How much more can the park handle and still be a park?" He is opposed and hoped P&Z would vote against it. Duane Fengel, City of Aspen Transportation Dept., stated that in the winter it would be a physical impossibility to operate a restaurant on the Rubey Park site. Charles Hopton, long time Aspen resident and manager/ resident in the North of Nell Bldg., said he would like to see all proposed operations such as this stopped. He opposes temporary type solutions when there is enough commercial space available around town. - - <.M', ........ """'"' ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM \~ C. F. HOECK El B. a. 1\ l. Co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 1980 Anderson said that if the proposal is accepted the Highlands must have at least a 30x30 square to make the maze work, Hedstrom closed the public hearing, Roger Hunt stated that one of the biggest problems is in using a park for commercial enterprise. ie, Profit making enterprise. Welton Anderson noted that historically the Chuck Wagon has provided this type of service for skiers. He suggested the applicants try looking at other different areas. Olof asked for a motion. Hunt moved to deny the conditional use of a restaurant facility in the Rubey Park area for the following reasons; 1.) area historically transportation related activities 2.) interference with Aspen Highlands use of the area 3,) Profit making enterprise in a park zone 4.) general comments of Parks Dept., Engineering Dept., and Planning Dept, 5.) overwhelming negative public response Jasmine Tygre seconded the motion, unanimously carried, The motion was Nicholson Rezoning (Density Bonus Overlay) Sunny Vann, Planning office, told the Commission that pursuant to Section 24-10,7 of the Municipal Code, the applicants are requesting rezoning of a parcel of property located at 117-119 West Hyman as a Residential Bonus Overlay District so as to allow construction of an additional one bedroom employee housing unit in the garden level of an existing dup- lex located on the property, The employee housing unit is exempt from Growth Management subject to the approval of City Council upon recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The P&Z has already approved an employee housing unit in the garden level of one half of the duplex. The applicant's site totals approximately 7,500 square feet and is zoned R/MF. Our code requires the following minimum lot area for sites of 9,000 sq, ft, or less: Studio - 1,000 sq. ft.; 1 bedroom - 1,200 sq, ft,; 2 bedroom - 2,000 sq. ft.; and 3 bedroom - 3,000 sq. ft. Based on the proposed build-out, the applicants would need a minimum building site of 8,400 square feet (two 3-bedroom units at 3,000 sq. ft and two I-bedroom units at 1,200 sq, ft). However, by rezoning to R/MF, Residential Bonus Overlay, the applicants may take advantage of a substantial reduction in the minimum lot area requirements, thus enabling the construction of the additional employee housing unit, If 50% of the units located on the property are deed restricted within the City's low, moderate and middle income guidelines, the minimum lot area requirements for sites zoned R/MF are re- duced by one-half. The proposed buildout would therefore require a minimum building site of 4,200 square feet (two 3-bedroom units at 1,500 sq. ft. and two I-bedroom units at 600 sq. ft.), well below the available 7,500 square feet, Snare Special Review The Planning office has reviewed the applicant's request and finds the proposed addition consistent with both the objectives and review criteria of Section 24-10. Based on the above comments, the Planning office recommends that P&Z move to recommend to City Council that the applicant's request for rezoning to R/MF, Residential Bonus Overlay be approved subject to the following: 1,) The provision of eight onsite parking spaces, the arrangement of which is to be approved by the Engineering Dept. 2,) The provision and deed restriction of an approx- imately 700 sq. ft., I-bedroom, moderate income employee unit for a period of fifty years, said res- triction to be executed prior to issuance of a building permit. 3,) Compliance with all applicable area and bulk requirements of the R/MF zone district. Secondly, the Planning office further recommends that P&Z move to recommend to City Council that the proposed employee housing unit be exempted from Growth Management pursuant to Section 24-ll,2(h) of the Municipal Code. Olof Hedstrom asked for questions. Roger Hunt recommended they keep an overlay on the zoning map to indicate the placement of the approved RB sites to ensure geographic dispersal, Vann agreed, Hedstrom opened the public hearing, Hedstrom closed the public hearing, Hedstrom entertained the motion to recommend that P&Z move to recommend to City Council that the applicant's request for rezoning to R/MF, Residential Bonus Overlay be approved subject to the aforementioned conditions set forth by the Planning office, Hunt so moved, Pardee seconded, motion was unanimously carried. All in favor, The Roger Hunt further moved to recommend that the proposed employee housing unit be exempted from the G~owth Management plan pursuant to Section 24-11.2 (h) of the Municipal Code. Harvey seconded, All in favor. The motion was unanimously carried. Sunny Vann told the P&Z that pursuant to Section 24-10.2 (h), the applicant is requesting special review approval to construct an employee housing unit at 113 West Hyman Ave. The applicant proposes to construct an approximately 800 sq. ft., I-bedroom employee housing unit in the lower level of a single family residence that is currently under construction, Given the City's current position to encourage the geographical dispersion of employee housing and the excellent location of the unit in question, the Planning office recommends approval of the applicants request subject to the following; 1.) The deed restriction of the one-bedroom employee unit for a period of fifty years under the City's moderate income guideline. This restriction being ex- ecuted prior to ~B the building permit. 2.) The submission and approval of an appropriate site plan to the Engineering Dept. indicating the required four parking spaces, - - -- -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMIC C.F.HOECKEla.B.1It l. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 16, 1980 Lee Pardee moved to recommend to Council approval subject to the aforementioned conditions, Welton Anderson seconded. No discussion. All in favor. The motion was unanimously carried. Abels Subdivision Exemption Sunny Vann, Planning office, stated this is a sub- division exemption rather than a subdivision excep- tion. It is a request for comdominiumization of the property at 218 N. Monarch in the R-6 Zone. The Engineering Dept. has reviewed the application and recommend approval subject to the following; 1.) Revision and resubmission of the applicant's improvement survey to include a proper legal des- cription and the location of all areas in excess of 300 slope on the easterly end of the lot, 2,) The owner/applicant agreeing to join a sidewalk improvement district in the event one is formed. 3.) The owner/applicant agreeing to comply with the requirements of Section 24-4,5 regarding on-site parking in the event new construction is proposed. The Planning office recommends approval for sub- division exemption for purposes of condominiumization subject to the following; 1,) The applicant complying with the notice and option and six month minimum lease restrictions of Sections 20-22 of the Municipal Code. 2.) The applicant complying with the stipulations outlined in the Engineering Department's memorandum dated September 4, 1980 and quoted above. Hunt moved to recommend exemption from the strict applications of the subdivision regulations for the purposes of condominiumization of 218 N, Monarch conditioned on the # 1,) and 2.) of Planning office memorandum dated September 9, 1980 and quoted above. Seconded by Perry Harvey. was unanimously carried, All in favor. The motion Hedstrom suggested a special meeting for the purpose of discussing old business, There was a discussion of when this special meeting should be with the final decision being Tuesday, at noon, October 7, 1980. There was a motion to adjourn, seconded by Ms, Klar. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. CU~~~~ Denise p, Elzing~ ) Deputy City Clerk