Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19801021 ,. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.O.& l. CO. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 1980 Perry Harvey, acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. in the County Commissioner's Chambers. Present were members Harvey, Hunt, Pardee, Tygre and alternate member Al Blomquist. Also present were Vrchota & Smith from Planning and Jay Hammond from Engineering. Approval of Minutes Roger Hunt moved Special Meeting. as written. to approve the minutes of the October 7, 1980, Lee Pardee seconded. The minutes were approved Cormnissioner's Comments Karen Smith, Planning office, introduced Al Blomquist the P&Z Commission's alternate member. Roger Hunt asked Karen who had approved the parking lot on Cemetary Lane? He thought that it should've been less visible. Karen said she thought it was approved, but she will double check with the City Manager. Lee Pardee asked Karen if she had spoken to Council about the P&Z having a joint meeting with them? Karen said she will ask City Council at their next meeting for a joint study session. A. Public Hearings 1. Given Institute 2. Christopher! Ulrych Rezoning Karen Smith, Planning office, said items Al and A2 are tabled due to lack of proper notification of adjacent land owners. She said these would be the first items on the November 4, 1980 agenda. Perry Harvey opened the public hearing. Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing November 4, 1980. Jasmine Tygre seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Old Business ulrych Rezoning to Density Bonus Overlay Jolene Vrchota, Planning office, reminded the Commission they had heard this issue at the October 7, 1980 regular meeting. At that time several requests were made (see 10-7-80 minutes). Jolene entered into the public record a letter from Olof Hedstrom to Karen Smith expressing his views (in his absence) on this matter. His letter expressed negative thoughts concerning this proposal. To quote a portion of his letter, "... In designating this area as an office zone it appears that lines were drawn on a map to serve as some theoretical and abstract purpose without considering the interests and wishes of the people living there or the unique and desirable aspects of the areas affected; in this case a residential neighborhood reminiscent of Aspen's past and still serving in a real way contemporary needs. Structures permitted under present regulations certainly will not enhance the appearance or function of this block of Hopkins, nor benefit the City as a whole." Mr. Ulrych said when he bought the property 14 years ago, it was zoned C-l and has been downgraded ever since then. It was never an arbitrary line. Harvey asked the Commission for questions. Al Blomquist stated he is providing 9 parking spaces for employee housing. The footprint will not change if the employee units aren't included. Lee Pardee said that since the last meeting he had gone out and looked at the property. Across the street is the same type of building and the people using that property have no off-street parking. Lee feels there are three reasons to make this approval: New Business Clark! Parker Subdivision Exception ",,, 1.) parking available 2.) employee units 3 . ) down zoning Perry reopened the public hearing. W.R. Walton, 635 E. Hopkins was present to express his opposition to this proposal. He feels that most neighbors think the proposed building is too large. Perry Harvey told everyone to keep in mind that under allowable zoning Ulrych could build a structure of the same size. Tom Sommers asked how much does employee housing affect massing? Is this the only issue? If so, it is very important to offer employee housing. Ulrych agreed saying he has approximately 110 employees during the peak season. Jolene Vrchota noted that this has been referred to as down- zoning, when actually it is reducing the use. Al Blomquist asked if Planning needs this land reserved for office use? Jolene said that if you look at the buildout over the last several years - there has been substantial office growth. Al asked if there isn't a need to preserve office space? Karen Smith said there is remaining buildout in the office zones. Whereas in the C-l, C-C zones it's tighter. Perry Harvey closed the public hearing. Lee Pardee moved that P&Z recommend to Council approval of the following: 1. Approval of subdivision exception subject to: a. The applicant designing the structure so that it does not protrude into the side yard setback. b. The applicant meeting the requirements for completion of plans and final plat subject to approval by the Engineering Dept. 2. Approval of subdivision exception for the miniumization conditioned on: a. Six month lease restrictions on all units Section 20-22. b. Completion recordation of purpose of condo- according to to the approval of the Engineering a condominiumization plat prior to Dept. and sale of units. 3. Special review approval of the three studio units to be deed restricted under the City's moderate income price 9uide- lines. 4. Approval of Rezoning from O-Office to O!RBO, conditioned on all area and bulk requirements of the O-Office zone being met. 5. Exception from Growth Management Plan for employee units. Roger Hunt seconded. No discussion. All in favor. The motion was carried. Jolene Vrchota introduced the Clark!Parker application for subdivision exception. The location of the project is Lots D, E, F, G, H, Ii Block 28,r.\sp:_'''. TO'un:=,ite. 'fhe present zoning - r',\ - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves F GRM~' C. f. HOECK EL O. O. It L. CJ. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 1980 . . .. is R-6 and the lot size is 18,000 sq. ft. The owners are requesting an exception from full subdivision procedures (under Section 20-19) to permit the division of the six lots into two parcels such that D and E (with one single family residende) are seperate from F, G, H and I. (The parcel with lots D and E will be sold seperately.) The Planning Office recommendation is stated as follows: Planning agrees that the land use impact will not be increased and in fact will be decreased, given the new configuration of lots. The parcel consisting of Dand E will be allowed only a single- family residence while a duplex would be allowed if F remained in the parcel. The four remaining lots will only be allowed two single-family residences ( as currently allowed) because 4,500 sq. ft. are required per dwelling unit. Therefore, it is recommended that the subdivision exception for a lot split be granted subject to the Engineering Dept. conditions in the memo dated September 18, 1980. Further, that approval should be subject to a sim- ultaneous approval of a change in the comdomuniumization of Lots G, H, and I such that Lot F be incorporated in that condo- miniumization to clarify ownership. Jolene added that the following Engineering Dept. comments be conditions of approval: 1. In view of the rather outdated survey for lots D, E and F a revised survey plat shall be submitted showing both new parcels to be recorded as an addendum to the previous condominium plat for lots G, H, and I. 2. The owner/applicant shall agree to join a sidewalk curb and gutter improvement district in the event one is formed and'so deed restrict for both parcels. ~I- { Hunt moved to recommend subdivision exception for lot split seperating F from Dand E, Block 28, Aspen Townsite, conditioned on Engineering Dept. comment #2, above. Further, that approval should be subject to a simultaneous approval of a change in the condominiumization of Lots G, H and I such that Lot F be incor- porated in that condominiumization to clarify ownership. Lee Pardee seconded. No discussion. All in favor, motion carried. ! ~ Wedum Associates Subdivision Exception Jolene vrchota, Planning office, intorduced the request for condominiumization through subdivision exception for an existing office building with approximately 12 units, all to be used for office space. Some tenants may occupy contiguous spaces. A new building is currently being constructed to replace a residential structure. The location of the 6,000 sq. ft. lot is at 617 West Main Street. The zoning is O-Office with Historic District Overlay. Vrchota further stated that P&Z granted special review approval for reduction in the number of parking spaces from 3 per 1,000 sq. ft. to 1.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. to a minimum of 7 parking spaces. Al Blomquist asked why the required parking spaces was decreased w~en the property in question is on Main Street? Vrchota stated that the Planning Office recommends subdivision exception approval. Further, conceptual approval by P&Z is recommended subject to the conditions stated in the Oct. 8, 1980 Engineering memo. 715 West Main Subdivision Exception Lee Pardee asked the applicant if he had any questions. Herb Klein, representing the applicant, asked about stipulation #2 of the Engineering Dept. memo. ("the electric and commun- ication utility easement is enlarged to 7 feet by 10 feet. ") Jay Hammond of the Engineering Dept. said 7' by 10' is the normal size for a transformer. Herb Klein said that 7' by lO' could deGre~sethe parking space. Jay Hammond said the transformer pad could be put under the parking space. Perry Harvey asked if the p&Z thought this problem could be re- solved between the Engineering Dept. and the applicant. The applicant said there may be a problem with the 5 ft. wide sidewalk requirements because of the placement of a few trees. Jolene suggested the sidewalk meander around the trees. Herb Klein said yes it could meander, but it still wouldn't be 5 ft. wide in all places. Al Blomquist asked if the requirement wasn't only 3 ft. in res- idential areas? Jay Hammond answered; 5 ft. residential and 8 ft. commercial core. Roger asked how many condominium's there would be? sees a problem with reducing parking spaces and is parking spaces are insufficient. Lee reminded everyone that P&Z has approved this application to this point. Roger added that he had voted against it before because parking was inadequate, and will again unless # of units equals parking space allocation. Further opposed that he if Tom Sommers, owner of the project, said there was a reduction in size from 9 feet to 8.5 feet to allow for more open space. He further stated that they were trying to avoid having the backyard look like a parking lot. Al Blomquist asked how many square feet this building involved. Tom Sommers answered 4,500 sq. ft. with each person utilizing 300 sq. ft. Roger added that there should not be less than 1 space per seperately owned unit. Lee Pardee moved that P&Z should recommend subdivision exception approval for condominiumization subject to the following Engineering Dept. comments: l. The phrase "original Aspen Townsite" be included in all property descriptions. 2. The electric and communication utility easement is enlarged to seven feet by ten feet. 3. Owner/Applicant construct five foot sidewalk in location specified by the City Engineering Dept. 4. Section 24-4.5 of the Municipal Code requires three parking spaces for each 1,000 sq. ft. of building. This building would require approximately fourteen spaces. The architectural drawing says a variance was approved for only seven spaces. This variance was not supplied by the Engineering Dept; the parking variance needs to be verified. ~, The condominium plats should be supplied to the Engineering Dept. for checking prior to recording. Perry Harvey seconded. All in favor with the exception of Hunt. The motion was carried. Jolene Vrchota, Planning office, introduced this request for condo- miniumization through subdivision exception for an office building curr~~ly under construction. The location of the building is 715 W. Main Street, Lots D, E, F, Block 19, Aspen Townsite. The lot size is 9,000 sq. ft. in O-Office Historic District Overlay zone. There will be approximately 12 units though some tenants may occupy contiguous units. The previously existing Peterson residence will be removed from the site and a new structure built. ''',~- .- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~OFl"l'~ c. F. 1l0[C~n e. B. 1\ L Cl REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 1980 P&Z granted special review approval for reduction of parking spaces from 3 per 1,000 square feet to 1.5 per 1,000 square feet on the condition that there be no more than 10 offices within the structure to be built to include 10 spaces. The Planning office recommends subdivision exception approval for the purpose of condominiumizing not more than 10 office spaces. A commitment must be made by the applicant to include no more than 12 office spaces in the condominium plat. Further, the Planning office recommends Conceptual approval subject to the conditions stated in the October 8, 1980 Engineering memo. Lee Pardee asked if the ownerS rather than 12. be 12 spaces, some with be a limit to 10 owners applicant was willing to limit to 10 Randy Wedum answered that there would limi ted common area. However, there would of office space. Lee moved that P&Z recommend subdivision exception approval for the purposes of condominiumizing not more than 10 office spaces. Further, that this approval be subject to the following conditions set forth by the Engineering Dept.: l. The phrase "original Aspen Townsite" be added to all property descriptions. 2. The electric and communication utility easement is enlarged to the southerly ten feet of the westerly seven feet of Lot D Block 19, original Aspen Townsite or equivalent size located elsewhere. 3. Owner/applicant construct a five foot sidewalk in the location specified by the City Engineering Dept. 4. Section 24-4.5 of the Municipal Code require 20.25 parking spaces for the development. Architectural drawing says a variance was approved for ten spaces. The variance was not supplied to the Engineering Dept., this parking variance needs to be verified. 5. Condominium plats should be supplied to the Engineering Dept. for checking prior to recording. Jasmine seconded. No opposition. Motion carried. 925 E. Durant Subdivision Conceptual/ preliminary Jolene Vrchota, Planning office, introduced this application for a multi-family project, consisting of 12 employee units, (price-restricted studios), received a 1978 GMP allotment in conjunction with free market units to be located at 500 S. Galena Street. The location of the property is 925 E. Durant (Lots F, G, H, I; Block 119, Aspen Townsite). The lot size is 12,000 sq. ft. and is zoned Residential/Multi-family. Jolene further stated that all multi-family developments are required to gain subdivision approval prior to receiving a building permit. The applicants at this time are pursuing such subdivision approval. They requestedan exception from full subdivision. The Planning office recommends that the P&Z grant an exception from full subdivision, excepting only Conceptual approval before City Council. Further, the Planning office recommends the P&Z grant Conceptual and Preliminary Plat approval subject to the following Engineering Dept. conditions: 1. The applicant shall assure construction of a sidewalk along the Durant St. frontage. 2. The applicant shall provide a trash facility adjacent to the alley in conformance with Section 24-3.7 (h) (4). Perry Harvey opened the public hearing. Jolene asked that the following letters be read into the minutes, 1) Silverglo Condominium Association 2) Robert A. Dean Lee Pardee noted that he would like to see these letters brought back when the issue is before City Council. Perry closed the public hearing. Roger Hunt moved that P&Z recommend to Council approval for exception from full subdivision. Further that this approval be subject to the following conditions set forth by the Engineering Dept. , 1. Some assurance that the owner/applicant will construct side- walk along the Durant Street frontage. 2. Provision of a trash facility adjacent to the alley in conformance with Section 24-3.7 (h) (4) set parallel to the alley 10 ft. deep by 25 ft. long. The facility shown is not adequate. Jasmine seconded. All in favor. The motion was carried. Lee moved to adjourn, Harvey seconded. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 P.M. -