Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19801104 ,.-.., RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FO~M \(I C. F. HOECK~L B. B. !l< L. co. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION llOlIeMBEl< 4, 1980 Welton Anderson, Vice-chairperson, called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. with members Harvey, Hunt and Tygre present. Also present were attorneys Edmundson and Kaufman. Approval of Minutes Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes of regular meeting, with three noted changes. seconded. All in favor. The minutes were October 7-, 1980 Jasmine Tygre approved. Commissioner's Comments Sunny Vann, Planning office, stated there is an application that will come before the P&Z on November 18, 1980 regarding the Aspen Ski Lodge. The applicant is aware the Commission may wish to inspect the site and is willing to arrange something before November 18, 1980. OLD BUSINESS Christopherl Ulrych Rezoning Sunny Vann, Planning office, introduced the Christopherl Ulrych rezoning. The applicant's are requesting rezoning of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 4, Lakeview Addition, from R-15, Mandatory PUD, to NC, Neighborhood Commercial. Their property totals approximately 10,280 square feet and is located on the north side of Puppy Smith Street behind the new Post Office. Further, the applicant's wish is to construct a three level structure of approximately 10,000 sq. ft. The Planning office has reviewed the applicant's request and offers the following comments: I. None of the proposed uses outlined in the attached letter are permitted by right in the NC zone district. Business and professional offices and accessory dwelling units, however, are designated as conditional uses subject to P&Z approval. 2. Sufficient NC zones currently exist in the area, and the community at large, to provide for neighborhood-oriented con- venience establishments designed to serve the trade and service needs of the resident population. Similarly, more than ample office zoning is available throughout Aspen to accomodate additional business or professional office demand. A Shortage however, does exist within the SICII zone district, a zoning category intended to allow for the use of land for limited commercial and industrial purposes, e.g., electrical and plumbing service shops, builders' supply, warehousing, and storage, etc. 3. Ther~oning of any additional acreage outside the CC and C-l zone districts for commercial use will further increase the potential for commercial development outside of Growth Management controls, a situation which has been repeatedly identified as a major contributor of new employee housing demand. 4. While neighborhood in question has undergone a number of changes in recent years, the essential character of the area north of the Trueman Center has remained relatively unchanged. The post office, for all practical purposes, completes the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial SPA Plan, forming a boundary between permitted NCI SICII uses and the ResidentiallHallam Lake natural areas to the northwest. To permit development of the applicants' property would represent a further en- croachernnt upon a highly sensitive area. 5. Puppy Smith Street is already highly impacted by the traffic generated by the Trueman Center, the post office, and the various commercial uses located in the adjacent Mill Street Venture development. To allow further commercial development in this area, particularly NC commercial establishments, would further exacerbate a highly congested transportation network. In view of the above comments, the Planning office recommends that the applicants' request for rezoning to Neighborhood Commercial be denied. In summary, the Puppy Smith Street currently serves as a logical boundary between commercial development to the south and the more sensitive Hallam Lake area to the north. Similarly, the R-15 zoning of the Lake- view Addition functions as a protective buffer between these two areas. In view of the extensive Neighborhood/Commercial development currently existing in the area, the ample avail- ability of O-Office zoning in other parts of the City, and the highly congested nature of Puppy Smith Street, it is our opinion that no demonstrable benefit results from allowing further commercial encroachment north of Puppy Smith Street. Sunny stated the Planning office has received two letters concerning this application. The first is from Donna Mill~r Ward, Member of A.C.E.S. Board of Directors. She states her opposition to this negative encroachment on the Hallam Lake land. (Letter jointly signed by Patricia Hodgson.> The second letter, from the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies also opposes this application for rezoning. Also included was a',22 person petition opposing the rezoning of this property. Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, handed out to the Commission letters from appraisers and realtors in town. Gideon presented the applicant's reasons for requesting re- zoning at this time. In summary, these included the following; I. Neighborhood changes, ie. the applicant feels there is a better use for his particular property due to changes that have occured around him. 2. Neighborhood changes, ie. changes in circumstances occuring in a neighborhood. Smart planning should allow a person to change his property use in conjunction with the uses that have changed in the surrounding neighborhood. Gideon presented a picture of the applicant's property, pointing out how the land uses of the area have changed. Further, that the property is surrounded by the sewer, the Post Office and the Electric sub-station. He stated that a fundamental prin- ciple of zoning is that the uses should be consistent with surrounding uses. Therefore, a number of years ago, when this particular property was zoned R-15, that zoning would have been consistent with surrounding uses. However, that area has changed such that it would be appropriate to change the zoning on this particular property. Sunny Vann added the following comments of clarification. While the Planning office doesn't ignore the fact that there have been some changes in the area, to allow commercial development of this particular property would definately precipitate a more substantial change in the area through the inability to further stop commercial proliferation North of Puppy Smith St. Anderson asked what the allowable buildout would be on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot zoned R-15A? Sunny said the only controls would be on setback and height limitations, and at this point they could build a duplex. - -- ,:) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FO~M'. C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.CO. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1980 Welton opened the public hearing. Michael Stranahan, Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, Reasons: In opposition. l}Hallam Lake 2} meadow 3}Street congestion K. Roulhac Garn, attorney for Mrs. Paepcke, In opposition Reasons: l}pedestrian/vehicular traffic 2)noise and air pollution Richard Cicero, resident on Puppy Smith St., In opposition Reasons: l}character of street 2}enough other commercial space in town. Patti Hodgson, neighbor and board member of A,C,E.S., In Reasons: opposition, l)sanctuary area Joan Lane, area resident, In opposition Reasons: l}traffic congestion Jane Cicero, area resident, In oppostion. Peggy Rowland, In opposition Reasons: l)a three story building is too high for the area. Frank Christopher, owner of the building stated he has been leasing out the building since he purchased it two years ago. The current tenants constantly complain about the Post Office traffic. Carla Stroh, area resident, In opposition. Reasons: I} impact 2)traffic and congestion Welton closed the public hearing. GideQn Kaufman assured the public that the issue was not the applicant's against Hallam Lake. This property is the farthest most piece of property from Hallam Lake. This property will be the one that suffers the most from the changes that have taken place. There will be an impact because of this property whether it is 2 - 3 bedroom structures or one structure with professional space and possibly employee housing. Roger Hunt stated he feels residential is appropriate for that property. Jasmine agreed adding that just because the neigh- borhood has changed, that that implies where commercial is, commercial should go. She doesn't think that is true. Also, just because there is a buffer between the property and the Environernntal Center, that eventually it is going to effect that area more than a residential use would. Given Institute Roger Hunt moved to have the Planning office draft a Resolution recommending denial of the ChristopherlUlrych rezoning application indicating that expanding NIC in this vicinity is not in the best interest of the community, residential zoninglappropriate and also including Planning office comments #1-5, above. Jasmine seconded. All in favor. The motion was carried. Karen Smith, Planning office, explained that this application is a public hearing to consider the rezoning of the Given Institute located on West Francis Street, from R-6, Residential to A-Academic. The proposed new facility is primarily a dormitory facility. While the dormitory is not the subject of this rezoning application, it is the reason for it, as dormitories are allowed as a conditional use only in the academic zone. If approved for rezoning, the Given Institute plans to follow with an application for SPA, and conditional use approval. There are at least three more public hearings in this process. As aforementioned, the current application is for academic zoning. The difference in the use of the property from what was proposed in 1971 exists in a couple of areas: primarily the facility will go from being a 3-month summertime facility with occasional meetings during the winter months to a year- round facility. The research and academic nature of the fac- ility is intended to remain the same. There is a proposal in the application for some usage by other schools within the University of Colorado or outside, but again the nature of this would be purely academic, research, lectures, etc. The academic zone is something that was amended and added to the zoning code subsequent to the original application. The A zone is intended to establish areas used for educational and cultural activities with attended research, housing and ad- ministrative facilities. All development is to proceed according to a site plan approved pursuant to the provisions of Article VII which is the SPA provision. The intended use of the property which would be applied for in future conditional use and SPA applications would be a dormitory with some 28 rooms, 3 faculty apartments, and 3 other administrative apartments, with a dining facility. The concerns that have been raised are of two natures. First, that the use of the facility has somehow expanded beyond what was originally represented and is not strictly academic re- search and the other uses provided for in the Academic zone. Secondly, there is a great concern about the parking situation and congestion in the neighborhood. While these matters could be addressed during the conditional use phase there is also some- thing that might be attached as aronditional review in conjunc- tion with the rezoning. The Planning office recommendation has been made strictly on the rezoning matter. In the Planning office view the rezoning is appropriate because the site is clearly used as an academic facility, which is the existing use. Also, that this use can be consistent with a neighborhood use. The Academic zone in question would cover an area of approximately 2 acres which are currently adjacent to an existing school. Karen entered into the record letters and telegrams from the public expressing favor or opposition to the proposed appli- cation: David Levy, area resident, In opposition Elmer G. Beamer, area resident, In favor Robert Larnrn, area resident, In opposition Dr. A.J. Frishman, In opposition ".... -.., - ...,; -. - ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM I. C.F.HOECKfLB.B.!l<L.CO. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1980 Robert Gronner, In opposition Roulhac Garn, representing Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, In opposition Charles Dwight, President Tierra Corp., In opposition Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Dittman, In opposition Mr. and Mrs. Terry J. Lewis, In opposition Roddy Burdine, In opposition Ann Altemus, area resident, In opposition Geri Vagneur, area residnet, In opposition Carol Ann Jacobsen and Don Kopf, City residents, In opposition Donald King, introduced himself as director of the Given Institute since 1972. Mr. King discussed the history of the project since 1965. That the purpose of the Given Institute as an academic, non-money making institution has been fulfilled. He further discussed the need for a dormitory facility for the persons who attend the institute. Over the years, the housing and food costs have risen in Aspen so greatly, that the high costs of attending this program are forcing out the people that the institute was originally put up for. In addition, Don stated he received the directive that said there was no opposition to this rezoning, so he did nothing to prove support. He also offered that members of the Institute would be more that happy to meet with concerned groups andlor citizens to work out any problems. Mr. Carl Harnrnergren, the architect for this project made the comment that the submitted drawing is not the final drawing. The final design will not even be started until this rezoning process is completed. Anderson asked if the number of dormitory rooms and apartments is definate? Harnrnergren explained the entire proposed budget for the project was built around the cost of this number of rooms and the amount of income, through student fees, this would generate. Anderson also asked if this would include additional main- tenance, food service and maid service personnel, or would they have to find housing elsewhere? Harnrnergren said they do not anticipate a substantial increase in the amount of employees. They currently offer employee housing. Don King expressed concern about correcting dumpster problems, cars, felt that parking problems would decrease, that traffic would decrease with more on-site facilities. Perry harvey was concerned about seasonal use. What would the levels be in January-February, March-April, for instance? How many weeks druing the year would it be used? King explained that it was a small facility and the economics had been set up so that it did not have to be used during the winter months. Welton opened the public hearing. The following persons expressed their opposition to this proposal: Jon Seigle Peggy Rowland Carol Ann Kopfe George Vicenzi Michael Stranahan Joan Lane Carla Stroh David Auter Jane Cicero Edith Holyoke Richard Cicero The input from the public was overwhelmingly in opposttion to the proposed rezoning for the following reasons: Shoaf/Quillen Subdivision Exception Rehearing this rezoning would be just one more step in the direction of chewing away at the residential zones (snowball effect), that Hallam Lake needs no more encroachment on its natural systems, dogs would harrass the wildlife, noise would affect the serenity and habits of wildlife, the addition of a dorm would aggravate an already bad traffic and parking problem endangering the children of the neighborhood; service vehicles would further exacerbate congestion, that the Given Institute was allowed to build originally as a conditional use and this was never the intent of the original approval to allow further expansion; that Mrs. Paepcke's wishes were being violated by the proposed expansion, that the proposed site for the building would block foot traffic patterns, that the Institute's gesture in 1970 was to work toward auto disincentive and it seems to be forgotten, that the Institute should get together with the neighborhood for input and working out grievances. In response to these many criticisms, Don King expressed surprise at the strenght of the opposition. He again stated that they perfectly willing to work with neighbors to come up with an acceptable solution. After some discussion of the pros and cons of approving or tabling the rezoning, Karen Smith pointed out that the City would have controls over the Given Institute since they would have to go through the SPA planning process before anything could be constructed. The P&Z considered tabling the item to explore more fully the history leading up to this request, and for the Institute to organize neighborhood meetings. Karen supported the rezoning since the uses are so different from the rest of the neighborhood. Jasmine Tygre moved to table this application until the next meeting or until historical evaluation is received. Perry Harvey seconded. The motion was unanimously carried. Welton Anderson announced that the Interim City Attorney's P&Z representative had some comments to make. Bob Edmundson said that Perry Harvey had addressed the following questions to him; l)Seigle wants to be heard - due process 2}Sees no reason this Commission should hear it, unless circumstances have clearly changed. Seigle said he didn't think all of the options had been explained when this application first came out. The options that were explained that if the Commission denied the exception procedure that the applicant must go through Growth Management. Sunny Vann said it is not a failure in his estimation to present the information. The inference was that process in question on the right to build on a newly created lot could not be co~- structed without going through Growth Management. Jon is ~plying that there is a third alternative and that is going through sub- division. That alternative is precluded to him because the City Code says land cannot be subdivided until that land has received Growth Management allotment/permission. Bob Edmundson noted that the sequence of events that led up to this include a lawsuit since the previous application. Should this lawsuit affect the Commission's decision? Or should this application be considered when a lawsuit is pending? Welton asked the Commission for their comments. - '- -.... , - .--",~.._-------,_.".._,",-- "" ..~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1980 FORM!. C. F. ~OECKEL B. O. &: L. CO. New Business C-l Zone District Restaurant as a Conditional Use - Request to Initiate Amendment Jon Seigle added that there is nothing in the Code that says if an application is denied, it can't reapply. Also, there is a significant Catch 22 going on here; if an applicant does not file a lawsuit within 30 days the ability to get back into the process is lost. The applicant was forced by time and nothing else. Jon submits that there is nothing inthe code that says reapplication is not in order, and also there is additional information that can be presented that mayor may not make a difference. However, this information should be entitled to be heard by the Commission. Sunny Vann stated that there is nothing to preclude the applicant from bringing it back, that is not the issue. Roger said he hasn't heard anything yet to convince him that there is a change in this application. After further lengthy discussion, Roger Hunt moved to deny a rehearing of this application because there is not sub- stantial changes in circumstances. Perry Harvey seconded. Jasmine Tygre abstained. All in favor. The motion was carried. Jolene Vrchota, Planning office, stated that this application requests that P&Z initiate an amendment to the Municipal Code to allow full-service restaurants as conditional uses in the C-l zone. The Planning office recommends that this code change not be initiated by P&Z. Circumstances surrounding the clear intent for the C-l zone have not changed since the same dis- cussion occured in 1977. Gideon Kaufman presented a map of the C-C and C-l zones to the Commission. He stated this first came to his attention when an applicant was interested in putting a restaurant in the old post office building. Currently the zones in Aspen that allow full-service restaurants are the C-C, L-l, and L-2 and O-Office zones. There is a need in this community for neighborhood type restaurants, but they cannot compete in the commercial zone. The only place that they are 'allowed is in the O-Office zone, which makes no sense. This application is seeking conditional rather than permitted use status so that P&Z has final approval of specific applications. This would include the requirement that such restaurants be required to serve year-round and to serve low to moderate priced items, with a menu aimed toward a family clientele (rather than tourist). Also, that three restaurants already exist in the C-l zone. If the City is going to meet the need of neighborhood commercial restaurants in the future, the C-l zone seems to be the logical place. Gideon reminded the P&Z that since the application is for a conditional use, all applications will come before this Com- mission. Perry Harvey said that if P&Z doesn't have some avenue for a restaurant to go in here they will continue to be spread out. This leads to more traffic activity and since Main St. is the place to put restaurants - there is no parking available there anyway. Perry feels it's important to give an alternative. W.H.O.P. Stream Margin Review (Annexation) Prospector Lodge Employee Unit Special Review Welton entertained the motion to allow a full-service locally- oriented restaurant as a conditional use in the C-l zone district if it meets the conditions that it is open 12 months a year, primarily breakfast and lunch with low to moderately priced menu aimed toward family-oriented clientele. Perry Harvey so moved. Jasmine seconded. Roger said that in looking at what is being done in the entire district and also the conditions in this motion concerning family orientation he has the following concern; I} that may be fine for the first application, but after that owner has sold out and increased prices is helping assume the loss by the second owner - How can prices ever be controlled to stay at a family level? Jolene asked that there could be a clarification in the motion that P&Z is moving to sponsor an amendment and to schedule a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Perry Harvey moved to amend his previous motion. Jasmine Tygre moved to amend her second of the previous motion. All in favor with the exception of Roger. The motion was carried. Jolene Vrchota, Planning office, stated that this parcel of land was annexed and simultaneously zoned to R-15A under requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code and Colorado Annex- ation regulations. It was very clear in the annexation agreement thatfuis would only be a singlefamily residence, not to exceed 2,400 sq. ft. Before this Commission at the present time is Stream Margin Approval for a single-family residence proposed to be constructed within 100 feet of the 100 year floodplain of Castle Creek. The Planning office has recommended approval of this Stream Margin Review with the specific conditions that are mentioned which would allow for and insure that there isn't an increase in erosion, any detrement to the stream bank, any removal of vegetation, etc. Perry Harvey asked if the building department checks these things as a condition of the permit? Jolene said when the building Inspector looks at the plans for that building he makes sure that none of these conditions are violated. Roger moved to approve the Stream Margin Review of the W.H.O.P. building site as presented to us conditioned on #1-4 Planning office memo dated 10/27/80. Jasmine seconded. All in favor. The motion was unanimously carried. Welton Anderson stepped down, Roger Hunt assumed acting Chairman. Sunny Vann, Planning office, stated that pursuant to Section 24-10.2 (h), the applicant is requesting special review approval to construct an employee housing unit in the Prospector Lodge. The applicant proposes to construct an approximately 630 sq. ft. one bedroom employee housing unit to replace an existing efficiency unit of approximately 250 sq. ft. This unit will be deed restricted for a period of fifty years under the City's moderate income guidlines. The Planning office recommends approval subject to the following two conditions; 1. The deed restriction of the one bedroom employee unit for a period of fifty years under the City's moderate income rental guidelines, said restriction to be executed prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. The construction of the employee unit otherwise complying ,.... - ~ .-' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FO~M I. C. F. ~OECI(EL B. B. !l< L. co. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1980 with all requirements imposed by the Zoning Code, a final determination of compliance to be made at such time as working drawings are submitted for a building permit. Roger asked the Commission for questions. Jasmine Tygre asked if there has been an application to condo- miniumize the Prospector? Sunny said not at this time. Roger asked if Sunny would define an efficiency unit. Sunny said that would be a unit without a seperation between the living area and the bedroom. Roger Hunt entertained the motion to recommend special review approval of the employee unit in the Prospector Lodge as pre- sented with conditions #1 and 2 of the Planning Office memo dated 10/30/80 being included in this motion. Jasmine so moved. Perry seconded. Welton abstained. The motion was unanimously carried. Resolution #80-14 Ulrych Rezoning to RBO and other approvals Perry Harvey moved to approve the Resolution #80-14 of Ulrych Rezoning and other approvals. Roger Hunt seconded. All in favor. The Resolution was signed by Welton Anderson. Perry moved to adjourn the meeting. Jasmine seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. JJ-w'~g , P. ~J Denise P. Elzinga Deputy City Clerk