Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19810120 FORM ~I C. F. HOECHL a. a. II: L. CJ. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves JA,NU/VW 20, :L98l . "" '", REGULAR MEETING Members present included: Approval of Minutes Commissioner's Comments PUBLIC HEARING 70:30 for Small Projects Growth Management Ex- emption Code Amendment Castlewood/Headgate Subdivision - Preliminary Submission (Con't Public Hearing) ASpEN PLANNING AND ZONING CO~lSSION . Anderson, Hunt, Klar, Pardee, Tygre and Hedstrom. The minutes of December 2, 1980, were tabled until the next meeting. Roger stated an important comment he had made wasn't included in the minutes. There was some discussion as to whether the remodeling of first floor of City Hall was up to Code in regard to fire and safety regulations. Dan McArthur, City Engineer, said according to Clayton Meyring, Building Inspector, the remodel is up to Code. Sunny Vann announced that ther will be a Special Meeting of the P&Z on 2-10-81. Jim Reents, City Housing Director, said this Ordinance is before the P&Z primarily because of a requirement in advertising. The only change is that there is an inclusion of a way to round increments either up or down. The previous language only allowed rounding up, which was detrimental to certain small projects. Olof opened the Public Hearing. Jeff Saks, representing the Aspen Growth Management Foundation Inc., said this organization has been formed because of the intent to build a very large project in Aspen the nature of the Castlewood/Headgate project by use of this Ordinance. The organization feels this Ordinance is only appropriate for smaller projects and should not be used as a way to get around the Growth Management. Therefore, the organization is informing the P&Z Commission, that they will seek to amend the law to apply only to small projects, or as an alternative a referendum to repeal it. Lee Pardee asked who the members of this organization were? Saks answered that there are approximately 60-70 members currently and it is a non-profit organization. Roger moved to recommend approval amending the exception provisions ifically Section 24-10.2 (i). Jasmine seconded. All in favor. of the proposed Ordinance of the GMP, more spec- The motion was carried. Sunny Vann, Planning Office, recommended tabling this item to 2-10-81, and to continue the Public Hearing at that time. The reason being the applicant will take their revised pre- liminary plat submission to City Council on 1-26-81 if they have accurately interpreted the directions set forth at the informal meeting of the P&Z, City Council and the applicant. Olof opened the Public Hearing. Jeff Saks, representing the Aspen Growth Management Foundation, reiterated his previous position. Roger moved to continue the Public hearing and table action until 2-10-81 at the request of the Planning office and the applicant. Lee seconded. All in favor. The motion was carried. RIO GRANDE TASK FORCE REPORT I"""' Joe Wells, Planning Office, said this is a preliminary report of a set of recommendations made by the Task Force and submitted to the City Council. Nothing in the document is assumed to be concrete. The Task Force is recommending that a consultant be retained. Joe stated the Report is divided in four sections; 1- the site, 2- list of recommended uses, 3- general phasing, 4- discussion of acquisition sites (see report for specifics). As the Commission proceeded through the report step by step, the following questions were raised by members of the Commission. Jasmine expressed concern about the planning process used to formulate the conclusion in this report. She feels that before the (recommended) next step is taken, (budgeting $10,000.00 to retain a planning consultant) the primary issues should be resolved. These issues include amount of development vs. amount of open space and number of permitted uses. She feels there should be a concensus of groups involved before anything more specific is considered. Joan Klar agreed. She also asked what was the status of the Rio Grande Right-of-Way? Joe Wells answered that could be reacquired, by extend the right-of-way preserved. Lee said he agrees with Jasmine in principle, but felt permitted uses were KeXH specifically placed in designated areas. Olof agreed that hiring a conceptual consultant was premature until enough specific determinations have been made by P&Z and Council to provide an adequate framework for a consultant to work in. Roger added that his major concern is that this property was purchased with 7th Penny ~oney) funds for transportation related uses. This includes Site I and Site II. There doesn't seem to be any major effort to maintain the site for what it was bought for with the public funds. Jasmine addressed the concern of where will the money come from to build these buildings? Funding and budget analysis should be given a higher priority than it is given in this report. Roger added consideration should be given to other possible site considerations currently existing in the community. Olof suggested recommending that every use in this report be reviewed and considered for other possible sites. Lee suggested the Commission members give their general comments on the Site Plan. As follows: Lee said Site I should contain any major buildings, Site II - now open space should remain open space, Site 4 - stay open, Site 3 - nice place for library, but concurs with Joan that other places in community would be better. Jasmine said she likes the idea of the Greenway, and would like to see a minimum of congestion in all areas. However, any congestion should be restricted to Site I. Welton agreed with Lee that the bulk should be on Site I. Roger said he didn't mind the concentration on Site I and feels it should be transportation or law enforcement related, whereas the performing arts center belongs somewhere else. Site II for the interim should remain open space, however, if transportation related needs desire Site II in the future, that use would be okay. Roger prefers the library to stay where it is currently, and would like to see Site III and Site IV remain open space. Further, that along with the transportation structure any ac- cessory uses would be acceptable. Joan said whe would like to see the private sector do a con- ference facility needs assesment, also, all performing arts groups should determine their combined need and means of support and finally in relation to transportation she would like to see an overall transportation and parking plan for the entire Aspen metro area. the Task Force felt whatever means, the into the Rio Grande if the right-of-way possibility to property should be - .- A _~,.1;''''' -. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIlM'O C.F.HOECKELa.a.II:L.CJ. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 1981 Olof added that the distribution of open space and suggested building areas on the various sites seems quite logical. Lee suggested the following recommendations to City Council: 1. In general, concur with the Site Plan 2. The following needs must be determined; -conference needs -arts needs -transportation needs, on a City wide basis. Lou Buettner, Engineering Dept., expressed the need for a government building to house City and County offices as well as having State and federal space available. He felt the Commission should include this in their recommendation. Joe Wells said the Task Force would have considered this possibliity - but at no point in the planning process did the City request this type of facility be a consideration. General concensus of the Commission was negative, suggesting that the Rio Grande Task Force's recommendations did not in- clude this as a seperate facility. Jasmine noted that on Site IV and VI, there is a proposed conversion of the Andrew's/McFarlin Building to a restaurant or possibly building one on Site IV, Jasmine personally feels a restaurant use is not compatible with the Greenway, Joe Wells stated, based on the input from the Commission tonite, he would draft a memorandum for Council to reflect these comments. Parker/Quillen Subdivision Con- ceptual Sunny Vann, Planning office, explained to the Commission the background and previous actions concerning this application. At this point the applicants have exhausted all administrative remedies with the exception of applying under full subdivision procedures. This is a conceptual application as part of the full subdivision process simply to relocate the Lot line between the two existing lots. Once again the Planning office has recommended denial, in this case based on the intent of the subdivision regulations. Jon Seigle, attorney representing the applicant, expressed his position in relation to the City Code. In summary, he stated the Commission has to look at this application only as a lot line request, not what happens once it is granted. If this application fits through a loophole - the way to deal with it is to close the loophole through the Code amendment process. Under the present status of this application what the applicant is doing is perfectly legal. Bob Edmundson explained that the loophole is; having two, side by side lots, both of which the applicant owns and by maneuvering a lot line - 3 lots can be created. He suggested the Commission continue hearing this application and then ask questions. Joan reacted to Jon's statement to the effect that the Commission members should not be concerned with what happens if this application gets approved. She disagreed, stating that the mem- bers of the Commission should try to have a long range view of the direction in which the community is headed. She would move to deny Restaurant as a Conditional Use in the C-l Zone ---~-,~----~~""'-""'-'-~-"-'~-~~ Roger asked if this application was required to go through GMP? Bob said no, because it would be under the exception. Roger stated he sees this application as circumventing the rules and will not look the other way. He feels this type of attempt is wrong as far as the Commission is concerned. This will not get Roger's support. Lee stated he thought the conditions for granting a lot line were, for example, hardship. Every time he's seen one granted it was for that type of reason. Secondly, the GMP has a list of exceptions and lot line split is not one of them. He feels there isn't a loophole, or undue hardship, so would vote against it. Jasmine said she would agree with voting to deny, for the same reasons as stated above. Jon Seigle stated that subdivision is not a privilege this Board grants - it is a right, provided the property owner comply with the Ordinances and criteria that are set forth in the Statutes. It is his position that they have complied with all the procedures and by right are entitled to have this application approved. Roger stated he feels this is important enough to state the concerns of the P&Z in the form of a Resolution. Olof agreed, and asked Sunny to write a Resolution. Jon Seigle asked if this Resolution would delay their procedure and scheduled appearance before Council? Olof said the concensus of the Commission is to see the Re- solution before signing it - which will happen at the next scheduled meeting. Sunny Vann reiterated the stand of the Planning office. The Planning office is of the opinion that a restaurant, regard- less of the times of operation is primarily tourist oriented by the nature of the operation itself. Gideon Kaufman, attorney representing the applicant, said the key to the interpretation of the Code is, in this case, the word "primarily". If the restaurant is open year around the "primary" use will not be to accomodate the tourist. Olof asked the members for comment. Roger agreed with the Planning office, wondering what will be the difference between the C-l and C-C Zone districts if the City continues to extend uses from the C-C Zone into the C-l Zone? Joan Klar stated there has been, in the past, a problem with zoning enforcement. She feels enforcement should be more strict and this use should be denied since it is clearly an erosion of that zone. Welton stated he didn't have any problem with a restaurant in the C-l zone district. Lee said his feelings are summarized by the Planning office memo which states that when Ordinance 58 was adopted in 1977, limited food was allowed as not to compete with the full service restaurants of the C-C zone district. The restaurant proposed by the applicant could be placed in the C-C zone, whereas cer- tain ones couldn't. Lee feels the Commission should maintain that distinction. Jasmine said making those types of distinctions is arbitrary in terms of restaurants and other businesses as well. Jasmine sees no problem with a restaurant as a conditional use in the C-l Zone district. - ,",.~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIlM'1 C.F.HOECKHa.a.1I: L.C:J. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 20, 1981 Olof added to the negative comments on the proposal. Gideon Kaufman stated it seems the Commission is trying to preserve something that isn't there (ie. the original intent of the C-l Zone district), A majority of the current uses represent tourist interests. Whereas the applicant is trying to implement a restaurant that is likely to be one of the only uses oriented toward local needs. Sunny disagreed saying the zone has been invaded and there is potential for further degradation, Roger then moved to recommend denial of restaurants as a conditional use in the C-l zone district for the following reasons: 1- a restaurant is a use that is hard to define ie. difference between a tourist oriented or a primarily local oriented use. 2- it would be impossible by this Board to judge one application after another - when there isn't other zone criteria to base judgment on. 3- the basic reason to establish C-l zone is to have business's that would not be competitive with C-C zone district. 4- to allow this to be a conditional or permitted use in C-l zone district/between the C-l and C-C zone district. further degrades the distinction Lee seconded. All in favor with the exceptiones) of Jasmine and Welton. The motion to deny was carried. Welton Anderson left the meeting. NEW BUSINESS Aspen Medical Center Subdivision Esception Alan Richman, Planning office, stated this application is for subdivision exception (for purposes of commercial condo_ miniumization). The location of the building is all of Lot C and parts of Lots Band D, Block 45, City and Townsite of Aspen. The current zoning is 0 Office with Historic District Overlay. Alan further stated the four level frame office building has primarily medical arts uses, however, it does house a clothing design office as well as a resident manager. Leonard Oates, attorney for the applicant, stated the owner of the building would like to see the building used exclusively for medical arts purposes. The owner, Dr. J.S. Baxter, also wishes to change the resident manager's unit to his personal office space. Alan said the Planning office recommendation is for approval of this request for subdivision exception subject to the following conditions: 1- Revision of the applicant's condominium plat prior to sub- mission for final plat approval. The revisions should comply with conditions 2 and 3 described in the Engineering Dept. memo dated December 26, 1980, (The only change being - strike "electric transformer" and re-state as "electrical and commun- ications"). Sunny suggested adding as condition #2: 2- satisfying Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code. Madsen Subdivision Exception """,~,,~,,~~,='--""-"'---~~-~"-'-'-'- .. Following some discussion, Roger moved to recommend approval based on the above conditions #1 and #2, and to include the following: 3- In the event there's a revision in the condo plat - converting residential space to office space then parking must comply with Section 24-4.5 of the Municipal Code. 4- fire and safety inspections Joan Klar seconded. All in favor. The motion carried. Alan Richamn, Planning office, said this application is for subdivision exception for purposes of condominiumizing an existing residential complex. The applicant requests waiver of conceptual plan approval by City Council and final plat approval by P&Z under the provisions of Section 20-19 of the Municipal Code. The location of the property is Lots Q,R, and S, Block 25, City and Townsite of Aspen, zoned R6Residential. The Planning office recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Revision of the condominium plat prior to review by City Council to meet the specifications of the Engineering Dept. 2. The applicant agreeing to construct curb, gutter and side- walk on both Hopkins Avenue and Fifth Street or providing a covenant for each unit indicating their agreement to join an improvement district if one is formed. 3. The applicant meeting the requirement that existing tenants have a ninety day option to purchase their unit and a right of first refusal of purchase offer 4. The applicant meeting the requirement of six-month minimum leases 5. The applicant providing evidence that tenants have not been required to move involuntarily within the preceding eighteen months 6. The applicant filing a deed restriction for five years limiting rental of the identified unit within the middle income housing price guidelines, as adjusted through yearly price changes by City Council. (Using 240,OO/mo. as a base,) 7. Minimum safety and health inspection Gideon Kaufman, attorney representing the applicant, stated he will not accept #7 (above) as a condition. He suggested P&Z amend the Code if they continually wish to include this. Olof stated that in the Commissions recommendation to Council #7 will be included as a condition. Roger moved to recommend approval for subdivision exception based on the conditions # 1-7 above. Lee seconded. All in favor. The motion was carried. Lee moved to adjourn the meeting. Joan seconded. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 P.M. P~~~~2 Denise P. Lee Deputy City Clerk . ,'~ -