Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19810217 ,- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM \~ C. F. HOECKEL 8. B. II: L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commision Feburary 17,1981 Olof Hedstrom,Chairman, called the meeting to order. Approval of Minutes Jasmine Tygre moved to table approval of the minutes to the next meeting. Welton seconded. All in favor. The motion is carried. Commissioner Comments Lee pardee asked the status of the Code Books. Sunny Vann discussed GMP scoring. Roger Hunt discussed Council's approval of the Restaurant use in the C-I Zone District. He suggested Planning and Zoning adopt a Resolution indicating that there is , now, no enforcable difference between the C-C and C-I zone D~tricts. City Council should sponsor a zoning code amendment. Old Business Higgins Use Determination Laundry in S/C/I Jack Johnson, Planning Office, explained the history of this application. The business in question is IIYe OIde Washhouse II located in the Mill Street Commercial Building at 465 N. Mill Street. It is currently zoned SIC/I. The applicant is requesting a determination as to whether this use is permitted in the S/C/I Zone District. The ability to expand the laundromat operation is the underlying concern of the applicant. The Planning Office recommends that the use determination of "Ye Olde Washhouse" be considered a laundromat and thereby a non-conforming use in the S/C/I district. Further, that laundromats are not appropriate permitted uses in the S/C/I Zone District in the event the applicant proposes Code Amendment to accomplish such a purpose. Olof asked the Commissionmembers for comments. Al asked the locations of other laundromats in town. (The only other is on Main Street.) Sunny Vann further discussed the intent on the zone district. Welton suggested parking availability is better in this location than the Main Street laundromat location. Jasmine agreed. Richard Grice further discussed the original intent of the zone district. And more importantly he was concerned with the precedent this type of approval would create. Gideon Kaufman, attorney representing the applicant, discussed the fact that at the time the building permit was originally ~ssued the Building Department felt the use was within the intent of the zone district. Further, that this zone does have a wide variety of uses, including car wash and auto/gas service stations. Gideon offered a petition with approximately 300 signatures of residents supporting the expansion proposal. Bill Drueding, zoning enforcement officer, stated there was a permit issued in error for a laundromat. Perry said it is his feeling that this is a use that should be allowed. He would vote for this use. Joan disagrees with Perry. She would vote against this use. Roger agrees with Joan and would also vote against this use. Wilton said it is within the zone's intent; he would vote for this use. Lee feels the use would be inappropriate and would vote against such a use. Jasmine said this use is more of a service than anything else and it is within the definition of this district. She would . Laundry in S/C/I cont. Koval Rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay '-' vote for this use. Olof said the word ";industrial" was added to the Code for a reason and would be against this use in the S/C/I zone. Roger Hunt moved to deny approval of this application. Lee seconded. 4-3 in favor of approving denial, Jack Johnson, Planning Office, stated this is an application for a property located at 135 E. Cooper St., South West corner of Aspen and Cooper Street. The current zoning is RMF. The following approvals are being requested simultaneously: 1. Rezoning to Residential Multi-Family/Residential Bonus Overlay. 2. Exemption of the GMP, via 70:30 Deed Restricted Housing. 3. Subdivision Exception Waiving Conceptual before City Council and preliminary Plat before Planning and Zoning. Steve Bash, representing the applicant, answered questions raised by various referral agencies. Office memo dated February 12, 1981.) some of the (See Planning Olaf opened the public hearing. Debbie Aiken, resident, against for reasons of displacement and parking problem. Norma Dahl, Snow Queen Lodge, against because parking in area is terrible and this should require at least 1-1 parking requirement Paul Anderson, 210 E. Cooper St., any new structure would be an improvement, but parking is a problem-so he objects for that reason. Dave Ellis, Timberidge Condominium Association, objected due to improper notification. Mr. Hallam, area resident, wasn't properly noticed. Marge Riley wondered if the house wasn't designated historic? Cliff LuEllyn, opposed because of parking. Bernard Uchlych, Manager of Little Red Ski House, Upkeep of present property is poor, parking is a problem and he would be against the proposal. Olof closed the public hearing. Roger said given the circumstances and public testimony, it is imperative parking be given the 1-1 requirement, This is the minimum Roger could be satisfied with, Perry agreed about the parking. At this point the applicant suggested they may go back to the drawing board to find a solution to the parking requirement. Olof then reopened the public hearing. He entertained a motion to continue this public hearing, thus tabling action on this matter to March 17, meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission,giving the applicant an opportunity to adjust their application. Roger so moved. Joan seconded. All in favor. The motion is carried. -2- ~ ",""" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 5~ C. F. HOECKEL B. e. II: l. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commision February l7,1981 Olof decided due to lack of time the following items would be tabled to a Special Meeting to be held February 24, 1981. Roger so moved. Jasmine seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Olof opened the Public Hearing for the Code Amendment to Life, Health and Safety Amendments to Section 20-22. He entertained a motion to table action as well as continue Public Hearing to the Special meeting February 24, 1981. Lee so moved. Roger seconded. All in favor. The motion is carried. Code Amendment Dormitory in the R-6 Zone District under REO Public Hearing Joe Wells, Planning Office, reminded the Commissionmembers that this Code Amendment has no direct relationship to the Little Annie application. A decision about this Code Amendment should not be based on feelings about Little Annie application. This is a Public Hearing to give consideration to arnmend the Code by the addition,as a Conditional Use, under the R-6 REO provisions to permit the Dormitory Use. The two canges the Planning Office recommends to the Section are: 1. To relocate the R-6 zone District from Section 24-10. 4A to section B. ie. this change shifts the R-6 Zone District form a section in which the dormitory use is not permitted, to one in which the dormitory use is permitted by Conditional Use. 2. (Since dormitory use cannot be defined as a dwelling unit) The Planning Office recommends a language change to Section 24-10. 5B(1) which would establish an equivalent number of dormitory bedrooms to equate to a dwelling unit. The precise language change would be,..."to determine permitted densisty for a dormitory use, the total number of dormitory bedrooms proposed shall be divided by a factor of 6 to establish an equivalent number of dwelling units." Olaf opened the Public Hearing. There were no public comments. Olaf closed the Public Hearing. Following some discussion among the Commissionmembers, ~erry suggested the language include, "for purposes of employee housing", as part of the definition of dorm;itory use. Everyone agreed. Roger Hunt moved to have the Planning Office draft a Resolution to bring back to Planning ~nd Zoning, Lee seconded. All in favor. The motion is carried. Little Annie Base Area Rezoning to REO Joe Wells, Planning Office, stated this is in effect a rezoning procedure. Olof opened the Public Hearing. Steven Straight, Aspen Chamber of Commerce, stated a very positive response to the overall Little Annie project for the following reasons: 1. Snowmass 2. Aspen living on reputation 3. Skiing Quality 4. Competition in area 5. Longer ski season -3- .L r ~. Lee Miller, Task Force, reiterated Steven's points, etc. Olof closed the Public Hearing. The Commission discussed the Resolution (Draft February 6, 1981 found in the packet) in detail. The following points and/or questions were raised; Jasmine asked shouldn't ski passes be added as "whereas...lI? Bob Edmundson, acting City Attorney, suggested this would be mor legally binding if it were included as a "therefore." The Commission decided this should go in the "Whereas" and the Therefore" sections of this Resolution. Concerning the "Therefores" in this Resolution: l. Employee Housing (p.5) Lee feels the blank should say "low-income" housing. The Commission agreed to low , thus "low -income" should be put in that blank. They also agreed to add a clause protecting Little Annie, should the City's Housing Guidelines effect Annie's being able to rent to their employees. 2. Transportation, parking and pedestrian circulation The Commission agrees that this issue is the basic concern. Joan Klar said she feels comfortable with the language in the Resolution as it is written. She recommended a task force to coordinate the transportation issue. Perry agreed that the task force would be effective and should include public input. Also, there should be consideration of the total emission load, ie. delivery service, employees, skiers, etc. Lee, speaking for the Commission, reworded #3 as follows: H...They are in order of priority: a. Minimization of leading time, ease of access and: egress b. Ability to reduce the number of trips and wehicles in operation. c. Attractiveness of the system; minimum noise and emissions. d. energy efficiency e. Flexibility (ability to be integrated into City system) f. Minimization of necessary improvements to ute Avenue.t1 Olaf entertained a motion to instruct the Planning Office to draft a Resolution incorporating the changes put forth (above) by this Commision. This will be done for the Commission, consideration at their Special Meeting next Tuesday. Perry so moved. Lee seconded. All in Favor, The Motion is carried. Lee Pardee moved to adjourn the meeting. Joan seconded. All in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:l5 P.M. CD~R~Q-- Denise p. Lee Deputy City Clerk -' -