Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19810602 .,~__~".,'<'~~~h",,~'^","'~"'____ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 00 Leaves FORM \'I C. F. HOECKEL B. B./I LCD. Regular Heeting ASPEN PLANNING AMD ZONING COHHISSION June 2, 1981 Hembers present included: Olof Hedstrom, Welton Anderson, Perry Harvey, Roger Hunt, Lee Pardee, Jasmine Tygre, Al Bloomquist. ~ Hr. Olof Hedstrom brought the meeting to order at 5:00p.m. COHHISSIONERS' COHHENTS - Erma Prodinger was present from Shawdow Hountain Neighborhood -they want to submit a breif petiton and make a request. "Construction in area is very disturbing... it is suppose1to be a residential area. Distances between houses are 5 or- ~O feet apart... So many people upset." Olof ~ read the petition. Olof Hedstrom continues meeting with the new Duplex on the South side corner of Hyman and Garmisch (7400 sq. ft.) over 6,000 allowed. Petiton will be turned over to Planning Office. Comments cont.- Ht. of KSNO Bldg. does it exceed? Sonny states" It is in vhe limits --, or Bldg. Dept would not have given a permit." Sonny scheduled a work session for Tues. /iil'.. June 9, 1981 5:00 p.m. for further discussion of Hanagement by objectives. Special Meeting scheduled at that time by Mr. Hedstrom. Alan Richman suggests a meeting on June 30. Olof agrees to special meeting on the 30th. PUBLIC HEARING - Mill Street - Trueman Property - Use Determination Colette- provided information and stated Planning office recommends approval of the Granting of the Conditional Use Permit. Sonny- background information, if the SPA plan is adopted for two uses NC and SCI. Orig. intent - limit one to 1st fl. and one to 2nd fl. The question is "If a use is either legally a SCI or NC use?" Commission finds that there is too much of one or the other. Can you turn down one of those uses for location of that structure? Paul Taddune- Cannot. Olof Hedstrom- we must vote according to what code states, is that correct Paul? Paul- Thats correct...I instruct the commission not to vote on the basis of disagreement of distant codes and regulation. Nonetheless you must vote approval if certain conditions are met. Bloomquist- I have read both the SCI and NC and I find no offices permitted. Colette- Conditional Use? Welton Anderson-I move to grant the conditional use permit for a Travel Agency -t~.be ocated in space 111 in the lower level of N. Mill Station 300 Puppy Smith St. Perry Harvey- I second &.egsF I ...v~ld OUPPULl".. ..L[ wv...l_h ':-~1u~~S... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves rDRM \~ C. F. HOECKEL B. B. /I L. CD. All in favor of I1Ption, except Al Bloomquist. Motion is carried. Alan Richrnan- Resolution of Approval for Proposed Code Amendment - Lot Line Adjustment Procedure and the Subdivision Exception portion of the code. We are coming back to you with a resolution of approval. You asked for more specific criteria for lot line adjustment. Al Bloomquist- this will create a condition similar to the situation where the code "_~ says one 'tbing one place and something else in another. Amend 20-5 Grant D by addin ~'Y~~g C 201g14 - i Paul Taddue- I agree (') Roger- Correct record - we are~sponding to Parker Quinlen on this IjIatter. I'll move to approve the proposed resoulution Amendments section 20-19 concernii1g lot line movements etc. with the amendment proposed by Al Bloomquist. All in favor New Business- Vincenzi/ Goldstein Subdivision Exception ( Condominiumization) Alan Richman- Request to condominize the building at 300 S. Spring at E. Hyman to the old office zone at 6000 sq. feet it contains nine commercial units. Located directly across from the post office (old) Herb Paddock- The violations we are dealin with shouldn't have been allowed unprotected openings, wiring, sprinkler system should be added etc. guardrails out of place. severe problems with typw of constrution. \-lelton- what code was it built under? HerD- 1970 Welto n- What specific items were in violation HerD-relate to courtyards and proteceted openings into exit passsage ways. Welton- The life health safety amendment to the code was originally written to deal pr:imarily with residential condominiums. The list Herb read off is accurate. Olof- Remind Commission - Some issues establish policy. We must rely on Bldg. inspector comments. Policy Decision inherent of the wording of Code ammendment. Lee Pardee- Fire related and the cost should not be our concern but welfare of occupants of the bldg. Giddion- The Board of Appeals granted it permission to build the court yard. Welton- the 00. of apppeals can grant it again. Al Bloomquist- what the condition does is mandate the inspection if you want to condominiumize. Olof- Exactly Perry- Whether we should consider the diffefence between a residential and a corrunercial bldg. Because of added fire hazards... I would throw it out. Does the code amendment sites any difference betwween residential and corrunercial. O1of- What does Corrunission think about difference between corrunercail and residential Lee- I think we shoud comply with code. Jasmine- I agree Roger- Herb Paddock- With the duties of the fire Marshall theses kinds of discrepancies would be listed as well on any fire life safety inspection. Perry- When someone applies for condominiumization bhat a refferal would go out to the Bldg; Dept. before the inspection. Shpuld be done prior to application When it comes to us we have a list of the violations. and will have an agreement or disagrrement. Olof- I don't find any objections Al Bloomquist- ONe of the conditions here are the applicant comply with schedule recorrunended by Bldg. inspector. Include this automatically. Alan Richrnan- the The conditions that are suggested for your review we suggest approval the application. Giddion- The pupose of the rights M first refusal in 6 mo. with peF~eRee-- the tenents in residential situations are nver intended for to be included in corrunercial kinds of situations.. What is the purpose of granting a tenant in a corrunercial space the right of refusal. The whole purpose of the condominiumization or related to employee housing is to give the people who rented lo'li! income units certain benefits Olof- I agree. Perry- Giddion what are you tlaking about? Giddion- Puropse for adopting that for low income housing never intended to apply to commercial settings. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C. F. HOECKEL B. B.II L. CD. Perry- I have no problem with the right of foirst refusal. Olof items 4 and 5 should we strike those? Al - Yes both Welton- 5 out Rogr- both out olof- both out Jasmine- rewrite 4 and take out fi17e. Lee- 5 out. Perry- strrike out keep 4 strike five. Giddion- I have 2 other comments: The on'lif requirement of the engineering Dept. the applicant can irrunediately construct a five wide by four inch thick concrete sidewalk adjacent toto E. Hyman Ave. that leaves five vacant lots that are unimproved and that are always muddy. The applicant is willing when the other property is improved to build the sidewalks - there is any need to put the sidewalks in now leading to five vacant lots that no one walks to . Why put a sidewalk in that doesn't go anywhere.? Giddion- I would like to put on the record that your refusal to revew the scope of the Bldg. inspectors inspection whether he is exceeding his authority is in legal delegation 0: of your power. We may have to contest that in court. Paul- Please expound on that Giddion- When you delegate certain authority to the bldg. inspector and then refuse to look at what he does I think you are giving up certain of your rights. I want to preserve my right to contest that. As if it pertains to whether or not they are health and safety. They are not going to look at the items the Bldg. inspector is reviewing. Whether they go outwside of health and safety and i think that is an illegal delegation. If they choose to agree wi- with them thats fine.. If I say to you this outside of health and safety. You dcim't have an appeal to us Al Bloomquist- You as an applicant want to condominiumize , one of the conditions is that you submit to an inspection. The offficer inspecting has alll the authorty in the world. Giddion- My point is if i feel it is outside of the scope in health and safety. you are not even giving me an opportunity to make that argument with you. Olof- Paul where do 'life stand? Paul- Expain how the recorrunendations of the Bldg. inspector do not constitute health and safety. Lee- We are not experts in the code and we cannot overrule engineering dept. Alan- then the board that he goes to is not P&Z. Paul- You are making a condition of approval that the applicant complies with the Bldg. inspectors requirements. can the applicant take your decision and appeal it. to the board of bldg. and appleas. I think that is is within your cognicense to determine thooe matter that are within ypour jurisdiction and not within the bldg. depts jurisdiction. Applicant should be given opportunity to make an argument. O1of - Paul- I suggest that you give applicant a chance to be heard and nojz accept as gospel what Bldg in Welton- My main concern is that - amendment was made to upgrade to ammeliarate code situations. I don't think it is morally or practically reasonable to bring it up to current coded . I want to insure there is a proper channel if applicant feels that a condition is unfair unreasonablr, petty., with a commission or board for appeal to at least be heard by people with that expertise to make that determination Lee- Isn't that the board of adjustments? Giddeon- I am hearing for the first time what is applicable and what isn't. I need ahody such as yourself to hear my appeal. I am trying to set a president here so that if my client feels that something is outside of health safety and welfare Welton- this board does not ~fte have the background Olof-We have two things here: lOur obligation to here his exception If he wishes to make an appeal Paul- I advise you at that time that Giddion makes his arguments as to whether it is in your jurisdiction or whether it is in the cognicensece of the Bldg. Dept.thererfore we should appleal to the Ed. of appeals. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM II C.F.HOECKELB.B.aL.CD. Olof- We are going to table this Al Bloomquist- You have now inspected the Bldg. U.e-- You have determined there are five or six violations of the code. What is your responsibility under the law whether or not condominiumization proceeds. Herb- My responsibility under the law is to see that hose corrections are made at whatever time and fashion I deem to be resonable. Al- By the mere act of condominiumization you put your client in jeapardy whether or not he continues. Lee- It is not a question of condominiumization- they are not up to code and they have to be. Paul- If Giddion has objections then I suggest that he make them to you. Giddeon- I would like to table until the next meeting Olof- I Make a motion to table action on the Vinenzi/Goldsteein Subdivision exception. ( Condominiumization) application at the applicants request. to the next regual meeti-g of the P&Z.Roger- I 2nd the motion. All in favor Bill Dunaway- May I ask Paul a question? When the Bd. of appeals and examiners several years ago when many bldgs were built they felt it was in the public interst to give them code variances to permit ... Paul- I would that those varieances are binding upon the Blg center in that the violation which were given do not constitute violations. Herb- They can't approve alternatemeans of environmental safety. Perry- Roger- excused from meeting OLof- Vincent Buildin Co. Subdivision Rxce tion Condominiumization Alan Richman- Purposes of Condominiumzing a duplex which has been built on this lot right adjcent to this lot which just recently approved a GMP application to build one new unit Eng dept comments tha the applicant should revise and submit plans indicated in amemorandum that some of the items that need provision second- question about parking during site inspection. ppm applicant should provide electrical communicatic easment for SE corner of parcel. 6mo. minimun lease clause. Planning aft~-g office recommends approval of the request for condominiumization Lee- We are reqquired six monthminimun lease but we are not concerned about loss of any employee units. What was there before this was built. Giddion- brand new duplesx L-- we might have aproblem with the restricted unit.If it was a house we need to find out what was rent, how many sq. feet does it fit within employee guidelines. Olof-Make a motion - Until it is determined it s a house and rental history Lee- 2nd all in favor the motion is carried. C. Mill Street Shopping Plaza- Exempttion from GMP- Special Resview for Parking Collette- Allotment for ~5Tge-s~~~et20,500 sq ft fe~-~fte-a~~~~~eft of new Kommer cial space in addition to the retention of 6500 sq ft. of existing space. Three employee apartments were included in the plan. One unit in the plan was substandard size. HPC approved the new design. Lee- I don't think HPC is the proper body to say that thjs meets the GM allocations Colette- It doesn't change the sq. footage. ~fte The changes result in having bigger employeee units and having ]6 sq ft as a decrease. Lee- I object to HPC being able to change almost anything when their concern is with design. OLof- It is an evaluation that someone is making on a change of what was. Objecti ion i that we went to a procedure all these things. How much can they change it. Who decided? Lee- What is the amswer to all those questions? What is the fine line between minor accept change in something that is major enough nad reevaluate under a GMP procedure. Olof- I am concerned about procedures. Dunaway- What does the code say? Welton- I just want to make a point-inal the GmP applications that we have gotten not one of the buildings that have been built has shown any resemblance to what was in the fancy smancy. Sonny- Let me explain the process. You receive an allocation based on score. You score the project based on certain su subsidy hearings baed mn the code. Any subsitive changes that would have any change in RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM!O C.F.HOECKELB.B./ltL.CD. essential part that would have affected the score goes straight to City Council for recommendation, Council then can decide that the applicant has changed it in such a fashion that its quo,s is no longer valid they can send it to P&Z to have you rescore it in the opinion that it needs to be rescored. Or can otherwise pass it up. Lee- Has it ever happened? Sunny- Yes, it is an ad ministrative decision on behalf of the planning office as to whether or not the scoring would have been changed. In the case as to whether or not the original structure was retained or torn down, was not something this body scored, but something that was taken into consideration by HPC. HPC determined that it would not have affected the score that they allocated to it. Therefore there was no reason to send it to Council. The employee units did not meet the minimun size requirements. External changes in the architecture were needed to meet the requirements. You should score on the commercial, it is scored by HPC and that is added into the total. Lee- We vote on design Sunny- Not on the actual design of the building itsel f. Welton- We had at least three sections where architectural design was voted on. Dunaway- This is the application where P&Z only approved 1/2 of it. Sunny- Right and you recommended that the bonus not be given, Council overode it. Sunny- There are two categories. There were no major architectural changes, no increase insq. footage. Jasmine- there is an increase in sq. footage. Lee- Here is somebody coming in with sub standard this and that. Olof- we are not permitted to approve subject to changes. If the application is flawed Sunny- the only way to get subsequent approval. Deed restriction exempeted tftem employee housing to meet the minimum size reqqiuement. Jasmine- Now he is coming in and saying in order for us to do this we need 6 more ft. Sunny- Sq. footage Jasmine- It is still aprt of that same building. Colette- The exterior building isn't going to take up more space. iI..sm4fte----- Olof- The total is no 16 feet less. WE have two things: We have the general concern that htere are so many approvals of GMP that Totally aside from general considerations I think Collette has made clear that in actuality by shuffly the interior we end up with 16 sq. less than was approved Collette- Less commercial space but 86 sq. ft. overall because thr employee housing is bigger. Olof- The question is whether that is significant? AlBloomquist- This is actually theml the with of the dry wall Lee- the concern I am expeessing is nothing to do with 86ft. It has to do with . You could make 200 ft. less and make it much more objectionle to us in design... Olof- Let's proceed Collette- cont. with recommensation. They also have to go for approval of exemption for parking requirments as such areview - Planning office recommends you do. The housing units in a CC zone. We also recommend exemption for GM in this project. We recommend that they keep them at low or moderate income categories. Low is preference. Olof- Questions? Paul- Apparently there was a discusion betwween the sttorney for the applicant and the planning office. The attorney for the applicant is under the imlresssin that there iwll be no problem with the commission accepting the recommendation of the planning dept. I theink the attorney for the applicant should have an opportunityh to heard. The application should be tabled to allow Mr. Massa the cahnce to.. Lee- Why isn't he here? This should be taken off the agenda Al- I think the staff should never say no problem. Paul- I would suggest that your concerns have been expressed here today and that they be taken in tacct. for purposes of future reference. We should be accomodating to the applicant. Olof- No, I think it is before us and we act on it. Paul- If you are going to disapprove it- I'd like to give the applicant Olof- Let's act make a motion Al - I move its approvaal with the two provisions that the palnning office recommendations Dunaway- Which level housing? Al-- At low. Olof- Recommending approval of the 5 to 1 FAR bonus for employee housing anM exemption from GMP RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMIC C.F.HOECKElB.O.&L.CO. 0101- What about parking- exemption from parking requirements? Al- Whatever they wrote Jasmine- Can we time the parking to low low income guideline- Al- we are requiring low period Olof- I would rather keep exemptions and parking requirements separete... require the low income category wmployee housing simply because the is the most urgent need of the community. Motioned was seconded. All in favor - Lee- I Olof- I Jasmine- I Al- I Perry...- I Welton - I Olof- Motion is carried.Next subject Behrendt Subdivision exception Colette ( for purposes. of a lot split) Lots KL & M on which theres a sister lodge and swimming Lots N&O. Giddion- This has nothing to do with condominiumzation. Colette- What we have are: five contiguous lots owned by the same party. They were merged and became one parcel. Legal council would like Dor the applicants sake to keep the two lots the sizes of 6000 sq. ft. and 9000 sq. ft. The planning office recommends approval of the lot split conditionedupon the granting of an easement on the S.E. l5to 28' from the N. Easternly corner of that section of the structure along the new ly put lined lot- li~e.of 1.4 ft. So that hte minimum side yard of 5 ft. ifs maintined and the non-conforming is not ncreased. In addition a covenant should be attached with a commitment from the owner not to build. within five feet of that easemnet so that we don't get a nonconforming on the other side. A seconde condition should be that if either of tfteK-- present nonconforming uses sease to exist for any reasons for a period of one year any subsequent uses of the land must conform with regulations specified by the code for the R-6 zone. Sunny- You cannot sj:bs.idize unless you have the right to build. In this case there is no develope right left= Lee- my concern is ...Lot split procedurre demonstrates hardship Syuny - since no developement allocation is required nothing precludes that the subdision itself other than the application of the B~~t~it/.....zone district with subdivision regulations. The prexisting lot line . enginerrijg dept. does not feel it is nexcesaary they go thru full subdision procedures. It just eliminates one step in the process. Lee- He doesn't get any deveopement rights what does that mean? Sunny- He has to comply with use restrictions. Parryy- Your talking about something that isn't enforced then. Sunny- Any lot created afteer growth management has an exemption- only single family which has a right to built. Al- I assume that roughly he had the St. Moritz first Giddion- No- it was purchased in 1972 & 1974 he purchased the two properties no sorry 1968 & 1973. Al- now there is a provision in the code that if you have a nonconforming , in terms of density. Giddion- the point is that both of these properties are non conforming uses , there is not enough density for either use. Al- thata a single use Giddion- There is not enough density. Olof- tell me what... Giddion- When the applicant purchased property he bought it as two separte properties at that particular time there was ho merger "document". He has two separte mortgages on the property o. He wants to refinance, in this particularmarket the lenders are not int, erested in granting him fimancing with a separete buildings because under this particular provision he technically has one piece of property, So what we are trying to do is recreated the two separte paropertys the way they were when he purchased them so he can get separte financing without running into the problem he is now. Sunny- The cpndominization of the lodge has nothing to do wtih question. You cancondomini a legal use or a nonconfor-ing use regardleess of whether it is a loge commercial space or The subdivision in no way effects condominization. Olof - request a motion Giddion- the loans on the p roperty are secured by hou ses and lot sizes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C. F. ~OECKEL B. B. Ii L. CD. iddion cont.- of 6000 sq ft and 9000 sq ft. WE traditionlly in this community have lots 3000 6000 9000 I don't see any need to change that. There is alot of density here why reduce it. Collette- Engineering prefers we grant an easement. Giddion- The lot has to stay 600 sq ft. because that is the minimum lot rrquirement in the R-6 zone. Welton- it would be 6l40sq ft with 1.4 sq ft. of this lot. Colette- the other consideration is the easement is only for15.8 ft. Al- 24 12.6 no 12.4 If two or more lots with continuous frontage and single ownership Sunny- this subdision not zoning. Parry- I move to recommend approval of the Behrent subdivision exception for the purpose of splitting lots KL&M from lots N&O Lot 46 City of Aspen Conditional upon the granting of an easement from S. Easternly corner of the house 15.8 ft to the n. Eastern: corner of that section of the structure along the newly outlined lot line of 1.4 ft so that the minimun side yard of 5 ft. is maintained and nonconformity is not increased condition a covenant shoulf be attached with a commitment from the owner not to build within five ft og that easement on lot N. Second condition shall be that if either of the present non conforming uses ceases to exist for any reason for a period of more than one year in subsequent use of the land shall conform to the regulation specified by the code for the R-6 zone. Welton- i second All in favor Olof- I Parry- I Jasmine- I Welton- I Lee Lee- I Al- Neigh Olof- Motion is carried Brandtm Subdivision exception ( condominimuzation) Collette- Mr. and Mrs. Brandt are requesting ~ubdision exception pursuant section 20-19 for puposess of condomizing a duplex. At present there is a single family dwelling structt and an unbuilt purposed addition. The Planning office recommendation is approval of the request for subdivision exception subject to following conditions 1. Submission of condominium plate showing each unit common elements parking etc to be Sil signed and recored following construction of the secong unit 2. Deed restrictions on.. six month minimum leases... Mr Brandt-Diagram ~or purposed second unit was merely for illustration Olof- does any onyone objections to the twp position s of the planning office recommendat: Any question s from the planning pffice. May we have amotion Parry- I will move to recommend approval of _the Brandt Subdivision Exception for Condominil zation of Lot 10 Blk. 1. Commission will upon the submission of the condominium map showing each unit common elements , Parking, etc. to signed in the code following construction of the second unit and Deed restrictions on both halfs of the Duplex to six month tendencies with no more than per year. Lee- Second Olof- I- Welton- I Jasmine- I Parry- I Al- I Dmof- ~he Motion is carried. The meeting is adjourned.