Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19810721 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM" C. r. ~OE:CKEL B. B. Ilo l. CO. Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Regular Meeting, July 21, 1981, 5;00 P.M. The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting July 21, 1981. Olof Hedstrom called the meeting to order with members Perry Harvey, Roger Hunt and: Jasmine Tygre. Commissioners' Comments Alan Richman stated there was a mistake on th e agenda. A work session was scheduled at 4:00 P.M. on the Rio Grande however no one from the Planning office appeared. Must be rescheduled. It will be the first item on the next agenda of our next regular meeting. A reminder that the meetings on the Airport Master Plan Update are scheduled for July 22, 1981. You are all invited. Minutes Minutes will be reviewed at next meeting. Old Business Proposed Code Amend- ment. Commercial Growth Management Quota System Alan Richman, of the Planning office describes the points that have been revised by identifying on the Resolution where those changes are. On first page of resolution in the Whereas clause we needed to amend that so that only certain of the amendments were to be processed prior to this years competition and that others should be implemented for next years competition. We are recommending change of the sub- mission deadline to October 1,1981. Page 2 had no informational changes. Page 3 - The trash and utility access areas has been reworked. The evaluation considers the quality and efficiency of the areas. Those criteria would be based on the code requirements. Anybody that proposes a reduction from those requirements should come to you for a special review approval before submitting an application. Roger Hunt stated that the only thing not included was that this category included in case of commercial buildings that service ~ys and access to individual units in that building. Mill Strret Station comes to mind. Sunny Vann said it is handeled under bb- Site design, extent the range of improvement sufficiency circulation including access of service vehicles increase safety and privacy. Alan Richman continues to discuss number 3 of the employee housing needs bb- we want to specify that employee housing which is is pro- vided will be a net addition to employee housing pool. Specifically that is by creation of the new Deed restriced unit or by conversion of the free market unit to aDeed restricted status. Next page, number gg, problem regarding the special review on in- creasing the FAR. The language had stated that the entire bonus FAR which was available could be used for commercial purposes when the code requires that some of that be used for employee housing purposes. Based on maximum FAR for commercial Sq. footage. The ecces employee housing is used for evaluation and is not availableto the applicant. Sunny Vann said the continuation of existing policy applied off site consistant in the way applied in the CC Zone. Alan Richman discusses next page top sentence, you want specifically for the compatability to say project is compatbile with neighborhood and surrounding landuses. We specifically added that for you. on the last page, in number 2 we agreed that the evaluyation of community plans and land use regulations and the evaluation of the applicants previous performance could be implemented this year without adversely affecting any of the applicants. At the very bottom, clarification based on a point that came out from the public which is that the 6000 sq. foot bonus could be available this year if the Planning and Zoning Commission so recommended and Council decided that there was need for it. Those are the changes RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C.F.HOECKELB.e.!> l. CO. Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Regular Meeting, July 21, 1981, 5:00 PM worth of improvements that we need to start on. One of the things that lack of a quorum by the P&Z is going to do now is set everything back again a week. So that you know where the Homeowners stand The board is familiar with the proposal from InterWest and there are no immediate obvious problems with it. Our main concern is to go on with the purchase., to know what we are going to do with the finances and above all to begin on the improvements in the park. We don't know when the survey is going to happen now, when things can get rolling, so that is on the public record. Olof Hedstrom made a request to talk to each Board member live before next Special meeting to insure that the quorum is met. continue with next public comment. Michael Garish, a resident of Aspen 69 years, represents a number of neighbors, and connected closely with the Smuggler caucas. We have a great many problem I feel should be taken into consideration 1. I don't think there has ever been planning for the NorthEast Aspen area for the City of Aspen. 2. The Speed limit is not controlled. 3. Are you going to rezone us so we'll be in compliance with other things going on? 4. Street lights, repair of Streets. l~\~::J Stan Larouxsky 'member of Smuggler Mountain caucas , feels that this is not a small project because it will have an impact on whole area. I am in full agreement with everything Mr. Garish stated. Charles Maple, resident would like to point out to the people that have purchased this trailer court, the parking lot acroos the street from my house. I was told that the only people that would be parking there would be the people that actually lived in the , trailer courts. I see all manner of junk parked across there, "vagrants" sleeping there for the last two months. This is how the situation is and I wonder just how well you are going to take care of the rest of this project when it gets built. When is that road going to be built on the West side of the trailer court? How long will the things we ask for be shoved off to the side, You have to plan the whole thing not just the new portion of the trailer court. Michael Garish adds another comment about a trailer that was moved into the court illegally and the trailer still remains after many requests to have it moved. The people in the trailer court for $250.00 aren't getting a dimes worth. $250.00 at 89 trailers at $18,000 month --$200,000 a year and their not even getting their streets taken care of. I'\j .....;,J.. ~'"', Dick Knetch had talked to the Planning Dept. and stated that he talked to them about an East End Plan. The East End should be one of the top priorities,of the to,vn this.year. Alan Richman stated that the issue is a very high priority item on the Planning Office work program for this year. We recognize the need for the plan of the Smuggler Mountain Area as a whole. Dick Knetch asked that a noon time meeting could be arranged with a group of concerned citizens to find out how exactly how far we are in the plan. Olof Hedstom asked for further comments. Olof entertained a motion to continue the public hearing. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM ~ C. F. HOECKEL B. B. & l. co. Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Regular Meeting, July 21, 1981, 5:00 P~I Alan Richman said the most logical date would be next Tuesday the 28th of July. So moved All in favor. Motion carried. Coachlight Lodge Conditional Use Perry Harvey made note that this is a request for a second employee housing unit. Alan Richman gives six general criteria which the application needs to meet in terms of review. 1.. Compliance with an adoptive housing plan. Reflects on the applicant willingness to Deed Restrict against commercial rental or sale. 2. Maximization of construction quality. The units will all be new the Lodge will be totally reconstructed. 3. Social and Envirnmental impact. Area is easily serviced. 4. Surrounding Land uses. Shawdow mountain duplexes, Ajax apts, 5. Utilities- no problem serving employee housing. 6. Parking- the applicant did propose to upgrade from 9 spaces to 14 spaces. The Planning Office recommends that the P&Z grant Conditional Use Approval to place that second employee unit within the Coachlight Lodge and have recommended two conditions for your review. The applicant submitting the Deed Restriction to the City Attorney for his review and approval. Resticting the units to the guideline and limiting its rental to employees of the Lodge. It would not rented on the open market. The applicant submitting documentation that the employee unit will be retained as a portion of the element of the Lodge which is also a criteria of the Ordinance. Giddion asked a question on the restriction to "low". One problem I had with particular application was when the P&Z made the deter- mination that you could not rent it to other employees, only to emp- loyees of the Lodge. Which means that this second unit is a supplemental unit and it means about six months out of the year it is going to be vacant. Now to restrict us to "low" quidelines and six month empty occupancy is a bit of a hardship and I request that we get at least "moderate" or "middlell. Olaf Hedstrom suggests making one unit "low" and one unit "moderate" Jasmine Tygre stated she hates to see a small Lodge like that go to "moderate" or "middle". I don't think that is appropriate. I don"t think we should cahnge the code to accomodate that. Roger Hunt stated that he agrees with Jasmine. Perry Harvey does not want to comment. Bill Drueding suggests that one large unit be made of the two small units. Bob Appleton a neighbor of Coachlight Lodge asked question as to how the new structure would be designed as far as where the entrance w will be. He is upset by so much traffic in area. Alan Richman suggests he get information from Planning Office. Roger Hunt makes a motion that P&Z grant conditional use expansion for the Coachlight Lodge for an additional employee housing condi~ tioned on the numbers 1 and 2 of the Planning Office memo dated July 13,1981. Jasmine Tygre seconds. All in favor (Perry Harvey 1 exemption) Motion carried. ~ORM 50 C. F. HOECKEl a. B. a l. co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Regular Meeting, July 21, 1981, 5:00 PM Public Hearings Aspen Mountain Park Preliminary Plat Submission Sunny asked if anyone had any specific questions Perry Harvey stated that the only thing that disturbs him is the lumping of these separete districts together. My biggest concern is with the SCI Zone. The intent of that zone is to supply low cost sq. footage space for specific businesses and in reading through the Growth Management and the imposition of employee housing and all the other requirements and the design, I just see that you are defeating the intent of that zone entirely because you are going to bump the cost per square foot up to...Your going to get into design criteria, employee housing units and I feel it going to defeat the economics of that zoneand the same thing may occur in other areas. Sunny stated the overriding concern was,; if you are going to have a comprehensive Growth Management policy the only legal problem would be exclusion of certain zones and competition and second, the goal of trying to obtain the balance growth. You have very little of the SCI zone. At this point rather than arbitrarily excluding it based on the theory that it should be comprehensive we are including it. We will be figuring the remainder of the commercial buildout of all the zones between now and nexts years competiton as results of that exercise. Parry Harvey stated again that he feels that all the zones should be under the smae procedural method for developmental allotment. GI<kof\ Giddion stated that the solution for that might be to come up with special scoring system next year. Sunny said the Planning Office has until Sept. of next year to accomp: lish this. Olof Hedstrom stated that in scoring of the SCI zone in the quality of design, consider the function of that zone as being different than others. We recognize the changes and we should act on this. Roger Hunt said he would like to see the SCI Zone out of this for rea: sons Parry described so long as the P&Z if willing to maintain the integrity of the SCI Zone. aQger~RUnt~IDQved~~ to approve the resolution - Proposed Code Amendment - Commercial Growth Management Quota System. Parry seconded. All in Favor. The motion is carried. Alan Richman stated that the applicant is concerned with doing the work session without the whole group here and trying to work on some of the items without members who might be voting. Olof Hedstrom stated and a very important don't have a quorum. the dicussion matter and we I suggest we is quite complicated and involved can't take action because we open the public hearing. Alan Richman stated that what the Planning office was hoping for was to get input from the public and to get a reading out of the Planning and Zoning Commission as to your reation as to some of the things we have been working on. Stephen Kanipe, President of Board of Directors stated that this reflects on one of their major concerns with what is going on - which is the timetable they are working with or against. We have an Oct. 1 deadline in the settlement agreement, we also have $400,000 FORM" C.F.HOECKELS.B.IlL.CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves OLD BUS INES S Aspen Ski Corp Snowmaking Amendment to 8040 Greenline NEW BUSINESS Sturgis/Thomson Subdivision Exemption (Ldt Line Adjustment) , '.n Park lat agrees with Roger in that the thing that must be avoided is closing the door to some unknown future regarding transportation. Welton Anderson said that it is about time we start closing some doors. Something should be provided for Ballet West. Joan Klar said she would like to see someone study this to see what will be happening in the future. She would like to know what exactly , serving what areas and to what extent. Jasmine Tygre said if we are going to have parking spaces for X number of cars we should make it acceptable , have a garage that will accomodate those cars off the street. Jasmine prefers the plaT on the left and very much opposed to the commercial building on Mil] St. She would like to see a combination of ideas. Bill Dunaway of the Aspen Times said he remembered them recommendinE a Library, with the new growth management plan he doesn't understanc how anyone can go for more commercial spaces.lt wasn't called for it isn't needed and it will increase the pressure of growth. Elizabeth sated that the Rio Grande was possibly not the best site for the library. The report will come out next fall. Olof Hedstrom stated that it is the Commissions feeling that the Commercial Deveolment along those streets is not needed and should not be included in this plan. Alan Richman stated that Paul Taddune requested that you take action again on this subject. Olof Hedstrom asked Paul if they move as if they had not acted or do they move to ratify the Boards actions Paul Taddune said it doesn't matter. Roger Hunt moves to ratify the previous action concerning the Hemmeter 8040 Greenline. Jasmine second the motion All in favor. The motion is carried. Alan Richman says this is a Lot Line Adjustment on Roaring Fork Road which is in the R-15 Zone. One respective parcel is about 25,000 sq. ft. and the other is about 45,000 sq. ft. The request is to permit a boundary adjustment based on landowners wish for a fence. The Planning office reviewed the application in terms of underlying area and bulk requirements and in fact the adjustment does help in terms of bringing one of the lots into conformance with its sideyard setbackalthough it would not meet the front yard set-back. Our review shows no conflict with the criteria of the new ordinance in terms of creation of new development potential, Therefore the recommendation from the Planning Office on this application is Approval of the Lot Line Adjustment with the conditions relating to the Engineering Dpt. comments that the applicant submit a final Plat for signature on reprobation indicating the shift of Lot Line , location existing structures, the irrigation ditch and all adjacent property owners. Roger Hunt moves to approve the Lot Line Adjustment seeing that it conforms with the now existing Code, the condition being the same as concluded by the Planning Office. This is the Lot Line Adjustment of the Sturgis/Thomson property. Joan Klar seconds the motion. All in Favor. Motion is carried unanimously. Olof Hedstrom does not feel the board needs any presentation. Alan Richman brings one thing the attention of the Board which he did change, which is part of 20 over 2, regarding electrical service and electrical inspectors comments. Point #1 - no question about but point # 2, Suggestion made that no overhead electrical or cable wiring shall be permitted. Perry Harvey made note that he is stepping dow~ on Aspen Mountain Park Preliminary Plat. Alan Richman said that the cost is somewhere in the area of $90,000. PROPOSED CODE A>IENDHENT EX&~TION TO GRO\<TH MANAGENENT PLAN, 85:15 PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED CODE AMENDHENT RESIDENTIAL GNP Alan Richman sa;d it was also noted, while on inspection with elec- trical inspector, that the cable lines that exist right now is probably not more than 6 or 8 ft. above the roofs of the trailers. The Electrical Inspector said this cable carries 14, 400 Kilowatts. Something of that magnitude would have to be at least 12 to 16 ft. above the roofs, so he was concerned about that. We also noted that as you move away from the site right off the site the cable goes directly underground. The Electrical inspector did not comment that there was any safety hazard. The strongest argument was asthetics. The Planning Office is recommending that the cables be underground. Olof asked who is in agreement with the recommendation. Joan Klar- agrees. Roger Hunt- said it doesn't make any difference if he agrees or not. Perry Harvey- is stepping down. Al Bloomquist- agrees to underground. Roger Hunt paIns on voting against Resoultion because of three point The new development is not in accordance with the code that we passed fornew development of trailer parks or because of it being condo- minized basicly in the future we are faced with dealing with 17 owner If this were a cooperative you would have to deal with one owner. The tradeoff in the existing portion of the Park where they have reduced some of the nonconforming by using open space. Olof Hedstrom stated that he has polled the Commission and they all accepted Alan's reason for putting the system in Underground Al Bloomquist makes a motion to approve the Resolution as written. Joan Klar seconds the motion. Olof Hedstrom - Aye Welton Anderson - Aye, ~~rry-H~ry~y---AY~T Roger Hunt Nay, Joan Klar Aye, Jasmine Tygre- Aye , Al Bloomquist Aye. Motion carried. Paul Taddune had been having conferences with the attorney represen- ting the applicant concerning this particulat resolution, and they have not come to an aggrement as to what the effect of it might be. Whether or not the 85:15 is necessary or not. Meanwhile Paul thinks that the situation should be studied and he requests that the action on this resolution be tabled to the next regular meeting. Olof Hedstrom entertains a motion to Table the Code Amendment _ Exemption GMP 85:15 be tabled to the next regular meeting. Joan Klar implemented another Whereas in the motion where future negotiations should not have a negative impact on Landuse Policies. i. e. (Lack of consistencies or difficulty of interpretation.) Paul Taddune said there was an overiding concern in this particular situation. It is important that employee units be retained in the community. That is the spirit that which this whole project is being taken through the approval process. lIajor concessions have been made on the part of the applicant. The Resolution that you pass should request some of these considerations. The motion is made to Table the Code Amendment Exemption GMP 85:15. All in favor the motion is carried. Alan Richman has applications due on Jan. 1, 1982 for Residential. The Comments on Employee Housing presented to Council were generally negative. Council did not feel it was completely thought out or ready for their adoption. Council liked the idea of increasing the amount of employee housing points and that a share of employee housing is provided by commercial and the idea of extending the coverage, but Council felt there might be a need for SCI competiton. There are three areas of concern by the Planning and Zoning Commissio in terms of Residential:l.To Take a look at some of the catagories 2. To look at the formulas 0, 1, 3 type of formulas. 3. A couple considerations regarding employee housing evaluation that the Plannin Office wanted to look at particularly regarding displacement and the way points are evaluated but the Planning Office did not want to change the nature of 40 points for employee housing , which is a large share of an evaluation. The applicant, in essence, needs to score somewhere around 50% of his total project as employee housing in order to have a viable project. Alan continues, making a few points based on the existing code. He stated that some points are totally inappropriate because they are not related to the formula and some points are not related to a design feature. The first areas of availability of public facilities and services. The main thing that needs to be changed is the formula. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS / / 100 Leaves FORM 5~ C. F. MOECKEL B. a. II< l. CO. Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Regular Meeting, July 21, 1981, 5:00 PM New Business Alan Richman of the Planning Office lists three conditions of approval One having to do with Fire safety measures to be installed another having to do with erosion and grading impacts and the third having to do with the necessity of any documents which might be filed with the City Attorney. The Architects have come forward with a substantial revision . The Planning office review of this revision suggested coming back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a subsequent 8040 Greenline Amendment. The only reason the Planning office brings this back to the P&Z is the design itself. The Planning office feels the applicant is con- sistent with the concept of what an 8040 is suppose to do; breaking up the architectural horizontality, reducing the building ~ass, changing the siding on the structure, extending the roofline, changing the window design and creating new stairs for a fire access. Clearly there are some benefits to this design that the Planning offic feels very positive about. The only concern the Planning office will raise to you is the size of the building which is being proposed. The information given to the Planning office by the applicant stating that there is about 6100 sq. feet on the interior of the existing building and the deck on the existing building is about 1200 sq. feet. The Planning office suggests to you a recommendation that the magnituc of that expansion is really beyond that which is appropriate and may t be there is some way that we can discuss here a basis for reducing n some of the decking. Amendment to Hemmeter 8040 Greenline John Wheeler representing the architect states that most of the deck is behind the residence and you don't see it from town. What you do see is basicly a 6 ft. walkway that surrounds that elevation which faces directly to town and West elevation and those are the most important for the fire egress along with the replacement of the windows that are too small in the bedrooms with sliding glass doors to be able toa access on to tose walk ways. The large deck is behind facing Little NeIls and we do have an elevation of that if you wish to see it. The grading is going to reduce that side also. Jasmine Tygre asked how big the deck is that is on Little Nell side? John Wheeler states - 20 ft. x 50ft. Olof Hedstrom asked how many sq. ft. facing Little Nell? John Wheeler stated 600 sq. ft. Roger Hunt comments- he feels that these plans are bulkier than original. I see this as a tremendous expansion, mostly because of the decks. The size is the opposite direction of the 8040 Greenline Revietv'.. Olof Hedstrom agrees with Roger and the Planning office that the mass and size of the building itself...from the drawings and looking at the decks I feel they have increased the apparent mass. Perry Harvey comments on the fire egress improvement that the deck is giving to the building is on the North and the West side. Those decks are 6 ft. wide. Why is the West deck necessary... Is that access bedrooms or sliding glass doors off of that side? John Wheeler said that in order to get to the stairway you need that deck. By putting rock in certain area it will look.like parLof the mountain. The wood is vertical and we plan on running it horizontal siding which brings that mass down. Roger Hunt looks at #1 rendering compared to # 2 rendering,P&Z sees a substantial improvement. The third floor looks hidden. Perry Harvey states that the concern is the mass of the structure and if we can reduce it visually through the decks thats one way if we can do it with a roof that is the other way. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM ~O C. f. HO~C~El a. B. Ii l. CO. Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Regular Meeting, July 21, 1981, 5:00 PM Olof Hedstrom summarizes ~ the attitude of the Commission. It does not satisfy us with respect to design quality and compatability to the terrain. Our feeling is that the apparent mass, the visual impact is too great. The West side decks contributE most importantly to that effect in the eyes of the Commission and to some degree the roof. I would like to suggest modifications. Perry Harvey is trying to look at this as a new application. What they have done is change it from vertical to horizontal elementE I like the glass in the roof. I don't think we have enough to really visualize the difference between the two from the one sketch Jasmine Tygre said she agrees with Perry, I don't have any objection to the open style roof but all the decking bothers me. I think it is visable. We are talking about the reduction of building height and adding decks does not accomplish this. Olof Hedstrom states that if the Planning and Zoning Commission rejects the Greenline Review at this point that puts it back in their hands for resubmission. Alan Richman states that if P&Z rejects amendment their original proposal still stands as approved. Roger Hunt asks if there is an alternative to those fire egress purposes to those decks? Olof Hedstrom states that is a rhetorical question you can reject it, Olof entertains to make a motion. Roger Hunt moves to reject the Hemmeter 8040 Greenline Amendment and let the previous approval stand. Jasmine seconds. All in favor. The motion is carried. The meeting is adjourned. Vi ginia M. Beall, Deputy City Clerk Secretary to the Commission