Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19820202 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 'D C. F. HOECKEL B. B. a. L. ~O, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 2, 1982 Planning and Zoning Commission met on February 2, 1982 for a regular meeting Members present: Olof Hedstrom, Welton Anderson, Perry Harvey, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre, Lee Pardee, Al Blomquist. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS- Al Blomquist feels that 15 pages of minutes for one meeting is too long. The secretary responds to that by saying she was instructed to type the minutes as close to verbatim as possible. Olof Hedstrom said that AI's point is well taken and asked the Assistant City Attorney's advice on this matter. Gary Esary said that as a general point it is best to have an adequate contemporaneous record kept, especially when a litigation is possible on a particular case. Roger Hunt is pleased that the "car-lot" at Cemetery lane has been moved and or taken care of. Perry Harvey thinks that is timely for the Planning and Zoning Commission get a resolution to Council regarding formation of some kind of study group to look into a parking structure down in the RioGrande property. Colette Penne of the Planning Office said that this project has been turned over to the Manager's Office and Monroe Summers' is designated as project manager. Welton Anderson comments on the very few letters of application.from appli- cants, but rather synopsis from the Planning Office as the only information that gets to the Planning Commission. Welton feels the Board should be receiving more information from the applicant. Alan Richman asked the Planning and Zoning Commission members if they could attend a work program, that will be presented to City Council, on Tues.2/9/82 Olof Hedstrom said that all members are in agreement of the meeting date for the discussion of the work program for 1982. MINUTES Roger Hunt moves to approve the minutes of January 19, 1982 with a few minor corrections. Jasmine Tygre seconds. All in favor. Motion carried NEW BUSINESS - Red Onion Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization). Colette Penne said that this application is a request for recondominiumiza- tionof the Red Onion building to include the new unit (Unit #5) alloted in the 1981 GMP competition and conversion of space in a previously-formed unit (Unit #3). Colette Penne said that it is the opinion of the Planning Office that re- quiring conversion of the space to employee housing is probably unwarranted. Conversion of that to commercial space without going through Growth Manage- ment also seems unwarranted. The Planning Office recommends approval for re- quest of Subdivision Exception for the purposes of condominiumization of Unit #5 of the Red Onion Condominiums and denial of the inclusion of a por- tion of Unit #3 in that newly formed condominium unit or any conversion of Unit #3 to commercial use without: 1) Growth Management review and approval; and 2) The recommendation of the of the Building Department that the necessary revisions have been made to meet life, health and safety standards. Lenny Oates, Attorney representing ownership group of Red Onion, said that the conditions on the second floor of the Red Onion are not good. He said that it appears that there has not been rennovation since the early 1900's. Mr. Oates said that the front portion is now sealed off from use and has never been utilized for any residential purpose, only for commercial use. Alan Richman of the Planning Office said that since the inception of the GMP, the Planning Office needs to know whether or not that space has been used commercially or not. If it has been, then the way the Planning Office has been interpreting the ability to reconstruct space is yes, the applicant has the credit to reconstruct, if the space was commercially used in the 19th century or any time pre-GMP and hasn't been used commercially since the GMP,then the P!~nning Office feels the applicant is bringing new commer- cial space into the market since the inception of the GMP; therefore the applicant needs a Growth Management program. Alan would call the mattresses being in the middle area, the office being in the back area and the front area being indeterminate. Alan said this certainly is not clearly residential but in no war actively commercial. ----......--..." ~"o"__'" -2- Lenny Oates would like the opportunity to present to the Commission some form of affadavit that this has always been commercial space. Colette Penne would like to point out to the Planning and Zoning Commission that the reason the applicant is back on this case is that the Plat has the language imposed by the Planning and ZoningCommission, that reads that any change from residential change to commercial has to go through Growth Management, this is indicated from previous minutes of 1980 when this was imposed. Colette said that the Planning Office is merely carrying out an earlier Plat statement made by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Al Blomquist submits that this may have happened because of an error. Perry Harvey asked what the alternatives the Plannning and Zoning Commission are looking at? If it is Deed it cannot be converted to condominiumize com- mercial space then what does it become? Colette responded by saying that any use other than employee housing has to go through GMP. Al Blomquist asked if the GMP was really addressing space in existence? Al feels that it was addressing new construction. Alan Richman said that the GMP was addressing space that was in existence Alan said if you take this reconstruction principle to its end limits and you say that any space which existed at any point in time in the City of Aspen could be reconstructed whether it exists now or doesn't exist now. Actively used space as of 1977, when the GMP came in and when the inventory was up to date was considered to be in existence and could be re-constructed. Perry Harvey said that it seems to him that everyone agrees with one thing; that if this has been used as residential space, it has been a dormitory. Olof Hedstrom said that there may have been people sleeping there but it was not employee housing. Roger Hunt said that the point is that it doesn't matter whether it is a residence now or not a residence now. Roger said that historically it has been used for other than commercial uses. Lee Pardee said the applicant could come to the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion with an a aff~davit to indicate the space has been used commercially. Olof Hedstrom asked if a space that someone has slept in does that "on its face" make it residential or does it have to be a space that is properly designed and meets certain standards. Al Blomquist states from the Code. Zoning 24-3.1 G. ) Dwelling unit, one or more rooms in addition to a kitchen and or bath facilities intended or desi- gned for occupancy for a family or guest independent of other families or guests. C.) Boardinghouse, Rooming house, Dormitory - a building or portion thereof, other than a hotel, motel, lodge or multiple family dwelling, where- in lodging and or meals are provided for six or more persons for compen- sation; which, compensation may include money, services, and other things. This space is neither a dwelling unit nor a Boarding House. . Perry Harvey said that it seems to him that the burden of proof is not on the applicant it happens to be on the City to show that as of the inventory and in the inventory it was made with Growth llanagement on adoption that this was indicated,designated, or stated to be a residential use. Olof Hedstrom asked about the commercial space? Perry said he thinks that the Board is fairly well in agreement that the front part of this, at least, was used as commercial space. It seems to Perry that this is not the applicants job, but the City is saying that as of the Growth Management Plan Adoption, that this was used for residential space. If it was unoccupied or if it was commercial space, then the appli~ cant is right. If the City cannot show or have proof at that time or some verification. Alan Richman said that he would be happy to work with Lenny Oates in pre- paring the inventory for the Red Onion Building that can tell you exactly if there is commercial up there and there has been commercial, then the ap- plicant could re-construct it. Olof Hedstrom asked for the Boards opinion. Lee Pardee said that if the City has accurate data on every structure, Lee feels this approach is fine. Lee feels that the Board must be very cognicent before they set precedent. Jasmine aorees with Lee's approach in general. Jasmine shares concern on any kind of dicision of approved or alotted space outside Growth Management, w whether it is residential or commercial; in this case it may be acedemic and we can solve this easily. Welton Anderson said that in Al Blomquist's reading of the Code said that a dwelling unit has one or more rooms with a kitchen, and or bath. These were clearly dwelling units and depends on the date of GMP and what the use of it was. They were dwelli~units clearly according to this 1083 Sq. Ft., was clearly used for the employees of the Red Onion. Welton feels that the date of the GMP is an important date. , / RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '1 C. F. HO~CKEl B. 8. e. L. CD. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 2, 1982 -~- Roger Hunt said that Lee Pardee has expressed basicly the same point as he, and is agreement with Lee and the Planning Office. Perry Harvey feels that the Board has spent alot of needless time on this because the documentation was not before the Board. Al Blomquist has stated his point of view. Olof Hedstrom feels that the documentation is inadequate. Olof said that what is important is what space was used for residence at the time of the adoption of the Growth Management Plan. As a consequence its use on all other dates and for whatever prolonged or short or whatever period of time, seems a little ridiculous to Olof. Olof said the technicality is its use on the date of the GMP adoption. Lenny Oates said the applicant is certainly willing to cooperate with the Planning Office and with the Commission. Colette Penne feels the Board should approve the condominiumization of the new section and leave the portion of the Unit #3 up to the determination of the inventory. Roger Hunt moveB to recommend approval of the Red Onion Subdivision Exception for the purposes of Condominiumization of Unit 5 of the Red Onion Condominium also to table action concerning Unit #3 or any portion thereof. ntil the next regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The conditions concerning Unit #5 on Planning Office memo dated February 2, 1982 which are: 1) The applicant should be required to submit the revised Plat, signed and sealed by the surveyor, following construction. 2) The owner/applicant should be required to relocate al of the existing, gas, electric, telephone and TV meters and pedestals into the protected area off the alley north of Unit #4. The estimated cost of this work should be escrowed prior to the work. 3) The applicant should update the plat to show last summer's significant renovation work. Perry Harvey second~. Olof HEDSTROM Welton ANDERSON Perry HARVEY Roger HUNT Jasmine TYGRE Lee PARDEE Al BLOMQUIST Motion is carried. All in Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye favor. Public Hearing- 700 South Galena - Preliminary Plat Alice Davis of the Planning Office said that the applicant is requesting that the Public Hearing be tabled to allow more time for review. Roger Hunts moved to table the Public Hearing of 700 South Galena to March 2, 1982. Perry Harvey seconds. All in favor except Al Blomquist. Motion is carried. Public Hearing - Golf Course Subdivision - Preliminary Plat and Rezoning to Golf Course Support Overlay. Alan Richman of the Planning Office clarified that the Golf Support Overlay would not be on the Golf Course. Roger Hunt moves to recommend approval of the Golf Course Preliminary Plat Submission and recommend to City Council to re-zone lots #1 Park, and lot #2 as Park with the golf course support overlay and also dedicate the land shown on the Plat adjacent to lot #2 with the Golf Course Support Overlay subjset to the following conditions: 1) The applicant agreeing to record covenants running with Lot @ of the Subdivision setting forth the terms and conditions of the ballot question which authorized the sale of the Plum Tree premises. 2) The applicant submitting a final plat which corresponds to the approved preliminary plat, but also containing the following revisions: A. Lot 2 should include a minimum 10 foot easement to provide maintenance .......... ~......~"""".... :;.~ -4- access to all irrigation ditches and culverts traversing the parcel. These easements should be located by the surveyor and included on the plat. B. The plat should indicate not only the date it is signed and sealed by the surveyor but also the actual date of the survey. C. The plat should include: 1. The length of the arc around the end of Sierra Vista Drive, Lots 32,33,34,35, and 36 of the West Aspen Subdivision. 2. Sheet 2 refers to a description of Lot 2 and the golf support zone but fails to state what sheet said description is on. 3. Complete sheet indexing. 4. The natural gas service line into the main boiler area. Jasmine Tygre seconds. No discussion. All in favor. Motion carried. 1982 Residential GMP Applications - Sunny Park Olof Hedstrom opens the Public Hearing. No response from the public, Olof closes the Public Hearing. Gideon Kaufman, Attorney, said that because of some confusion of storm drainage on the new project, brought up at the previous meeting;he wanted to clarify that the storm drainage would be on the site and not incorporating other properties into the Sunny Park system. Gideon said that a fire hydrant was offered on the site, however the Fire Marshall does not want a fire hy- drant on the property. Gideon is very concerned about the GMP scoring system. Olof Hedstrom entertains a motion to adjourn. The Planning Office continues to calculate the Commissions' scores on the GMP application for Sunny Park. Roger Hunt continues the motion to recommend the allocation of three units for the Sunny Park application, with the suggestion to Council to authorize the applicant to proceed with appropriate approvals beyond the allocation. Perry Harvey seconds. No discussion. All in favor. Motion carried. Perry Harvey moved to adjourn. Jasmine Tygre seconds. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 P.M. ~