Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19820504 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C. F. ~OECKEL B. B. & L. CO. Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 4, 1982 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission met on May 4, 1982 for a regular meeting in the Council Chambers at 5:00pm. Olof Hedstrom called the meeting to order with members Perry Harvey, Jasmine Tygre, Welton ~Jlderson, Pat Falin, Al Blomquist present. Members Roger Hunt and Lee Pardee were not present with excused absence. COMMISSIONER"S COMMENTS Pat Falin introduces for discussion the letter from the West side Improvement Association concerning the issuance of a building permit for a 7,118 sq. ft. duplex in violation of the P&Z resolution which was passed Dec. 22, 1981. Falin said that the building permit was issued on March 3, 1982. Olof Hedstrom said that he was extremely distressed, aggravated and upset about this. ~edstrom said that the P&Z's deliberations are not off the top of the Commissions heads but are serious and well thought out. Hedstrom feels that all of the Commission's work comes to nothing by the issuance of those building permits. Jasmine Tv~re said that she is most concerned about what the Commission can do about it at this point. Al Blomquist said that he would like to hear from the building department what the facts are. . Bill Druedin~ of the building department said that the letter from the West Side Improve- ment Association is inaccurate. Drueding said that with the change in personal he does not know what happened at this point. Ann Altamass asked how many permits have been issued besides these two in discussion in the residential district. Bill Drueding said that the building departments records are open to the public. Olof Hedstrom feels that the Commisssion is entitled to a complete and through explanation of how this happened and how it is justified and what is being done, first of all to stop these cases and are there any others that have been issued improperly. Perry Harvey said that the City Attorneyshould be instructed to look into this and determine whether when someone submits plans for building review, do they fall into the laws of existence at that time or if a new ordinance is passed prior to the issuance of a permit are they subject to that. Al Bomquist said that he has been involved in this sort of thing for years, the problems then are the same as they are today and alot of it is in the procedural end. Blomquist said it is a management business records kind of a problem that the real question should go to the management team responsible for the building department and find out why it happened. Ramona Markalunas said that the West Sid Imorovement Association has been following this since the middle of last year. Markalunas said that the building department was called at the time a victorian was destroyed to find out if a buildi-ng department had issued a building permit - there was no buildin3 permit at that time. Markalunas said that the procedures of the building department seem to be very laxed and no matter how many laws are adopted by City Councilor Resolution adpted by P&Z unless they are regulated by the buildiJ department, there is no reason t; make the laws if they are not going to be enforced. Bill Dunaway of the Aspen Times said that past City Attorney's have said that submission of plans isn't important it is issuance of the building permit which triggers reliance when the resolution is passed the building permit hasn't issued past attorney's have indicated that the fact that they are in doesn't mean much. Olof Hedstrom spoke for the Commission that they are very upset about this and they want and explanation of how it happened what went .~ong and whether it is legal or not and what can be done now to spot it. Ann Altamass said that she thinks the building department is in for alot of criticism and that just how many permits have come out should be researched. Olof Hedstrom said that the P&Z should have a clear statement as to whether in these cases the building permit issuance was legal or not legal. If it was leagl the P&Z wants a com- plete explanation of how it got to be legal because P&Z has received so many reports of personal investigation indicating that is of questionable legal authority. Hedstrom feels that in a matter of this seriousness someone is responsible. Sunny Vann said that he has discussed this issue with the City Attorney. The City Attorney said that if there was concer over the nature of how this came about the P&Z should contact his office and he would explain the series of events surrounding the decision that was reached by the City Attorney's office. Jasmine Ty~re asked if that meant that as far as the attorney's office is concerned this was lea gal. Sunny Vann said it is considered legal. - 2 - Gary Esary of the City Attorney's office said that he will speak in Paul Taddune's place before the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 18, 1982 with a report on the results on an investigation concerning the issuance of building permits. Welton Anderson said that on this same ordinance, which comes up for second reading before Council on May 10, 1982. Anderson said there are a number of changes in wording and rearranged of the text from P&Z's resolution 81-18 and their ordinance 11. Sunny Vann said that first of all the resolution as passed by the Planning an Zoning Commission went unaltered to City Council. Vann said that the langu- age that is currently contained with regard to this particular aspect is specifically contained in the resolution passed by the P&Z. Vann said that the ordinance that is currently being considered on second reading by City Council has undergone several changes in the sense, different than the P&Z recommendation as is quite often the case. MINUTES Olof Hedstrom entertains a motion to table the minutes until the next regular meeting. Welton Anderson so moves. Jasmine Tygre seconds. All in favor. Motion is carried. PUBLIC HEARING - Pitkin County Jail Facility - Adoption of Specially Planned Area (SPA) Plan, Rezoning from SPA to Public and Subdivision Exception. Colette Penne of the Planning Office said that there are three actions being requested: 1. Subdivision exception for the purpose of forming Parcel 2 from the larger piece of City-owned property and adding Parcel 2 and Parcel 3 to Parcell to form one new lot. 2. Zoning of Parcel 2 as Public and rezoning of Parcel 3 from S/C/I to Public so that the newly formed parcel is uniformly zoned Public. 3. Initiation of an SPA Plan to determine the area and bulk requirements to be attached to this parcel. The Code mandates that these requirements be set by an approved SPA in the Public zone. Colette Penne enters the Planning Office memo into the record. Colette Penne said that in order to determine area and bulk limitations on this site the Planning Office has to do a smallSPA plan - basicly a "mini" SPA. Penne said that the Planning Office recommends that the P&Z recommend to Council the following: 1. Subdivision exception from Preliminary Plat before P&Z and Conceptual Subdivision before Council for the formation of Parcel 2 and the aggregation of Parcels 1, 2, and 3 into one parcel for a Jail site, with the Plat requirements outlined by the Engineering Department com- pleted primr to final action by the Aspen City Council. 2. Zoning of Parcel 2 as Public and rezoning of Parcel 3 from S/C/I to Public. 3. Approval of an SPA Plan which conforms to the site plan presented and modified by the requirements outlined by the Engineering Department prior to final City Council approval. Jasmine Tygre said that one thing she is having a problem with is " that the P&Z has been spending alot of time trying to set up a RioGrande Master Plan; one of the basic concerns is that the RioGrande property was acquired for open space and transportation. Tygre said what is being said here is that the determination of the size of the jail is the size of the jail and how does that relate to the othe~ ideas for that property. Sunny Vann said that the specific SPA Plan has already been approved by Coun- cil, or the conceptual drawings have been approved by Council. Vann said the next step in the process is to let a contract for detailed drawing of the Rio Grande, the site that is allocated for the jail, the approximate size of the jail has been discussed, etc. Colette Penne reminds Jasmine that the jail is being set as far to the East- ern boundary as is possible in order to have the emergency access in the anticipation that a parking garage you want to maximize the number of spaces that you can get on the site. Penne said that there is consideratio n re- lating to the RioGrande Master Plan in how they are placing the jail. Perry Harvey said that the Engineering Dept. states that vacation of that alley would require the Courthouse Plaza Building be given the opportunity to acquire the Southern half. Colette Penne said that the alley has not been vacated. Perry Harvey asked what the number of employees are going to be in that jail. Dick Kienst said that under ordinary circumstances, the capacity would be 10. .'" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B./tL.CO. Aspen planning and Zoning Comnlission Regular Meeting May 4, 1982 - 3 - Perry Harvey said that it is hard to imagine l7,000sq.ft. of building with only .10 parking spaces. Gary Ross, architect for the project, said that the Commission might want to pursue the fact that they share a common boundary with a 400 to 600 car underground parking ga~age that is proposed for the future. Gary Ross said that if you go through space by space it is a fairly large structure, but if you go through the different pieces of the building all the functions that are described as in day functions, basicly are funtions that deal with one prisoner on general terms wnd one officer that has brought him in, until such time he is booked and then the officer leaves. Ross said that there is no standing work force related to that part of the facility. The way the stafffing is set up would be the jail administrator, two cOTh~unica- tions persons and a communications director, that would be the minimal staff during the day and then with one additional minimal staff person being in the jail proper. Ross said that most of the parking that is on the site is primarily there to replace the existing sheriffs parking lot that is being covered up by the building. Al Blomquist asked why they are relying on the small road by Sears as the access and why wasn't the boundary extended down to to the North line of the Obermeyer building. Gary Ross said that the Northern line now rests right up next to where the parking garage will go and basicly they dealt with that as a constraint to the site. Perry Harvey asked Colette Penne if the Planning Office is asking the Commission to recommen approval and passing it on to Council. Colette ?enne said that in the interst of time and being that it is construction season this is going quickly. ?erry Harve'l said that it is one thing to go quickly but it is another to "short circuit". Harvey said that with an SPA the Commission should see some more detail in the plan. Sunny Vann asked that Harvey be more specific in what he would like to see. Perry Harvey said that he would like to see the parking and the Resolution on the alley etc. Al Blomquist said that he inclined to table action and to come back and look at it because the Commission does not have enough to go on. Olof Hedstrom cotnnented that time after time matters have come before the P&Z incomplete, inadequately worked-out because of time constraints, urgencies, deadlines; and thejCom- mission always objects - sometimes the Board passes them, acts on them, sometimes they are tabeled and then the Commission is critized for being obstructionists and standing in the way of progress and interfering with matters that have already been decided. Hedstrom said that this puts the Commission in a difficult position and that Harveys' and Blomquists' attitude is not to be oversensitive about the Commissions authority but it is simply that the Commission is being asked to take an action to do something that they don't have the material to work with. Hedstrom said that he is not being critical of the Planning office because they are doing what is layed out for them to do under the direction of their employers but this presents a difficult problem to several of the P&Z members possibly all of them. Perry Rarvey suggest that the Con~ission act on the Planning office request. Curt Stewart, County V~nager, would like to insure that the applicant will IG10W very clearly what the Commissions concerns are. Stewart said t~at the reason that this project has to go as fast as possible lies with at least two law suits on the desk of the American Civil Liberties Union that the County knows will be filed if they" trip, stumble, or happen to fall" in their progress on this thing. Stewart mentions this because the County thinks potentially they could loose more money going through that process than possible it would take to build the whole proposed plan. Stewart said the need for clarity is such that they need to get something started this construction season. Stewart asked the Commission to tell th em now exactly what they need in the way of a more detailed plan. Perry Harvey said that he assumes all of these land trades and purchases by assembling this parcel will be dealing with a common ownership at this point? Sunny Vann said that the Planning office can answer the Commission's questions. Vann said there are three ow~ers involved; the county, city and Bealmear. County parcel is already zoned, City by as a result of the resolution entered into between City and County has agreed to convey parcel rezoning. Vann said that the Bealmear property there is a ver- bal commitment to co-sponsor the application and a specific written letter authorizing that. Gary Esary said that if this provides for the co-sponsorship of process it might be wise to condition your approval on receipt of that letter. - 4 - / / , / Perry Harvey moves to recommend to City Council subdivision exception from preliminary / plat before P&Z in conceptual subdivision before Council for the formation of parcel 2/ of the jail facility property and the aggregation of Parcels 1, 2, &3 in the one parc~l for a jail site, with the plat requirements outlined by the Engineering Department to be domple- ted prior to final action by the Aspen City Council and conditioned upon the transfer of ownership Parcel 3 to the County by the current owner. Welton Anderson seconds. All in favor. Motion is carried. Perry Harvey moves to recommend to City Council that parcel 2 be zoned as Public and that parcel 3 from S/C/I to Public conditioned upon acquisition of course of 3 by the County. Jasmine Tygre seconds. All in favor. Motion carried. Olof Hedstrom asked the City Attorney if it would be desireable in this case to include reasons for the expansion before the rezoning. Gary Esary said that it would be desireable and that just several meetings ago the Commission considered suggested criteria for this sort of thing. Perry Harvey said that he would recommend that rezonig to public based upon the fact that it is compatible to the Aspen Area General Plan and it is compatable to surrounding zone and land use with the vaeinity and that it is necessary for the traffic flow to the proposed jail facility on the property. Jasmine amends her second. All in favor. Motion carried. Perry Harvey moves to amend his recommendation to Council regarding subdivision exception for the aggregation of parcell, 2, 3 in formation of parts two to state that the reasons and justifications for this exception process are that the parcel to be included with the remainder of the RioGrande property, that it should be done according to the memo of the Planning Office dated May 4, 1982. Welton Anderson amends his second. All in favor. Motion carried. Sunny Vann stated that the planning office tries to bring the Commission as much information as poossible so that a reasonable evaluation can be made. Fromm time to time however they are in a position where they have to move ahead as soon as poosible. Vann recommends that if the Commission has sufficient problems that the Board feels there is a problem with the application then perhaps it is appropriate to identify those to the applicant and table it to the next meeting; or if the concern is whether or not the parking is going to be moved over five feet or relocated slightly on the side or other similar con- cerns such as the dumpster, then it would be in the best interest of the City and the County on this particular application if the Board could defer the disposition of that with recommendations as to any specific way they would like to see it handeled, to City Council. Olof Hedstrom said that it is a matter of getting this jail finally approved and on its way is of serious importance and enough so to justify this Commission approving an SPA plan which is on the basis, and does not contain enough information and data for the Commission to approve as they normally expect from an SPA plan. In the interest of expiditing the whole matter the Commission raises certain concerns and can only pass this on to Council in the belief that these concerns will be heard. Pat Falin feels that it is difficult to vote on such limited plans. Jasmine Tygre is very concerned about this because if a private individual came in and applied in this manner thiey would have never gotten to this point. Tygre is very concerned that because Government entities are involved in the timeliness of this project and therefore all the decisions have already been made and P&Z is suppose to rubber stamp them. Tygre said that quite frankly she doesn't think it matters if it is tabled, whether it is sent to City Council and say this is what we think so they can ignore it or whether we give it a rubber stamp. Tygre thinks that P&Z should send it on, list a few concerns and wash their hands of it because P&Z is not really evaluating this the way a SPA should be evaluated. Olof Hedstrom agrees with Jasmine Tygre's point of view. Welton Anderson said that this seems to be a good plan for what he could see of it. Perry Harvey said that his major concern is that he doesn't see enough of the plan to know what he should specifically come up with to say what he wants to see. Harvey doesn't see a floor plan which shows parking in the building, he doesn't see an access or a detailed site plan involving landscaping, trash or anything. Harvey is reluctant to wash his hands of it and is reluctant to give any approvals to what is suppose to be a plan which he feels is inadequate. Al Blomquist agrees with Perry Harvey and also thinks that every time the P&Z looks at a~y pla~ they should see the neighboring area. Blomquist said he would go through with thi, in a speedy fashion just because it is the County governmenr; but on the other hand Blomquist said there is a real principal at stake and that is "Why doesn't government have to meet the same standards as the private sector. In conclusion Blomquist is with the group in that more should be presented. Olof Hedstrom closes the Public hearing. Sunny Vann makes one final comment: Vann said that SPA can address all kinds of issues In this particular case the only thing the SPA is addressing is height, setbacks, open- space and proximity to adjacent buildings. Parking is not established by SPA in this particular case, landscaping is not involved. Vann said that he is sympathetic that theCommission wishes to see a more detailed plan but correctly what the Commission is RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B./tL.CO. Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 4, 1982 - 5 - establishing under the SPA in this particular case are those items which Vann listed and thE applicant has tried to identify, given the amount of information he has today what those will be. Olof Hedstrom asks for a motion. Welton Anderson moves to recommend to City Council approval of the SPA plan for the City County Jail Structure as presented and modified by the requirements outlined and modified to address the concerns mentioned in the Engineering Department memo dated April 29, 1982, prior to City Council approval. Al Blomquist seconds. Al Blomquist Aye Perry Harvey Naye Jasmine Tygre Naye Pat Falin Naye Olof Hedstrom Aye Welton Anderson Aye Motion rejected by tie vote. Shaw Estate Subdivision Exception - Condominiumization . Alice Davis, of the Planning Office, presents the proposal. Davis said that the applicant is requesting a subdivision exception for the purpose of condominizing the Mother Lode Restaurant which is located on four city lots. Davis said what was initially requested by the applicant was a lot split. The Planning Office does not feel this was a proper application. The Planning Office discussed that a condominiumization would probably be the way to go. The applicant and the Planning Office have two different ideas of what the conuominiumization should be. The Planning Office idea was that first of all the MotherLoae was condominiumized and the four lots would be held in common ownership. Davis said that the applicants idea, which the Planning office does not agree with, is that the whole condominiumization is the four parcels with unit 1, the Mother Lode - held with two parcels with undivided interests and that lots P&Q are held with interest and these interests not be conveyed they are still in the Shaw ownership until 1) the developement allocation is received and 2) until subdivision actually occurs. The Planning office feels that by dividing these two lots like that into separate interests that in effect that is a subdivi- sion. As they want the Planning Office to look at it, the planning offfice does not think it is proper condominiumization. Chuck Brant said that the proposal is to take all four lots. Brant said that the planning office invisioned that the applicant would condominiumize all four lots and the purchasers of unit one, which is the Mother Lode restaurant would then have an undivided interest in all four lots until such time as unit two is built and the to can only be built after a GMP allocation. Brant said that at that time theorectically the thinking would be that one would have an undivided half interest in all four lots and unit two would have an undivided half interest in all four lots. Brant said the reason he is proposing to have a two-phased condominium proposal with phase one being unit one, the restaurant with common elements limited these two lots, Brant proposed that because that is what they have corltracted to buy and that is what is in the purchase and sale agreement to sell. Brant said that the applicant has a problem with their purchaser and with their contractural relationship to give them something more, namely an undivided interest in the two undeveloped lots next to the Opera House for the considerations paid so far. The other thing that Brant is look- ing ahead toward an oral agreement that the applicant would have with the City of Aspen whereby the City of Aspen would purchase lots P & Q with the Wheeler Opera House expansion To propose condominiumization where the Mother Lode restaurant would have an undivided interst in all four lots would cause the -City to then have to deal with a party whom they have not negotiated with so far in interest. 3rant does not see where the City is jeopordized because under the phasing of a condominium project unit one would have a com- plete interest in N & 0 , the Shaw Estate would never-th-less not be able to convey P & Q for two reasons 1) is the total package of all four lots is the fact that it is condominiumized and until there is a unit two constructed which first Inust have a GMP allocation and second that because it is a condominiumization of the entire property you haven't finished your review subdivision process until the subdivision or building plans are looked at for unit two (which has not been proposed yet). Alice Davis said that one of the problems the planning office can see is that somebody with a parcel of land anywhere can start by saying "O.K. I can't subdivide so ~ r.., <.* - 6 - I'll condiminiumize my lots" Davis said there is no development allocation ~or this &nd would set a bad precedence for the Planning Office. Olof Hedstrom thanked the applicant and the planning office for presenting such a confusing situation and will turn to Gary Esary of the Attorney's office for input. Hedstrom said that what we have here is a request for Subdivision Exception for Condominium- ization. Gary Esary, City Attorneys office, has been unable to identify the "animal" that is before us. Esary said that he knew the Planning office made an effort to get the applicant on tonights agenda because of time pressures and under contrac t to sell, however now the applicant and the planning office came away from a pre-application conference with entirely different ideas as to what kind of condominiumization is b~ing proposed. Esary said that when the Attorney's office and the Plannig office analyzed it, the planning office took the position that this type of condominiumization of undeveloped land which is essentially the condominiumization of land, it is against City policy of first because the City hasn't permitted that type of thing in the past and that it does appear in its condominiumization of land to appear to be circumventing the subdivision regulations. C:hll~k Brant said that the applicant would except that the condominiumization would be approved so that Unit #1 would have an undivided interest in all four lots and that the applicant would have to deal with the City on an agreement to sell P & Q. Gary F.~ary said that unfortunately he does not have a Plat submitted to that effect and the Engineering Dept. memo on this Plat points out some deficiencies. Esary said that it would be difficult for the Commission to approve a condominiumization when a Plat before it; in addition the Planning Office will distribute a list of other deficiencies found by the electrical and building inspector. Pprry Har"py said that it seems to him that the only thing he sees is that Unit #2, which does not have any development allocation to it. If it were a condominium map showing for the purpose of condominiumizing Unit # 1 and selling it and conveying an interest in the land with that and specifying general common elements and showing a condom: inium map, etc. Alice Davis said that she thinks the Planning Office agrees in that they are ready to review it as a condominiumization the way the Planning office had originally reviewed it. Perry Harvey's concern is having Unit # 2 on there even though it doesn't exist. Alice Davis gives a list of conditions that the Engineering Dept. has stated as per the Planning Office memo of May 4, 1982. Perry Harvey recommends approval of the request of condominiumization of the Mother Lode Restaurant which is located at 314 E. Hyman Avenue, Block 81, Lots N, 0, P and Q, subject to the conditions outlined in the April 29, 1982 Planning Office memo, futher subject to the agreement between applicant and building department, correction of those deficient items outlined in the building departments memo dated April 29, 1982, and further subject to the May 4, 1982 building department mem and subject to the supplying of the conditions outlined in the Engineeringdfpartments memo of May 4, 1982 with the further condition that the plat be amended to strike the word in Phase 1, to show Lot 0 as limited common element for unit # 1 to strike the wording Unit # 2 on Lot Q to be replaced ,by the indication of the general common element. Gary Esary said that one more condition should be addeg that the ap~li~ant be required to submit form statement of the exception for review by the City.Attorney. Perry Harvey amends his motion with Esary's recommndation. Jasmine Tygre seconds. All in favor. Motion carried. Gary Esary asked the applicant to state for the record that there is no employee housing at this location. Chuck Brant said that there are no occupants. Corkscrew Du plex Subdivision Exception - Condominiumization. Colette Penne said that Mr.Ed Baker is before the P&Z for subdivision exception for the purposes of condominiumization of the two units of the Duplex. Penne said that the com- ponents will be one free market unit upstairs in each of the condominium units and one deed restricted rental unit which will remain a rental unit in the basement and the caretaker unit for the free market unit above it. The Planning Office recommends that the P&Z recommend to Council the condominiumization of the Duplex in the configuration that each unit will have a free market unit and a deed-restricted employee rental unit downstairs iwith the two conditions in the Planning office memorandum of May 4, 1982. Al Blomquist moves approval. Blomquist recommends approval of subdivision exception for the purposes of condominiumization be granted for the duplex located at 118 -120 E. Hyman, each condominium will have a free market unit upstairs and deed restricted employee rental downstairs under the following conditions: 1) The plat revisions outlined by the Engineering department to be made before recording the plat. 2) The Statement of Exception and the Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Condition be executed and recorded with the final condominium plat. Perry Harvey seconds. All in favor. Motion carried. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C. F.HOECKELB.B.l!. I.. CO. Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting May 4, 1982 - 7 - Park Place Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization) Colette Penne, of the Planning office, said that the applicants request is for Subdivision exception for the purposes of condominiumization of the Park Place Building, including four employee units deed restricted to the middle income category. The Planning office recommends the condominiumization of this building again with two conditions as listed in the Planning office memorandum of May 4, 1982. Olof Hedstrom asked if there were any question from the Commission. Perry Harvey moves to recommend City Council approval for subdivision exception for the purpose of condominiumization for Park Place building subjec t 0 the Planning office items one and two of the May 4, 1982 memo along with the seven changes made by the engineering department listed in the memo and applicants submit acceptable documents for his statement of exception and a declaration of restrictive covenants for the employee housing for the City Attorney's office for his approval. Jasmine Tygre seconds. All in favor. Motion carried. Lodge GNP Scoring System; Commercial and Lodge Quotas Alan Richman enters the Planning office memorandum of April 29, 1982 into the public re- cord. Richman discusses sidewalks, measurements of distances, public policy goal confor- mance, bonus points, multiplyer systems, scoring systems , architecture, site designs, visual impacts, etc. Alan Richman said that the scoring system is very simple; P&Z would take the scores that they give to the projects on an individual basis and say that you give a one, a two or a three - now is you go through all the projects you add up the ones, the twos and the threes, and the one with the lowest score wins. Richman said that it is essentially voting by consensus. Alan Richman asked the Commission to have a work session on May 11, 1982. All in favor Perry Harvey moves to adjourn. Jasmine Tygre seconds. All in favor. Meeting adjourned.