The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutminutes.apz.19821102 ._"~'~-'-'"'~.~~~' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F,HOECKElB.B.lltl.CO. Aspen Plannin9 & Zonin9 Commission November 2. 1982 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:00 with Commissioners Alan Blomquist, Pat Fallin, Roger Hunt, Welton Anderson and Lee Pardee present. Reconsideration of Golf Course Subdivision Alan Richman reminded the Commission that at the previous meeting action on the Golf Course Subdivision was tabled pending action by City Council. The City Council indicated a willingness to place the P.U.D., now being considered by the P & Z, on the Golf Course Subdivision. The Council also discussed the 200 foot set back and agreed that it should be reviewed and should be part of the Master Plan of the City of Aspen. The Council is adamant about not moving the Pro Shop. The planning office suggested the Commission recommend that Council place the PUD on this property. Perry Harvey pointed out that the Commission can reapprove the preliminary plat without consent from the Council. This can be done in conjunction with recommendations to Council that they place a mandatory PUD designation on the property and that they consider a 200 foot set back from Highway 82 at the entrances into Aspen. However, if they don I t act on ei ther of these re commenda tions then the P&Z has al ready sent the prel iminary plat through the process and Council has the right to deny it. Lee Pardee suggested approving the plat contingent upon a develop- ment plan approved by the P&Z subsequent to the approval of the plat and with a PUD on it. Roger asked for clarification on the City's loss of revenues and factors affecting these losses with regard to this piece of property. Gary Esary, City Attorney's office, explained that it is specified in the lease that failure to complete the subdivision process within a certain period of time would result in financial loss. Roger said that he was willing to deny the preliminary plat unless PUD is applied to the property. Roger was concerned with future landscaping issues and the P&Z'S right to approve landscaping. Roger asked for a definition of what exactly the P&Z was being asked to approve and what will be covered by the PUD in the future. Richman explained that the following must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and can not be approved at the staff level: any change in the use of the character of the development, overall coverage of structures, change in traffic circulation patterns or public utilities, reduction of 3% open space, reduction of 1% parking and reduction in widths of right of ways. 1 - 1: a:zaq=l ':zaAal>\OH .xaTdnp aq=l PUnq 0=1 lU~q to\OTTE PTnoto\ q;)~qto\ 1:-'1 0=1 6u~uoza:z E S~ 6u~=lsanDa:Z s~ =lUE;)~Tdde aq=l =leq=l aA~=leu:za=lTe aq~ .a;)Ue~:zeA e :ZOJ hTdde 0=1 =lUe;)~Tdde aq=l a;):zoJ pue 'II and <;T-([ auoza:z 0=1 s~ aA~=I eu:za=l Te :zaq=lOUV .pato\oTTe s~ asnoq humeJ aT6u~s e hTUO uaqto\ s~:zoto\ hTuO 'ana q6no:zq=l ea:ze =lOT lUnlU~u~lU aq=l 6u~h:zeA ''I/ana <;T-([ 6u~q=lh:zaAa 6u~uoza:z 0=1 aA~=!eu:za=l Te aq~ .xaTdnp e 6u~PT~nq lUO:ZJ =lUE;)~Tdde aq=l =luaAa:zd PTnoto\ 'I/ana <;T-([ S=lOT aq=l 6u~uoza([ .=I;)P=!s~p auoz <;T-([ aq=l u~ pal>\OTTe aq =IOU PTnoto\ xaTdnp asn a6poT e pue =laaJ a:zenoo 000' 9 hTuO s~ =lOT aq=l :zaAato\oH .=I;)P=lS~p auoz 1:-'1 aq=l u~ sa:zn=l;)n:Z=ls 6u~puno:z:zns aq=l JO aSnE;)aq =lsanDa:Z aTqeuosEa:z e s~ xaTdnp e =lEq=l sTaaJ a;)UJO 6u~uueTa aq~ .a=lnds~p =I;)P=lS~p aUf! aq=l dn 6u~:zeaT;) snq=l 'I/ana <;T-([ pauoza:z aq ue:J sTa:J:zed q=loq 'a:zaq=l pato\one aq PTnoqs =leq=l 6u~q=l hTUO aq=l s~ =I~un hHlUeJ aT6u~s e =leq=l sTaaJ UO~SS~lUlUO~ aq=l JI .asnoq hT~lUeJ aT6u~s e s~ alU~=I s~q=l =Ie a:zaq=l pato\OTTe 6u~q=l hTUO aq=l '=I;)P=lS~p auoz aq=l JO UOne;)oT aq=l 0=1 anp 'xaTdlUo:J s~ uO~=le:J~Tdde aq=l asne:Jaq =leq=l pa=le=ls a;)~TV .u~e=lUnOlU aq=l uo =I:J~:Z=lS~p auoz UO~=lEA:zasuo:J aq=l pue s=l:J~:Z=lS~p a6poT h=l~SUa=lu~ q6~q aq=l uaato\=laq ea:ze uO~=I~sue:Z=l e aq 0=1 seto\ =I;)P=lS~p 6u~uoz s~q=l JO =lua=lu~ aq~ .delU 6u~uoz TEPUJO aq=l uo s~ =I~ =lnq apo:J aq=l u~ =IOU s~ hEpaAo 'I aq=l 'I/ana <;T-([ aq=l u~ =leq=l UO~SS~lUlUO~ aq=l palU:Zo JU~ os TE a;)~TV .asnoq 6u~=ls~xa ue pue h=l:zado:zd s~q s=l;)as~q =I;)~:Z=lS~p auoz aq=l a:Ju~s PT~nq PTno:J =lUe;)~Tdde aq=l =leqto\ 0=1 se :zeaT:Jun s~ =I~ =luasa:zd =IV .=lq6~:z =lualUdoTaAap auo s~ a:zaq=l pue d~qs:zaul>\O auo :zapun s~ =lOT aq~ .xaTdnp e PT~nq 0=1 lU~q to\one 0=1 :zap:zo u~ 1:-'1 pauoza:z aq uO~HPPV THH TO=l~de~ JO V '9 ( S=lOT =leq=l 6u~=lsanDa:Z s~ =lUe:J~Tdde aq=l =lEq=l UO~SS~lUlUO~ aq=l palU:zoJu~ S~Aea a:J~TV .6upeaq:J~ Tqnd aq=l pauadoa:z h:I:Iad 6ul:zeaH ;)lTqna panuIlUO~ !6uluozaC[ ~:zew "A .uadsV O=lU~ Sa;)Uel=lUa aq=l =Ie 1:8 heto\q6~H uo ~:Jeq =las =looJ 001: aq=l JO UO~=ldOpE aq=l pue h=l:zado:zd aq=l uo uO~=leu6~sap ana h:ZO=lepUelU aq=l JO uO~=ldope q=!~to\ hTP~de:z paa:Jo:zd T~:Juno~ aq=l =leq=l papUalUlUO;)a:z h:z:zad .pa~:z:ze;) UO~=lOW .:zoAeJ u~ TTV .papuo;)as aap:ZEa aa'I .uto\e:zpq=l~to\ s~ =lETd h:zeu~lU~Ta:zd aq=l JO TeAo:zdde =lalU =IOU a:ze SUO~=I~puo:J asaq=l JI :6u~to\OTToJ aq=l apnT:Ju~ 0=1 UO~=lOlU aq=l papuame TV and aq=l lapun pa:zap~suo:J aq PTnoqs 1:86T '1: :zaqlUaAoN JO SE a:Jua=ls~xa u~ =IOU 6u~q=lhue a:zoJa:zaq=l pue =I~ uo 6u~q=lhUe aAeq =IOU saop =leTd h:zeu~lU~Ta:zd aq=! =lEq=l UOnOlU aq=l u~ pa=le=ls aq PTnoqs =!~' =lEq=l =lq6noq=l :za60([ .aap:zed aa'I hq papuo;)as !TeAo:Zdde S=l~ :zoJ UO~SS~lUluO~ 6u~uueTa aq=l 0=1 ueTd and paHe=lap e =I~lUqns =lSnlU =lUe;)~Tdde aq=l =leTd aq=l JO a;)ue=lda:J:Je Teuu 0=1 :zopd pue and :ZOJ pauoz aq =I~ =leq=l uo~s~Ao:zd aq=l q=l~to\ =leTd h:zeu~lU~Ta:zd UO~s~A~pqnS as:zno~ JTo~ aq=l JO uO~=le:zap~suo;)a:z aAo:zdde 0=1 paAolU =ls~nblloTg TV 1:86T '1: :zaqwaAoN uOFss~wWOJ 6u~uoZ '9 6u~uUe[d uadsv ,..-......,~'-"-~-"~~--',.._._.-.~_..,' """.-'-,..__....,"_ "."",.,....,""'I1"I.tt*'~"."' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR"''' C.F.HOECKElB.B.lltl.CO. Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Novemb~r 2. 1982 are some potential problems: the L-2 would allow 1:1 floor area ratio as well as a multi-family project. The Planning Office does not think this is appropriate because this is a transition area. The applicant has stated that they would deed restrict to a duplex and to a lower F.A.R. This would resolve any potential problems with rezoning to L-2. The other alternative is to keep the existing zoning, allowing a duplex on the L-2 portion and creating a compromise F. A. R. that would be appropriate for the transi tion area. The PI anning Office recommends that it all be rezoned L-2 with a restriction to a duplex. The F.A.R. felt to be appropriate by the Planning Office is 4,200 square feet which is a slightly lower than an average figure. The reason for this lower than average figure is number of comments from surrounding land owners who are opposed to a large development. Alice stated that she had received 5 letters, from these surrounding land owners expressing concern about height, aesthetics, higher population and higher density. Perry read, for the record, a letter written by surrounding land owner. John Bennet writes: . When one examines the zoning map it appears quite clear that the planners who drew the map intended the R-15 zone to wrap around and follow the contours of the densely developed condominium area at the top of Mill and Galena. The R-15 line falls on the south edge of Lot 12 and 13 and should have been drawn to make a small Odog leg I to follow the south edge of Lot 11 as well. Had this been done Lots 3 and 4 would have both been R-15 as was most certainly intended. It would seem very doubtful that the planner who drew the map intended to run the zoning line through the middle of the existing house on Lots 3 and 4. It would be logical to assume that the intention was, rather, to follow the edge of existing condominiums in the area. It is precisely the same kind of oversight on the part of a surveyor that resulted in Lots 3 and 4 having less than 6,000 square feet between them. The Planning Dept. has stated that ~ treat the property as a full 6,000 square feet because that was the probable intent of the surveyor and because the department doesn I t feel the property owner should be penal ized f or a surveyor I s mistake. I fully agree with this reasoning, however, I believe it applies equally to an adjacent property owner being unjustly penalized by the mistake of someone drawing a zoning map. Whether P&Z decides to rezone the property R-15 or L-2, I strongly urge the Commission to designate a building envelope in the center of the lots for any new construction. If the owner were allowed to build on the property's north side with only a 5 foot set back even a 3,600 square foot building would completely cut off the adj acent Fifth Avenue Condominiums from all of their view and 3 '.. v .6U~lU:ZOJUO;)-UOU =I~ a~elU oSTe PTnoto\ <;T-([ 6u~uoz p~es haA:zeH .hHlUeJ aT6u~s '<;T-([ H 6u~uoz hq s~q=l op PTnO;) Z '9 a pa=lsa66ns S~AEa .SW .1:-'1 =I~ 6u~uoza:z hq 6U~lU:ZOJUO:J Ta:J:zed a:Z~=lua aq=l a~elU pue aU~T aq=l =lsn~pea:z '=I~ auoza:z PTnoqs Z '9 d .6U~lU:ZOJUO:J-uou sTa:J:ZEd q=loq a~elU 0=1 se aA~=I:Jp=lSa:z os =I~ a~ElU =louue:J Z '9 a aq=l =lEq=l s~ anss~ Te6aT :zaq=loue p~es :zaJJ~q;)S .=laaJ a:zenos 000'9 aq PTno;) 6u~TTato\p hHlUeJ aT6u~s e 6u~uoz 1:-'1 :zapun .=laaJ a:ZEnos Ov1:' ( aq PTno;) 6u~nato\P hHweJ aT6u~s e 6u~uoz <;T-([ ue :zapun .6u~TTato\p hT~lUeJ aT6u~s e s~ q:J~qto\ JO auo 'suo~=ldo oto\=I lap~SUO;) 0=1 a~~T PTnoto\ aq =leq=l p~es =lunH :za60([ .pa=l:J~:Z=lsa:z paap =IOU s~ .([.v.a aq=l J~ 1:-'1 JO uO~=lepualUlUO;)a:z to\e19q=l ~ to\ PTnoto\ a;)~JJO 6U~UUETd aq=l pa:zap~suO:J 6u~aq 0u~uoza:z JO e~~3=1~:Z;) u~elU aq=l seto\ h=l~T~q~=lEdlUO;) a:Ju~s =lEq=l pa=le=lS S~Aea a:J~TV .as1:lUo:zdlUO:J :z~eJ e aq PTnoto\ =laaJ a:zenos 000'<; =leq=l sTaaJ =lUe:J~Td:de aq~ .az~s JO uO~=lda;)xa q=l~to\ suo~=lepualUlUO;)a:z s,a;)~JJO 6U~UUETa aq=l JO TTe q=l~to\ aa:z6E 0=1 6u~THto\ s~ =lue;)~Tdde aq,L .1:-'1 u~ a:zn=l:Jn:Z=ls hHlUeJ-~=lTnw :zo a6poT '([va T:T e PHnq 0=1 aTq~ssod s~ n =leq=l 6u~:zap~suo:J uo~ssa:Juo;) e JO q6noua ueq=l a:zow s~ 'a:J~JJO 6u~uueTd aq=l hq papualUWO:Ja:z 'UO~=I:J~:Z=lsa:z asn aq=l =leq=l sTaaJ pue 1:-'1 pauoz aq PTnoqs h=l:zado:zd aq=l =leq=l s~u~q=l =lUe:J~Tdde aq,L .6u~uoz 6u~p -uno:z:zns aq=l q=l~to\ aTq~=ledlUO;) s~ s~q=l pue 'pa~Tdde aq PTnoqs 6u~uoz aA~=I:J~:Z=lsa:z ssaT aq=l 'au~T 6u~uoz e hq pa=l;)as~q s~ h=l:zado:zd e a:zaqto\ =lEq=l uO~=I~sod aq=l =I:zoddns sto\eT ase;) PUE s~q=l paq;):zeasa:z seq aq Z '9 a PTO=l :zaJJ~q;)S .h=l:zado:zd aq=l aAoqe s~ ea:ze uO~=I~sue:Z=l an:Z=l aq=l =lEq=l pue sap~s aa:zq=l uo 1:-'1 hq papunonns seto\ h=l:zado:zd aq=l =leq=l pa=lE=ls oSTe a;)uadS .(00'9 s~ a6E=looJ alenoo aq,L .:zo:z:za u~ a:ze 'ssaT aq 0=1 =lUalUa:znsealU s~q=l to\oqs q;)~qto\ uO~=ld~:Z:Jsap Te6aT aq=l pue paap aq,L 'sap~s q=loq uo ap~to\ =laaJ h=lX~S a:zato\ S=lO'I aq=l =leq=l 6u~to\oqs haA:zns e pan~lUqns peq =lue;)f!dde aq=l =lEq=l UO~SS~lUlUO~ aq=l paw:zoJu~ '=lue:J~ Tdde aq=l 6u~=luasa:zda:z ':zaJJ~q;)S a;)uadS .h:zesSa;)auun uaAo:zd uaaq seq =I~ =leq=l alUn q:Jns H=lun u~elUa:z PTnoqs and aq=l =leq=l spualUlUo:Ja:z a;)~JJO 6u~uueTd aq=l uoneu6~sap 1:-'1 e 6unsanDa:Z hTuO s~ =lUe:J~TddE aq=l q6noq,L .uo~=leu6~sap and h:ZO=lepuelU e seq OSTE uO~=I:Jas 5T-([ aq,L .aTqnedlUO:J aq PTnoto\ auoz :zaq=l~3 .sauoz 6u~puno:z:zns aq=l pue sasnpueT 6u~punol:zns aq=l JO h=l~Hq~=ledlUO:J aq=l s~ epa=lp;) =luE=I:zodlUl =lSOlU aq=l pue e~la=l~:Z:J to\a~Aa:z aq=l JO =lq6~T u~ 6u~uoza:z aq=l =Ie pa~ooT seq a:J~JJO 6u~uueTa aq=l =leq=l pa=le=ls a:J~TV ..sloqq6~au S=l~ :zoJ h=l~A~=I~SUas pue =I;)adsa:z q=loq to\oqs THto\ =leq=l heto\ e u~ =I Hnq aq 0=1 6u~PHnq =lualUa;)eTda:z hue a:z~nDa:Z haq=l =leq=l pue 6u~TTato\p hHlUeJ aT6u~s e se asn a=lepdo:zdde h:zaA '=luasa:zd :z~aq=l u~ V '9 ( s=lO'I aAeaT 0=1. UO~SS~lUlUO~ aq=l sa6:zn =lauuag .:ZW =leq=l hes 0=1 uo =luato\ h:z:zaa . .au~qsuns :z~aq=l JO =lSOlU 1:86T '1: :zaqwaAoN uOlss~lUwoJ 6UFUOZ '9 6u~uueTa uaasV "'~, ""."""I_"""'~~'"~--"-,,>,,,, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F,HOECKEl9.9.lItl.CO. Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Novemb~r 2. 1982 Anderson said there is a possibility of loss of view planes and sun rights for the residents below. Anderson said he would like to see some sol ar access legi slation. Anderson said any action taken should be directed towards other residents solar rights. Harvey said a building envelope is possible. Ms. Davis said this is a lodge transition area and it works as such. Blomquist said because of the size and location of these parcels, the recommend- ation of rezoning L-2 with a deed restriction makes more sense than zoning it R-15, which makes the lot non-conforming. Hunt said he feels the planning office recommendation for what can be built on this parcel is quite reasonable. Harvey said he wants to see a building envelope and more than a 5 foot setback. Pardee said the proposal is for 40 percent less building than could have been buil t in L-2. Pardee said if the FAR is restricted to 4200 square feet, then the PUD does not need to be added. Harvey said currently only a single family residence could be built, so this is increasing the density. Ms. Fallin pointed out this will probably be a short term duplex, which will result in greater density in numbers of people. Harvey said he would like a voluntary restriction on a setback between any future building and the Fifth Avenue lot line. Esary said the application before P & Z is a rezoning to L-2. The burden is on the applicant to prove compatibility with surrounding properties, community needs, etc. As part of the proof, the applicant can willingly mitigate the impacts by these voluntary restrictions on the property, which may include an FAR restriction, a building envelope, restriction to a duplex. Shiffer said the applicant would agree to a duplex but does not agree to 4200 square feet FAR. Shiffer said the primary concern is to have this land zoned to be compatible with the surrounding area, which is L-2. The applicant feels that a 4200 square feet FAR is too great a restriction in terms of development. Shiffer said the original compromise was 4800 square feet. Harvey asked about the setback issue. Shiffer said he doubts that the applicant would agree to that. Ms. Fallin said she would prefer to see a setback on the Fifth Avenue side. Anderson said he is not prepared to come up with a suggested setback or height. Whatever the development is, it should be sensitive to its neighbors. Anderson said he would like the approval conditioned on mitigating the impact on the neighbors. Ms. Davis said the Commission could put a PUD on this. Hunt said he feels 4200 square feet building is reasonable. Hunt said he is very neutral about the side yard setback, but he woul d 1 ike to keep the size of the building reasonabl e to the capability of what they could have built previously. 5 ;--I, _" H"'"'' ,,,,,.,..., .---,----."'.. '..'.. ,....,.";.,, Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission November 2. 1982 Ms. Fallin said she would approve a 4200 square foot building and would like to see a building envelope. Blomquist said this should be zoned L as it is surrounded by L zoning. Harvey said he would I ike to see a setback and to have the FAR maintained at 4200 square feet. The alternative may be to maintain the PUD on this parcel. Harvey said if there is a PUD on this parcel, and the applicant comes in with a sensitive plan, the Commission may approve a plan larger than 4500 square feet. Schiffer requested the Commission continue the public hearing to the end of the agenda to see if he can contact his cl ient. Harvey suggested zoning this L-2/pUD and itemize the concerns which must be addressed in the PUD, which are FAR, setback, height, impact on the neighborhood. Harvey closed the public hearing. Schiffer amended his application to request L-2 zoning with a mandatory PUD with a further use restriction to a duplex to show compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Anderson moved to recommend a zoning designation for Lots 3 and 4 of Capital Hill addition to L-2 with a mandatory PUD overlay with conditions that the maximum density be a duplex, and that the issues of height, setback, floor area ratio, slope, and impact on surrounding properties be factors in the PUD process; seconded by Ms. tygre. All in favor, motion carried. Public Hearing Amended Conditional Use Pyramid Travel Harvey opened the public hearing. Colette Penne, planning office, reminded the Commission they approved a conditional use in June 1981 for this use located in the downstairs of the Trueman Center. Ms. Penne said the concern at that time was that the downstairs is SCI while the upstairs is NC zone. The condition was that space would be available in the Trueman center of about the same size for an SCI use. Ms. penne told Council the travel agency never took up residence after getting the approval. They are amending their request to relocate on the ground floor to the east of the drug store. Ms. penne recommended approval to locate in space 204. Hunt said he believes travel agents belong closer to the commercial core or in the office zone. Hunt said NC and SCI should not be used for travel agencies. Blomquist asked if travel agencies are a listed condi tional use. Richman told the Commi ssion they made a use determination before they deal t with the travel agency request and determined this was an appropriate use. 6 '- , i RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM SO C.F.HOECKELB.e.IltL.Co. Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission November 2. 1982 Harvey closed the public hearing. Anderson moved to approve the amendment to the approved conditional use for Pyramid Travel to locate in space 204 of the North Mill Station and grant them a conditional use permit; seconded by Pardee. All in favor with the exception of Blomquist and Hunt. Motion carried. Public Hearing L-3 Rezoning Harvey opened the public hearing. Alan Richman, planning office, told the Commission the process they have followed is to amend the zoning map by creating the zone district on the map and creating its locations on the map. Richman presented the 28 locations of proposed L-3 rezoning, Council added two lodges Edelweiss and Hol iday House. The staff questioned whether these are operating lodges, but Council wanted to include all lodges. Council directed the staff to go forward with the zoning action as a class action. Richman said the staff has done the adjacent property notices and contacted the lodge owners to make sure they were aware of this rezoning. Richman said the planning office is including all 30 lodges on the rezoning unless they specifically ask to be excluded. Richman provided the Commission with a planning review of the appropriate zoning criteria; compatibility with surrounding zones, impact on services, community need, Aspen area general plan relationship, and heal th safety and general welfare questions. Richman said this action is to provide incentives for facilities to upgrade, to allow lodges to improve themselves. Harvey said he had a note from the Aspen Skiing Company in favor of this proposed rezoning. Marge Riley, Little Red Ski Haus, said she supports this because it will allow lodges to do more than 10 percent upgrade per year. Richman said he has had 27 positive responses from lodge owner s. Si Kelly, Buckhorn Lodge, located across from City Market, told the Commission he would choose not to be zoned L-3 but would prefer to be CL; however, his lodge was rezoned 0, office. Norma Dolle, Snow Queen Lodge, asked if the Cooper Street Lofts could be rezoned L-3. Harvey said that building falls wi thin the definition of mul ti-family not lodge. Richman pointed out the Cooper Street Lofts is a conforming use. Spencer Schiffer told P & Z the Swiss Chalet has a GMP approval currently for employee housing. If L-3 zoning were imposed on the Swiss Chalet, how would the GMP approval be affected. Richman said the GMP approval will expire at the end of this year. The residential use is not a permitted use in the L-3 zone district, and this would be a conflict. Schiffer said there is 7 ,..,..._--_.","_.~..".,,--,>. Aspen Plannin9 & Zoning Commission November 2. 1982 an opportunity to deal with this problem at Council. Richman said this would be appropr iate at the publ ic hearing before Council. Harvey closed the pUblic hearing. Hunt moved to recommend to amend the zoning district map by a rezoning of the entire city for the purpose of designation location for the L-3 zone district, and further recommend that the following lodges be rezoned to L-3 by ordinance of the city council unless lodge owner specifically request to be deleted; these are listed in the planning office memorandum of October 25, 1985 with the exception of the Buckhorn Lodge; seconded by Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. 620 East Hyman Building - Special Review Alan Richman, planning office, said this is a request for a GMP exemption to reconstruct the top floor of the 620 East Hyman building. The applicant is asking that the top floor be used as a residential unit. The reason it is a GMP exemption is that an applicant can be exempt from the GMP if it is for remodeling, restoration, or reconstruction if there is no expansion of commercial floor area or expansion of existing dwelling units. Richman said the question is is this the creation of a dwelling unit or reconstruction of space. The applicant states a portion of the top floor has historically been used for residential purposes, and the reconstruction of the unit could occur outside the GMP. Richman said when this went to the building department, they investigated this and found the dwelling uni t to have no real legal status. Richman said the Commission has an extensive report from the building department. The original plans show this area as office space, and these were not finished off. According to the standards of the building department, this is office space. Blomquist asked if the plans shows a kitchen and a bathroom. Richman said yes as accessory to the office uses. Blomquist said by definition of the zoning code, this is residential space. Richman said according to the building code, there are various standards of occupancy. This building has been maintained as commercial level of occupancy; it does not meet any of the residential standards. Richman said this is certainly not the most significant issue in Aspen; however, there is a precedential issue here, which is the mere fact of occupying a dwelling unit gives it a dwelling unit legal status. Richman said the issue is does the city wish to give all the bandit units in town legal status, and the ability to expand and reconstruct. Harvey said the question is there is not building permit for this unit as a residential dwelling 8 , , ~- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C. F. HOEC~EL B. B. lit L. CO. Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission November 2. 1982 unit. Richman said also the issue is whether an applicant should be allowed by right to interchange uses without approval. Richman said the city attorney feels if a usue is to be a residen- tial use in a commercial building, but that use is accessory to other commercial uses to house someone whose occupation is in the building that this accessory residential use could be permitted within the commercial space without going through a growth management appl ication. Richman said the planning office does not agree because it leaves the commercial inventory in a fluctu- ating status. It also leaves people in the position to pick and chose between the residential and commercial competitions as to how to create space in the downtown area. Richman said there is only a limited amount of commercial space available. Harvey asked what would happen to this space in regards to the GMP, would it go back into the quota. Richman said if residential use is to be a permanent use of the property, the commercial space should go back into the quota and a residential unit should be deducted. Lar ry Yaw, the appl icant, said they want this as a residence and will give up rights to reuse this as commercial space. Blomquist said this change will not make an impact if the relevant quotas are added to or subtracted from. Pardee said the purpose of the GMP is to get the best possible plan. This could be a loophole if P & Z is not careful of diverting the intent of the GMP. P & Z should be careful not to set a precedent. Pardee said the Commission should examine the broader issue. Schiffer said the exemption procedure is that each case be looked at on its merits. Richman told the Commission that Council has decided that change in use will not come to P & Z but will be reviewed by staff. Schiffer said the important issue to focus on is whether this use is permitted. Pardee said this space was office space that was illegally used as residential. Schiffer noted this building existed pre-GMP. Hunt said he would like to see the original approvals to see if residential uses were req uested. Richman said the original application was for .other than residen- tial use". Yaw said the original certificate of occupancy cannot be found. Yaw said the reduction of 3,000 commercial space for a two-bedroom unit has less impact. Hunt said he is opposed to a residential unit because there is no parking provided. Schiffer said this has been used as a dwell ing un i t for 6 years; the question of whether this is 'legal' cannot be determined. Harvey said people have been living in this unit. Richman said if the Commission is incl ined to approve this, since the question of accessory use and change in use it undetermined at this point, that the Commission make a finding there is an existing dwelling unit in this building that can be expanded. This is a clear GMP 9 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission November 2. 1982 exemption. Hunt said the history of the building is not clear, and this is an existing dwelling unit and accessory to the commercial uses. Hunt recommended GMP exemption of the reconstruction of the top floor of the 620 East hyman Building; the history of this is rather shabby to determine anything but that the top floor is a dwelling unit; therefore, the expansion of the dwelling unit should be allowed a GMP exemption; seconded by Blomquist. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Fall in moved to adj ourn at 7: 15 p. m.; seconded by Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. /:!a;dv~nJ 0 ~t!-l / Kathryn S/Koch, City Clerk 10 -- , ,