Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19821207 F DRM ~I C. F. H DECK EL B. B. a. L. CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves December 7, 1982 Aspen Planning and Zoninq Commission Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Welton Anderson, Lee Pardee, Roger Hunt, Pat Fallin and David White present. commissioner Comments New Buslness: Mountaln Rlver Manor, Subdivision Exceptlon Roger Hunt said t~~~ he was apa11ed at the slght of an earth station a boarding house WhlCh had been converted to commercial space and is located in the region of Third and Main Streets. Roger wanted to know how it happened? Alan Richman, Planning, explained that the building was first converted. tocanindJ.vidua11y, historically deslgnated structure which are exempt from the growth management plan and can change their use at will. The Councl1 has not agreed to a review mechanism for historic structures with the change in exemption procedures. The commercial use, as brought into the BUlding Dept., was lntended for office use. The satellite dish itself is in fact part of the broadcasting equipment, and broadcasting stations are a conditional use, not a permitted use in the office zone dlstrict. Thus, there is an office use of the building which is permissab1e, and an expansion of the conditional use with the placement of the dish. Expansion of the conditional use will have to be reviewed by the P&Z. Colette informed the Commission that the satellite dish was going to a public hearing before the HPC on January 12, 1982. Colette agreed that it should be consldered an expansion of conditional use. The Commission should address satellite dishes because if satellite dishes are not attached to the structure they require only an on-grade concrete slab which does not reqtlire a building or excavation permit. Therefore, there is no control over where they go and their visual impact. Alan mentloned that neither the County nor the City code controls these types of facillties. The Historic Preservation Committee recommended that the satellite dish applicant come up with some landscaping to screen the satellite dish. Paul Taddune, City Attorney, told the Commission that there is no building code violation, but there is a problem with the conditional use application in that the satellite dish is already in place, prior to approval of the application. AS long as the appllcation is in the process the applicant will not be forced to remove the satellite dish. If the the applicant does not reCleve approval then the Commission has the authority to see that the dish is removed. Pat Fallin informed the Commission that due to the close proximity of her office to the offlces of Jim Mollica and Randy GOld she had heard discussions concernlng the Mountain Hiver appllcation. Pat did not feel that her vote would be affected. The Commission agreed that a statement was sufficient and that there was no need for Pat to step down. -1- Mountain River Manor (cont.) -2- Colette Penne, planning, sald that the Mountaln Rlver Manor was located at 900 East Hopkins in the RMF zone. It was approved in 1981 as the Laurilat Condominiums and since that time has changed ownership and been remodeled. In the remodeling loft sleeplng areas were added to eight of the upper units of the 16 unit complex. The floor area ratio in the RMF zone is one to one. This building has a FAR well below that at 55% of the allowable FAR. Sectlon 24.13 3A s~ates that no non-conforming structure can be enlarged or alternated in a way that increases its non-conformity. In this case there is a 12,000 square foot lot with 16 studio units. The RMF area and bulk requirements require a 1,000 square feet per studio unit, 1250 square feet per 1 bedroom unit. So this is a non-conforming situation. The structure itself, however, is not non-conforming. The addltion of the lofts considered as part of studio unit do not increase the non-conformity. The addition of the lofts, considered as conversion of studios to one bedroom units, does increase the non-conformity and the conversion will not be allowed. Colette, following a site visit, recommends that the lofts be considered sleeping areas in a studio unit. The units are very small, 277 square feet without the lofts. The lower Ilmit on a studio unit is 300 square feet, thus, they do not conform to the standards for the living area. A one bedroom unit has a lower limit of 500 square feet. Even with the additlon of the loft sleeping areas the unlts are not 500 square feet. The Planning Office recommends that the Commission approve the addition of the sleeping areas to 8 of the sixteen units and the ammendment of the applicable sheet of the plat with the pre-conditions. Roger asked what employee housing guidelines the Mountain River condominiums fell under? Roger was informed that they were outside of the gUldlines. Roger felt that under the circumstances the property should not be developed further, following the construction of the sleeping area. Lee thought that the rationale for building the lofts was that by increasing the size the minimum size for a studio was being approached, thereby decreasing the non-conformlty. The applicant has two non-conformities now: they don't have the 1000 square feet per StUdlO, but ther~lso smaller than the miniumum size. By increasing the size they reduce one of the non-conformities. Perry Harvey confirmed that what was being considered was whether adding a floor over a bathroom and kltchen lncreases the non-conformity. Welton said that unless the loft was completely closed off from the rest of the studio the unit could not be considered a one bedroom apartment and would still be considered a studio apartment. Roger said that he dldn't have a problem with the additional square footage. However, Roger felt that the loft looked more like a bedroom. There may not be a wall separating the two spaces but there was a floor separating the two spaces. Perry felt that part of the question was whether the increase in space would create a larger impact on the neighborhood. He didn't think it would because even with the increase in space i~ would be hard for two people to live in one unit. Lee Pardee moved to recommend approval for the addition of sleeping areas to eight of the sixteen units of the Mountain River Mano~ and amendment of the applicable sheet of the original plat with the following condltions: One, title as Amended Plat. Two, changes indicated clealy - ~. FORM" C.F.HOECKELB.B.a.L.CJ. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves December 7, 1982 Aspen Planning and Zoninq commission Mountain River Manor (cont.) Pitkin Center Subdivlsion Exception and a statement that remaining sheets of the original plat remain in effect. Three, signature blocks for approving authorities and Engineering Department as well as the Clerk and Recorder's acceptance certiflcate. This recommendatlon lS being made because there is not an increased occupancy and because the Commission is in fact reducing the non-conformity by increasing the size to comply with the minimum size of a studio unit required by the City housing guidelines. Lee amended the fourth point which indicates that there is no increased occupancy to read: This is being recommended because there is no increase in occupancy and because the unit was not increased from a studio to a one bedroom and because the non-conformity had been reduced by increasing the size to comply with the City housing guidelines for a studio unit. Pat Fallln seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Alice Davis, Plannlng Ufflce, presented a subdivision exception to acquire the property around the Pitkln Center WhlCh is where the Pitkin County Bank is located on lots Rand S. The applicant is requesting a subdivlsion exception to divlde lnto four lots, Lot 0, P, Q, and then one lot, R & S of Block 94. In November the applicant recieved approval of the inventory that they demollshed so they still have the deslgnated development rights on each of the parcels. The memo dated December 7, 1982 and the map show the exact figures of the development rlghts the appllcant had at the tlme of demolition. The applicant is dividing the property so that lots can be sold with the development rights. If the appllcant transfers the lots then the development rights also have to be transfered. Alice informed the Commission that the only requirements made by the Plannlng ufflce are that if the applicant wishes to transfer the credits from one lot to the next that they flrst ~ recieve Planning Office approval only to insure that there is a reasonable development right left or that there lS a covenant which states that a transfer lS not possible unless a GMP allocation is obtained. One other Planning Office concern is that the applicant meets the requirements of the Englneering Dept~ WhlCh are minor plat changes. Perry Harvey felt that the Commisslon needed to insure that there is a plat recorded of reeero WhlCh ltemizes the development rights on the lots. Alice said that there are four changes on the plat that the Engineerlng Department is requesting one of WhlCh lS that the lndlvidual parcels are better dellneated than they are. David Whlte expressed a concern for the appearance of 3 different buildings on 3 different lots. David thought it would look bad. Welton felt that some of the large new buildings ln town that cover 4 to 6 city lots are not as much in keeping wlth the mixture of small buildings and large bUlldlngs within the commercial core. Allce said that she would like to ammend the first -3- Pitkin Center (cont. ) -...-.. -4- condition made by the Planning Office, elimlnating the second sentance which reads "The current development rlghts for each lot must remain as follows unless further approval from the Planning Office is recleved". The following sentance will be added to the flrst recommendatlon: "The reVlew lS to insure that each lot lS not left without a reasonable development right or if no reasonable development right exists that it be covenanted to exist to prohibit the transfer of the lot without first obtaining a development right." Perry asked if there was a development right glven under the GMP for these lots. Perry was told that the development rights were derived from the demolltion. If the lot does not have a development right the applicant can apply for one under the GMP. The applicant can increase the development rights through the GMP. Pat Fallin asked if the applicant would have to combine some lots in order to build since there was a minimum of 3,000 square feet requlred ln order to build. Pat was lnformed that the lots were all at least 3,500 square feet. Gary Esary, City Attorney, said that the attorney's office did not have any problems with the appllcation because of the unlque nature of the development rlghts attached the parcet"h"l!-I<q~ry thought that the statement of exception~ recorded with the plat and recites the conditions should be sufficlent for putting the publlC on notice to the provisions surroundlng the applicatlon. It was also suggested that the Council resolution recommending approval also be recorded with the plat. Gary recommended adding to the end of condition number one, memo dated December 7, 1982, that the statment of exception be approved as to form by the city Attorney. Allce confirmed that there snould be a thlrd condition which states that a statement of exception must be approved by the Attorney's Office as well as a fourth condition WhlCh states that the statement of exception should be referenced on the plat Perry entertained a motion to recommend approval of the request to divide Lots O,P,Q and Lots R&S of Block 94, Aspen Origlnal Townslte, into four parcels subject to the following conditions: 1. As stated in section 20-5B of the Codp. the four newly created parcels cannot be transfeered without a development allocation or credit. The current develompment rights are as follows: Lot 0: Lot P: Lot Q: Lots R&S 2,533.4 square feet 2,758.25 square feet 1,997.35 square feet 8,522.49 square feet These development credits cannot be transfered ". a.,...,on~ the five lots or cumulated on one lot unless further approval is rec~eved from the Plannlng Offlce. This review is to lnsure that each lot is not left witnout a reasonable development right or that if no reasonable development right exists that a convenant eXlsts prohibitlng the transfer of the lot without flrst obtaining a development right. These development credits can be increased if the owner competes and Wlns a commercial GMP allocation for additional space. 2. The four plat requirements requested by the Engineering Department listed In* the Planning memorandum dated December 1, 1982 must be met prior to the recordation of the plat. 3. A statement of exception must be reviewed and approved by the attorney's offlce and recorded and '-' ..,.,iI'. FeR"!' C.F.HOECKELB.B.a.L.C,l. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves December 7, 1982 Aspen Plannlng and Zoning CommlSSlon Pitkin Center (cont. ) Koch Townhouses Unit 1 Subdivlsion Exception City Thomas Property Subdivlslon Exception and the plat must have reference to the statement of exceptlon. Hoger so moved. Lee Pardee seconded the motion. All in favor, motlon carried. Alice Davis, Plannlng, lnformed the Commlsslon that in 1976 the applicant added a garage to unit 1 of the Koch Townhouses. The applicant is now asking for a subdivislon exceptlon ln order to amend the plat to include the garage. The applicant is allowed to build a garage by rlght and they are only amending the plat because the title company is requirlng them to. The Plannlng offlce feels that this is a minor plat amendment. The Engineering Department did have four comments on how the plat needed to be changed to make it more complete and more appropriate. The Planning office recommends approval of the plat amendment SUbject to compllance with the plat requirements made by the Engineerlng Department. Roger Hunt moved to approve the amendment to the plat of the Koch Townhouses Unit 1 and.~pprove the subdivislon exceptlon which includes the additlon of a garage. The approval lS subject to the appllcant making the plat changes recommended by the Engineering Department which are contained in the Planning office memorandaum dated December 7, 1982. The eight items outlined in the Engineering memo dated November 26, 1982 regarding the Koch townshouses should be forwarded to Council said Perry. Alan Rlchman thought that these were consolidated into the four conitions in the December 7, memo. David White seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. The Commisslon strongly supported the Planning Office's recommendation that minor plat amendments be handled at staff level. Alan Richman, Planning, lnformed the Commission that the Thomas property includes the property that lS near the Marolt property as well as the Castle Hidge and Water Plant areas. The City is trYlng to separate Castle Ridge from the other properties so that the transfer and the sale of this property can be completed. There lS no development proposed in conjucntlon with this appllcation. The property has been properly annexed and zoned. There is a concern to make sure the appllcant is not subdividlng anythlng without a development allotment. The property in question is composed of lots 1 and 2 WhlCh are open space lots and there lS no development proposed at this time. Lot 3 lS Castle Rldge which lS developed. If there is any further development on thlS lot it should be subject to a GMP allotment. Lot 4 lS the water plant which is an essentlal governmental use and is therefore exempt from the GMP. Perry Harvey asked if Lot 3 had the ability under the any FAR to expand. Alan said that Lot 3 was zoned R-15 SPA so it lS posslble for the applicant to expand. The Lots are based on the zoning. -5- City Thomas Propert (cont.) Chapman Condominiums Revision .,-----,-.._-,."'---,,-~,_.. -6- Perry asked why there was a 2A and 2B. Allan thought it had to do with the description of the lot. It lS not a seperate lot in terms of the subdivision. Perry thought that the plat should show lot 2 as one lot instead of a lot 2A and 2B. Lee Pardee thought that elimination of A & B should be condition for approval unless there is a legitimate reason for their existence. The Commission discussed the plat and the differences between 2A and 2B. Lee suggested that the Commission recommend that Lot 2 be noted as Lot 2A, 2B and 2C which would clarify the fact that there are 3 portions to the lot and that they are all together. Perry thought that within the recommendatlon for subdivlsion exception there should be contained a statement saying that there are no development rights on Lots 1, 2A, 2B, & 2C for clarificatlon. Lee moved to recommend approval to City Councll to grant subdlvision exception to the Thomas Property subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to recordation, the plat should be amended to include the following: a. Vicinity Map b. Show the pOlnt of beinning on the old Midland Right-of-Way description c. Indicate all adjacent platted subdivlsions d. Lot 2 be indicated as Lot 2A, Lot 2B & Lot 2C 2. The applicant agrees that any further development of Lot 3 will be subject to receipt of a development allotment. Welton Anderson seconded the motion. Discussion: Roger Hunt wondered what the purpose of condition 2~ithout also indicating that the appllcant must go through the SPA etc. Perry said that the applicant was required to go through SPA because that is the zoning on it. Gary Esary said that technically the Commission could not condition the application on future development. All in favor, motion carried. Alan Richman, Planning, told the Commission that the application lS a submission of a plat and the Commisslon lS being asked to amend the plat to reflect what was actually built. ThlS development meets all of the building codes and there is a minor change ln conflguratlon. Welton Anderson moved to recommend approval of the resubdlvison of the Chapman condominiums subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicants hould be requi.red to jOln an improvement district in the event one lS formed. 2. Prior to recordation, the plat should be amended to show the following: a. Indicate on-site parking spaces at one space per bedroom. b. Utility sources and meter locations. c. Show the fence around Unlt 2. d. Location of the irrigation ditch along the westerly propety line e'The wording of the surveyor's certiflcate is .", RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKHB,B.& c.(;:). Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 7, 1982 Chapman Condominiums (cont. ) somewhat unclear and should indicate that the work was done by the surveyor. Pat Fallin seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Roger Hunt moved to adjourn the meeting. Welton Anderson seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. .f,&~ aLL t~~ ~lie Markalunas ity Clerk's Office -7-