Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19830104 ,~.",", BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.. DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 4, 1983 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:10 with members Anderson, Hunt, Blomquist and White present. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Anderson commented on the memo that was passed out at the last meeting of December 21, 1982. A resolution recommend- ed imminence ordinance 50 of 1979 which adds definitions of "ExParte Contact and Conflict of Interest". In order to clarify proceedures when conflict occurs. It was stated that everyone has read this memo and Welton would like to enter the memo/draft of the resolution that Harvey gave the members into the record. Harvey added that he gave the memo/draft to Alan and Gary because he wanted them to draft a resolution and then bring it back for consideration. It was suggested by Gary Esary, Assistant City Attorney and Al Blomquist that a ordinance be drafted. Welton pointed out that he has been operating under the By-Laws of the Plann- ing and Zoning Commission since he was a member 1977-1978. He stated there is a passage concerning Conflict of Interest that reads as follows: Replace section 2, B with;, When a "Conflict of Interest" occurs and the Council member declares the conflict and removes him or herself from the Council, he or she shall then be subject to the rights and 'restrictions accorded any citizen. He or she may be an applicant or a member of a firm representing an applicant, or represent any applicant before Councilor any other offical board. Welton added that the above statement applied to this board as well, because of conflict of ordinance that was written in 1979. Because of this ordinance which superceeded P & Z's By-Laws, Welton had to step down of the first item con- cerning the Warehouse Facility because of his involvment with it. Welton also stated that as a one-man firm there was no way he could stay on the Commission and stay in business. The same thing is true for a number of other people in City positions such as City Officials. Harvey ask that a resolution be prepared. Welton agreed that a resoultion would be appropriate. Blomquist expressed that this is very critical and the unfairness to Welton has been here for quite sometime. Harvey stated that Blomquist recomended the changes regarding the "Conflict of Interest" in the ordinance. Then at a later date, handle the By-Laws and Ex Parte. Harvey explained the ordinance. It states that you can represent a client, an applicant or be an applicant, but you can not do so before your own board. Harvey said that it is the feeling of P & Z that this is dening a City Offical the rights that is accorded to any other citizen. If you have a conflict, in the sense that you are a Board Member and you are an applicant or represent- ing an applicant, you state that conflict. You step down, and then should have the right of any other citizen. The ordinance states that you can't represent anyone. -1- MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENT TO ASPEN DOWNTOWN STORAGE GMP APPLICATION (WELTON STEPS DOWN) Blomquist moved to recommend to Council to amend Ordinance 50-1979 by adding 1 (E) defining conflict of interest according to page 2 of the memo and chang- ing the definitions numerically to conform and replac- ing 2 (B) according to this memo. Second by Hunt. Assistant City Attorney, Esary recommended just addressing 2 Band 3 B at this time and not deal with the redefining conflict of interest. Blomquist amended his motion to strike defining conflict of interest at this time; Seconded by Hunt. All in favor. Anderson abstained. Motion Carried. Hunt moved to request the Attorneys Office come up with a resolution for the next P & Z meeting to cover the other item not covered in the previous motion; Seconded by Anderson. All in favor. Motion Carried. Hunt moved to approve the minutes of December 21, 1982. Welton seconded. All in favor. Motion Carried. Colette Penne of the Planning Office stated on October 5, 1982 this project was scored and moved onto Council with the recommendation for a one year allocation with a bonus allocation to complete one building a total of 8,250 square feet. The applicant requested that the item be tabled from the November 8, 1982 Council agenda, in consideration with the resolution that the p&Z passed early in October outlining some of the problems the p&Z felt were associated with the project that weren't re- flected in the scoring. The applicant has met with the ACES several times and has done some major changes in the project. It went to Council on November 22, 1982. The applicant ask that Council hold off on giving any Quota allotment. A quota allotment can never be revised upward, so they felt it was in their best interest to come back and have the project rescored and to have the P&Z make another recommendation for quota. The orginial submission was for 24,750 square feet in the form of three two-level buildings. There was a 400 square foot managers office in the restored Koch Lumber building and a 400 square foot studio for that person to live in. Plus, tow employee units that were seperate buildings back by the river. The new request is for two buildings. The square foot- age is 21,056 of commercial space. The manager's office and studio are still to be housed in the Koch Lumber building. A 12,000 square foot area at the back of the property has now been proposed for donation to the City as open space. The will be extensive landscaping done on that area so that it is a better introduction to the trail and Jenny Adair Park. The two additional incen- tive units have been eliminated. The project is now nearly 200 feet from the river; before it was within 100 feet and subject to Stream Margin Renewal. The trail aligment for the Rio Grand Trail is proposed now on the south side of the property. The Planning Office thinks that aligment is much better than having it bewteen the sanitation facility and the storage warehouse buildings. However, only the segment that is on this pro- perty can be completed and easements or acquisition of adjacent property would have to occur before the trail could be finished in that configuration. There is no assurance of that. Harvey asked if Council took any action on this. Colette replied, no. The Council at first tabled it, that they were thinking about ammending it. They had then ammended it. Showed that information to Council and said they would prefer that you not take action on giving us any quota allotment. -2- --- - BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.. DENVER ---- /'"'''''''< RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning & Zoning Commission January 4, 1983 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENT TO ASPEN DOWNTOWN STORAGE GMP APPLICATION The applicant wanted to go back and be rescored by P&Z. If the rescoring occurs tonight and if they will meet the thresholds, we would like a recommendation from P&Z for a quota since the old quota is meaningless. The Planning Office will take it back to Council for review and allotment grant. Gideon Kaufman stated that Council had dealt with this plan/improvement over the previous submission. Tom Wells presented and explained the map to the p&Z members. Harvey asked what happens if the trail can't be relocated to the other side. Tom said it will still work the same way it was. Harvey asked if the park would keep its same elevation in the original plan. Wells said, yes. Gideon Kaufman pointed out in the memo, the only issue that this hasn't been addressed is the possible return of the railroad to Aspen through this particular property. The cost is in excess of l~ million dollars per mile of railroad. This makes it unlikely that this will happen. Blomquist stated he has remained Ex Parte on this usbject due to the fact of his involvment with neighbors, etc. Blomquist asked Harvey if he may step down due to the conflict of interest. Harvey said it would then take away for a quorum. Blomquist then added he would stay on due to the interest of the publi_c purpose of this commission. Kaufman said the City may negotiate to purchase the property. There is a situation within the code on FAR's. If the roof stays on, it adds over 4,000 square feet to the FAR. Therefore, 3 years quota would be need- ed. If the roof was to be removed, the project could be done in a 2 year quota. It is of importance to be able to build both of the buildings at the same time and not disturb the area twice. The Planning Office is concerned about approving a three (3) year quota. If the roof was to be elininated, it could get by with a two (2) year quota. If the p&Z has interest, they would be willing to remove the :r.-oof at this time and go on a two (2) year quota and complete the entire project at one time. By covering the driveway area, it becomes included in the FAR. Kaufman added when it went thru the GMP amen~7.ents, one of the points made by th Planning Office was that there was flexability if we reduced the quotas. Harvey opens the Public Hearing. Mark Freedberg makes the following comments and state- ments. "If you allocate a GMP on this particular site, if an opportunity is found for an alternate site would the entire porcess has to start again? Or, could it be given to the other site if the architect would remain the same? He feels that this is the wrong project on the wrong piece of property. There is enough congestion in the Trueman complex. This will not do anything to mitigate it. It will make it worse than it already is. These types of decisions in reference to the future of Aspen are era- mediable. Once these types of decisions are made, they're gone for good. It was suggested by Mr. Freedberg that the area in which the proposed project will be taken place, be flagged. By flagging the area, he beleives people will realize what king of mass we will be confronted -3- ....,....--~ PUBLIC HEARING CONTI,NUED with to the entrance to the trail. He also stated that he and others are looking into methods to find an alter- nate piece of property of offer the developer. Joan Lane expressed her concern for congestion, which is her main question tonight before the p&Z members. Harvey said the storage facility does'nt generate alot of retail traffic. The majority of the trips to this would probably coincide with trips to that area anyway, which is an area which attracts alot of traffic on a daily basis. Harvey said he did not feel there was going to be a tremendous added impact by this parti- cular type of facility. Lane asked Harvey if the comm- unity needs enter into GMP scoring? Harvey then replied, no. Lane asked again the communites goals do not have anything to do with this. She asked if the community needs this? Does that question enter into the GMP scoring? Harvey said it was more of the developer's concern. Tom wells said it was more of the concern of the zoning. The property is zoned SCI, which means it has the development potential for service, commercial, and industrial. Ms. Penne added that there was one category in the scoring that is public transportation and roads. There is a ref era 1 process were the Engineering Department had a chance to comment on this, and they did not comment. Harvey read the following letter into the record con- cerning Aspen Downtown Storage GMP Application: "Dear Herman, Council and Commission Members, I'd like to voice my concern over the location of the storage warehouse which may be build on the Rio Grand Trail adjacent to Hallam Lake. This particular area is part of a buffer zone protect- ing the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies and also contributing to the quiet and natural atmosphere of the constantly used trail and Jenny Adair Park. We are so fortunate to have these valuable resources within a short distance of the downtown area. It would be a shame to lose any of the unique quality they bring to our community for commercial venture that might well be located elsewhere with no loss to the business involved. The facilities for educatio~ recreation and rip- arian open space cannot, unfortunately, be moved, nor can they tolerate this kind of pressure with- out losing much of what they now offer this comm- unity. I hope that you and others involved will explore the possibility of an alternative site for the warehouse and will do all that you can to retain the area in question as open space. I will app- reicate hearing from you concerning this matter since my work schedule conflicts with your meet- ing tonight. Sincerely, Helen Palmer Box 1855 Aspen, CO. 81612 Tom Cardamore states concern that alot of the land- scape plans are not on the property owned by the dev- eloper. He would like to know if a request could be made to have a post put in place to see what the or- ginial height of the roof and fence would be. Harvey said that the request was not out of line in terms to get a feel for what this is going to look like. Ms. Penne said it could be done as a site visit. This will go through a SPA review. She does not feel that it is appropriate to hold up scoring for a project like that. -4- --- ....,; FORM," C. F. HOE:C~EL a. a. a. L. ~O, ,~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Planning & zoning Commission January 4, 1983 Regular Meeting PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Harvey agreed and asked if the flagging could be done before Council and SPA. Lane asked where would the dirt go and/or what would be done with it. Tom Card- amone said it would go into regrading the trail. The trail is steep and it would be regraded to make a more gradual trail. Blomquist said the project should not be built un- less the open space trade off that the City and ACES need is the actual purchase and completion of the tran- sactions with Mrs. Paepcke and for those two (2) houses. Blomquist said that this new plan showing the Paepcke land lines up with the planned trail all the way up to the elementary school. Blomquist said it appears to be in the public interest to generally favor project at this time. Kaufman stated that the space bewteen the building and river will be deeded to the City or to the ACES. He also added that the roof will stay on. Harvey asked what is involved with the SPA plan amen- dment listed in Ms. penne's memo as an additional re- view. Ms. Penne said that SPA a detailed look at every- thing. It involves everything that the GMP does in detail. It covers access to the site, site design, landscaping, trail aligment, utility service and etc. Kaufman said the project got a GMP score and it was sent on to City Council. Kaufman asked if p&Z agreed that this is a better plan. The aplicant already has approval for something that p&Z didn't seem to like as much. Hunt comments that he is faced with scoring this pro- ject. Does he judge this as a new project as far as scoring? Hunt added if he does score this as a new project, he could well end up with a lower score than the previous one. Harvey said that they need to discuss the recommend- ed allocation. P&Z discussed prolonged construction verses breif construction. Is it fair to allocate as many years as the appliant needs, which is 2~ years with the bonus. This is 7,000 square feet, which P&Z can allocate in any year. P&Z can allocate future years and can give it 20% bonus, which would be another 1400 square feet for each year. One year with a bonus would be 8,400. The Planning Office recommendation for 10,528 square feet for l~ years with alittle bit of a bonus. The concern is still the impact on the site, over a prolonged construction period. Kaufman said the back building has to be built first. The impact would be easier on the neighborhood and would be best for everyone involved to do it all at one time. l'his was the only applicant in the SCI zone. Kaufman also added that the impact be as minimum as possible in reference to construction, traffic for that area. Harvey said that 'the Planning Office states that there is a building potential of 75,000 square feet in the SCI and 65,000 square feet int the NC zone. Harvey ask the members what they felt was the correct -5- approach and comments. Blomquist feels the roof should stay on; it should be build up completely, finished and out of there. Blomquist said the quota of three years to allow this project does not bother him. Blomquist said that it is in the wrong place, and that the zoning was wrong. Basically, it means that Council has the alternative to buy the land. White agreed. Hunt said he would vote against it. AMENDMENT TO ASPEN DOWNTOWN STORAGE GMP APPLICATION CONTINUED Blomquist moved to approve the quota of 21,056 square feet for this project and recommends it be sent to Council. White Seconds the Motion. All in Favor, with the exception of Hunt. Motion Carried. Blomquist moves the resubmission of the resol- ution 82-12, which recommends to the City Council that they consider the purchase of lot #3 of the Trueman neighborhoodcommercial center with open space for funds for uses of open space. Hunt - Seconds. All in Favor. Motion Carried. OWENS STREAM MARGIN REVIEW It is to be noted that Anderson is back up and Blom- quist is excused. Ms. Penne of the Planning Office presents the following: The location is Lot #1, Shoaf's Waterfall Subdivision (Neal Street above Herron Park). Zoning is R-15. The applicant is requesting special approval to construct a single family residence within 100 feet of the high water line of the Roaring Fork River. Section 24-6.3 of the Municipal Code sets review criteria for stream margin reviews, which are re- quired for all land and air space within 100 feet of the high water line of the Roaring Fork River. The six criteria are as follows: 1. No building shall be located so as to be within a flood hazard area designated by the U.S. Corps of Engineers Flood Plain Report for the Roaring Fork River. 2. In the event there is a trail designated by an approval trail plain within the develop- ment site, such trail shall be dedicated for public use. 3. All attempts should be made to implement the recommendations of the Roaring Fork Green- way Plan prepared by the Roaring Fork Greenway Committee. 4. Vegetation shall not be removed nor any slope grade changes made that may produce erosion of the stream bank. 5. There shall be permitted no changes to the stream channel for its capacity, and no activity shall be allowed which will increase stream sed- imentation and suspension loads. 6. All efforts must be made to reduce stream pollution and interference with the natural change of the stream, and to enhance the value of the stream as an important natural feature. Ms. Penne states the following: 1. The house location is not in one of those areas. -6- " ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves F()Ril!\O C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L,CJ. Regular Meeting Planning & zoning Commission January 4, 1983 2. It is listed as conditional approval for this. 3. This house is not intact with the Roaring Fork Greenway. 4. Every attempt has been made to keep all existing stands of cottonwoods or all major vegetation on top. The house has been designed to step down, rather than to be built in a way that it would be required alot or removal. There is a small drainage stream on the North side of the house that comes into the flood plain that makes the property abit swampy. The proposal includes a small rock retaining wall to keep that in its channel. Also, to help dry out that body of property. It shouldn't have anymore than a minimal impact on the river. 5. This an approach that will not increase sedi- mentation running to the river. It's sensi- tive to its design for the site. 6. Ms. Penne stated that this is a sensitive plan. The house has been designed such as the driveway, gar- age and greenhouse are at the back of the house. The living area of the house is towards the street. The additional 10 feet which was required for Neal Street, therefore will not impact. He is anticipating this happening by giving this easement. Another import- tant fact is the only portion of this house that is really within this 100 foot area, is the deck, which is above grade. Even the structural members of the deck, that support it are not within that 100 foo area. A poece of the deck connets into that area. This will not effect the channel or the stream, or impact anyone down stream in terms of a flood. The Planning Office recommends approal with the 3 conditions listed. The fourth condition being that the owner be required to join in the improvement dis- trict formed on Neal Street. Hunt moves to approve the Owens Stream Margin Review as presented for the Owen residence on Lot #1 of Shoaf's Waterfall Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Dedication of the trail easement to the public use. 2. Construction undertaken with efforts made to minimize flood zone distrubance. 3. Dedication of an easement for necessary add- itional area to widen Neal Street and accept- ance of same by the City Attorney. 4. Owner is required to join in an improvement district of Neal Street if one should be developed in the future. 5. The exact working in conditions #3 and #4 -7- , , - OWENS STREAM MARGIN REVIEW CONTINUED shall be approved by the City Attorney. Anderson - Seconds. All In Favor. Motion Carried. PLANNING OFFICE WORK PROGRAM Sunny Vann, Planning Director discussed his proposed 1983 Work Program. The topics of discussion were as follows: 1. City/Council Land Uses and Zoning Code Amendements 2. Code Streamlining 3. Zoning Maps Hunt moved to ajourn the meeting. Harvey Seconds. All In Favor. Motion Carried. Meeting ajourned. Deputy City Clerk -8-