HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19830705
/',-.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
FORM 'G C. F. HOECKEL 8. B. III L. ~O.
REGULAR MEETING
July 5, 1983
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on July 5, 1983 at 5:00 p.m. in
the City Council Chambers. Present were Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson,
Lee Pardee, David White, Roger Hunt and Perry Harvey.
Commissioners'
Comments
Recreation
Broadcasting
Inc. Satellite
Dish-Special
Review Pulic
Hearing
Roger Hunt called the Commission's attention to a Council meeting on .
Rubey Park. There is a study session at noon on Thursday July 7, 1983.
Roger said that he would like as many of the Commission members as possible
to attend.
Colette Penne of the Planning Dept intrQduced,peter.Van Domelen and
Joyce Hatten, representing the applicant. Colette explained that the
question before the Commission was the expansion of KSPN's conditional
use permit. The applicant would like to locate their satellite dish
on the premises of their office building at 332 west Main. Colette
pointed out that the office building itself was given conditional
use approval in 1979. Now with the buildings' existence in an individually
designated historic structure the office use could have been stated without
a review. However, the satellite dish is considered to be part of the
broadcast function and the broadcasting station is a conditional use
in the O-office zone. Colette said that there are three locations shown
for the site of the satellite dish: the existing location, which is in
the City right of way, and the dish cannot remain there, back at the very
corner of the carport, and up on top of the building as far back on the
carport as possible. The HPC has looked at the preliminary review and the
Committee felt that there probably isn't anything farther from the "fabric"
of a historic district than a satellite dish. Under the circumstances
the HPC realizes that the dish will probably have to be placed on the
site. The HPC thought that this could be accomplished in the least intrusive
way by either removal of the carport and moving it to the back, or by
placing the dish on top of the carport. Colette said that removing the
carport and moving it to the back is not going to make alot of difference
in terms of visibility from Main St. Putting the dish on top of the
carport would make the dish visible from the fewest number of vantage points.
Colette explained that since the dish was originally installed the City of
Aspen has adopted two ordinances dealing with satellite dishes. One of
the ordinances requires building permit review. If the dish is placed
on top of the carport structure it will require a building permit review
anyway. Colette stated that the P&Z Commission had adopted Ordinance # 19,
which oulined the criteria on page 2 of the memo dated July 5, 1983. The
present location violates the second criteria in that it is in the City
right of way. Colette said that there was the possibility of leaving the
dish in its present position and granting the applicant an encroachment
permit, however, the HPC is not too happy with the dish's extensive
visibility from Main St. Moving the dish to the back corner of the carport
would require a varience which violates criterium one. Colette recommended
that the satellite dish be placed on the carport with the following
conditions: a building permit be secured, the dish will not be visible
from Main Street, final approval be obtained from the HPC, the dish be
secured in such a way as to pose no physical threat to neighboring properties,
changes in the "state of the art II will be monitored and the dish will be
replaced by a smaller dish when it becomes available. Colette said that after
the site visit she was not sure that the conditon in which the dish was
not to be visible from Main St. could stay.
Roger Hunt corrected the second page of planning office memo dated
July 5, 1983 saying that the statement "eight satellites are recieved"
is incorrect. Roger said that one satellite at a time can be recieved
and by adjusting the antenna up to eight satellites are potentially.recievable.
Satellite Dish
Review (cont.)
Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Closed
-2-
Mr. Hunt also said that this was an application for an extension of
conditional use. Because the antenna is presently existing without
a foundatio~as far as Mr. Hunt is concerne~the antenna was put up
illeagally because it was an expansion of conditional use. Roger
said he was looking at the application as if it did not exist.
Roger stated that the applicant was apparently applying to get a better
broadcast and assuming better broadcast quality, which he (Roger) didn't
see at the moment. Roger said he thought there was a better way to
accomplish the project
Gary Esary,City Attorney, ,asked if Roger's predisposition of hpstilicy toward
the app1icat.ion was based on.what Roger had seen because the.antenna is erected
and visible from Main steet, ~ did Roger just have a general predisposition
against KSPN?
Roger said no, the problem is that "all of the sudden that dish was stuck
up" and to Roger the dish wasn't supposed to be there. Roger said he had
done some research of his own and found that for what KSPN is putting on
the air the dish doesn't have to be there.
Perry Harvey opened the public hearing.
Sandy Summers asked why the satellite dish had to be attached to the
building. Why can't it be "poled out" at the back of the building looking
over the top of the building? Mr. Summers said that there were several
different types of mount. The type of mount that "they" use, uses three
piers, there is however a T-Bar mount that could be mounted on twelve inch
pipe, 15 or 20 feet in the air. By using this type of mount the dish
could be placed on almost any side of the building and would not have to
be attached to the building. Mr. Summers suggested putting the dish
along the back lot line in the trees where it would be almost invisible.
Joyce Hatten said that they could not go any farther east because the
building next door blocks some of the satellites. At present time the propo-
sed dish is almost as far back as the property line and as far east
as it can go. Because the dish is almost directly in line with a two-
story roof the only place it will be seen is from the angle at Charlamagne's
Restaurant.
Gary Esary asked Mr. Summers about the approximate cost of the T-Bar pole
mount. Mr. Summers told Gary that it would cost approximately $850 dollars.
Roger Hunt said that in the present location there are eight satellites
and asked what the applicant's future requirement would be. Joyce explained
the various uses and degrees of each satellite and how these various
satellites would or could be used in the future. Joy.ce also explained
that adding various satellites was now not only the nature of television
but also the nature of radio. Joyce said that KSPN was now on just one
satellite which is l3l "satcome".
Perry Harvey closed the public hearing.
Pat Fallin asked where the pole mount would be located and said that if
it were placed by the carport it would become even more visible. Mr.
Summers said that it could be slid back to the east. However the
Commission would again be taking the option of dealing with the level
of the roof of the carport. At this point the elevation for the pOle-mount
becomes the option of how tall the pole is, so it might make the option
of sliding back to the east easier,where the dish might be less vIsible. Mr.
Summers explained that with a pole mount there is that option, whereas,
with a three-legged pier mount the area is not as versatile.
Lee Pardee said that he was very displeased with putting the dish on the
carport. Lee thought that a facade which blended in with the existing
roof-line is a possibility and could hide the dish. Lee said that
the pOle-mount makes IIwonderful" sense because it is versatile, it would
be outside the view plane from Main St. and it would be outside of any
easment and set-back areas. Lee said that he would like to see a pole mount
installed as oposed to the other options,
Mr. Summers explained that because the roof peaks at the center of the arc
the satellite dish would be hidden. Also, the back of the dish could be
painted and textured like the roof-line further camouflaging the dish.
,-"
FORM" C-F.HOECKELB.B.RcL.C,1.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Satellite Dish
Special Review
(cont. )
Lee Pardee suggested that someone look at the site again, keeping in
mind the possibility of a pole-mount. Lee thought that there was a
workable solution. Peter Van Domelen said that he would be happy to
look at it. Mr. Van Domelen asked whether the pole-mount should
be dealt with by the HPC or by the P&Z.
Roger Hunt asked what the jursiditional perimeters were. Colette Penne
explained that it is partly the Commission's decision as to how
the site is going to appear, what the visual impact is, and whether or
not the applicant is given a conditional use permit. Colette said that
the Commission could ask the applicant to come back or they could transfer
the application to HPC.
Welton said that he would be in favor of
the satellite dish on a pole-mount or on
that HPC should make the final decision.
like the dish least visible from Main St.
a dual motion that would allow
the carport roof. Welton said
Welton said that he would
Colette said that HPC's first choice was to remove the carport and put
the dish in its place. However this proposal was not as good for the
station. Colette thought that if the dish were placed on a pole-mount
the HPC would still want the carport removed. Colette said that
she did not think that it was possible to place the dish at that site
and have it not visible from Main St.
David White said that if the dish were placed on the pole-mount it could
probably be hidden between the carport and the Copper Ho~se.
Roger Hunt said that he would like to see the pole proposal come before
the Commission with elevations so that the impact can be seen and a
logical decision made. Roger said that at this point there is not
enough information to make a decis':.ion regarding the expansion of
conditional use.
Perry Harvey stated that the Commission's position is to decide upon the
conditonal use and expansion permit with recommendations that HPC will
take under advisement. Perry pointed out that the Commission was not
the "body" that reviews the actual location.
Lee Pardee read a portion of ordinance #19 that indicated that the
visiblity restrictions were within the Planning and Zoning's jurisdiction,
not necessarily HPC's. Lee also said that he thought it was possible to
have an architectural facade extending the roof line and covering the
dish so it won't be seen. Lee pointed out that placing the dish on the
carport would still make it visible from Main St. and all the Commission
was doing was taking the dish from an easement area to a non-easement area.
Colette Penne said,in response to the extension of the roof line, that
to go in and modify the historic structure to accomodate the dish would
not be the wisest idea because the structure was designated for its own
historic value.
Welton Anderson suggested that a motion to approve the application
with final approval from HPC might resolve the issue.
Gary Esary stated that the Commission and the HPC have to ultimately agree
on the solution but the Commission can deffer one decision to IWC.
Roger Hunt said that he would consider the suggestion of a motion if
it included in it that HPC look at the two options along the line of
what Lee suggested as well as the pole mount. Roger would like the
HPC to come back to the P&Z Commission with comments for final approval.
Colette said that the HPC would prefer if the Commission took some kind of
action.
-3-
Satellite Dish
Special Reiview
(amt. )
Deane
Subdivision
Exception
-4-
Lee Pardee said that the Commission should bear in mind that this is
not only the first satellite dish applicant, but it happens to be one
that affects a historic zone district. Whatever the Commission does
for this applicant se~a precedent for other applicants. Lee doesn't
think that the Commission should turn this application over to HPC.
Gary Esary said that there are special circumstances in this application
that may disting~ish it from others. There are constitutional issues
surrounding the first amendment right involved. Generally, in order to
restrict speech there must first be a compelling governmental intrest
which, Gary thought, is present in this particular case. Astetics can
be regualted especially on Main St. in a tourist or historic district.
Even when there is a compelling intrest there is a limitation to the
minimum restriction of the first amendment. There are two other factors
that will have an effect on the application, they are as follows: the
dish was there first/and the applicant was advised by the Building Dept.,
when they first proposed to erect the structure, that no building permit
was issued and the structure had to be only 8 feet off the street, which
sets up an alliance argument. The City Attorney's office has taken the
position that this was improperly cited from day one and these approvals
are necassary. Gary cautioned the Commission to keep in mind the alliance
when making motions.
Roger Hunt asked what oblig'ltion there was on the part of the City to
expand a conditional use that would adversely impact the City.
Gary told Roger that the municipal code was changed in 1979 permiting
broadcasting as a conditional use in the zone district. Gary said that
because it is a conditional use it is a use that can only have reasonable
restrictions placed upon it, that is the conditions that are on the
conditional use permit. Gary said that a conditional use could probably
not be denied, it could only have restrictions placed upon it.
said that the applicant would be pleased to come back
They would also be happy to explore the pole-mount
it was an excellent idea. However, as Peter explained,
problem.
Peter Van Domelen
to either board.
idea, as he felt
there was a time
Colette explained that in order for the application to get approved
by HPC there has to be a public hearing which reqires a fifteen day
publication period. Perry Harvey asked Colette to publish the notice
of a public hearing on July 11, 1983 for IIPC's meeting on July 26, 1983
and the P&Z will look at it again on July 19, 1983.
Lee Pardee asked that there be another site inspection and that the
applicant have a pole at the designated site so that the Commission
could get a better idea of what the dish would look like.
Perry reopened and continued the public hearing.
the application until the next regular meeting.
motion. All in favor, motion carried.
Welton moved to table
Pat Fallin seconded the
Colette Penne stated that the application was a request for a lot split through
subdivision exception section 20-19, under growth management exemption for
the construction of a single family house. The total acreage for this
parcel is nearly 5 acres which is well over the 30,000 square feet required.
The Fire Cheif has asked for a 24 foot access. The location of the access
is shown on the drawings, though the easment itself has not yet been
submitted to the City Attorney's office.
Colette told the commission that the lot split would result in a new lot
which would be limited to a single family house. The neighborhood is
concerned because within the same area there has been another lot split
and there were some problems when the lot was purchaced. The neighborhood
has asked that language be placed on the plat stating that the lot was
for a simgle family house. Colette said that the application does
meet the code requirements which state that the tract of land has to
have a pre-existing dwelling unit, and no more than two lots can be
created as a result of the lot split.
Jasmine Tygre asked how the application relates to item #3 of the clarification
of quota system where one of the suggestions was that although the exemption
" ,
FORM '0 C.F.HOECKELB.B.RcL.CO.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Deane
Subdivision
Exception (cont.)
Code Amendments
Clarity and
Consistency of
the Quota System
has been administered as a one and only o~tion it is not part of the
code. Jasmtn{g asked if the applioation WOUldc.9.<>c:ell'6illp:Lf:t:om futul:'e..
"gde...Pl;~llistOIi if..it_were..approvedbe.forc the code was ammended. Coletta
~old~Jasmine that conditon #3 stated in the memo of July 5, 1983, would
limit this application prior to the code amendment.
Perry stated that condition number three would not satisfy the neighborhood.
Andy Hecht, attorney, said that the neighborhood~ position is that
they have no objection to this provided that Mr. Deane does not apply
the growth management plan for further subdivision.
Roger Hunt asked "why the immediate restriction and why Mr. Deane can sell
it and the applicant can put in for a duplex."
Andy Hecht said that the applicant could not come in for a duplex because
it is a lot split that provides two single family houses. In order to
get any further development a GMP allotment will have to be granted.
Colette recommended approval on the following conditions: that a plat
be submitted in a form acceptable to the City Engineer's Office, the
City Attorney's office review and approve the form of an access easement
through Parcel A to Parcel B, and no further lot splits can be granted
for this property and no additional units can be constructed without
a GMP allotment.
Roger Hunt moved to approve the Deane subdivision lot split/exception
with the conditions listed on page two of the memo dated July 5, 1983.
Also the third condition shall be added to the plat and the second
condition will be corrected to read as follows: "The City Attorney's
Office review and approve the form of an access easment through Parcel B
to Parcel A~ Pat Fallin seconded the motion. All in favor, motion
carried.
Alan Richman presented the code amendments concerning the clarity and
consistency of the Quota System and explained the "ice skating" scoring method
Welton asked if "ice-skating" was in the code and was told that it was
not.
Alan then told the commission about the previous performance clause which
is found in only one case, commercial, and has never been used by anyone.
Rarely are there repeat applicants in commercial. Alan thought that the
whole idea of negative points which exist within the clause is redundant.
Therefore, the planning office recommends that the approach in which
an applicant is penalized if they had previously received GMP allocations
and had not successfully performed with the award should be eliminated.
Jasmine Tygre stated that it was appropriate to have some sort of
mechanism to deal with this because theoretically there should be
a growth management system where the quotas that are allocated actually
get built.
David White thought that the Commission should require some sort of
resmnee.
Lee Pardee said that one reason there might be a need for negative points
is the possibility of an applicant recieving approval and then selling
the project before it's built. The applicant may really be selling the
GMP and the buyer mayor may not build it.
Bill Dunaway of the Aspen Times pointed out that just because an applicant
is involved in the selling of an application doesn't mean that the
application is not legitimate when it is presented again.
Parry Harvey said that giving bonus points was all right but giving
-5-
-6-
Quota System
(cont.)
penalty points for a previous presentation was not a good idea.
Lee said that he did not think that the penalty points were needed but
there should be a penalty as there is in the other two.
Welton Anderson stated that there was eno~gh flexibility in the planning
allocation system already.
Pat said that she would like to have the penalty points but if they~~ going
to be hard to defend in a court of law then an alternative system should be
looked at.
Roger Hunt said that the penalty points were devised because there was no
other mechanism. Roger is willing to give the other mechanism a try.
Jasmine agreed with the other Commission members.
David White said that because of legalities it might be a good idea to
remove the penalty points. He would however like some history of the
applicant.
Allan explained number 3 and 4 of the code amendments which are Lot Split
GMP Exemption and Employee Ilouing Scoring Criteria for Residential Projects
respectively. Cod!amendment number 5 was also explained.
Roger Hunt pointed out that off-site provision was not binding in
employee housing.
Jasmine said that one of the reasons she was wary about doing the off-site
provision in the residential area is the dispersal of employee housing.
Roger said that he had no problem with a two site project but he could
definitely see Jasmine's position in the case where a couple of units
are bought out and no new employee housing is created.
David White thought that the Commission was trying to get dispersal of
employee units so that employees were not living in the same spot.
When the option to live on or off site is given then "you get a Silver King
scare, everyone buys Silver King."
Jasmine said that she would like to see more projects and a duplex where
there is a free market unit and an employee unit.
Lee Pardee said that he thought off-site was fine but it should be within
the context of the intent of the policy which is to have dispersal.
Welton Anderson stated that the intent should be clearly defined.
Roger Hunt said he areed along that 'criteria but the 'Commission should have
some flexibility to judge and the Commission should be able to retain the
right to reject the application.
Jasmine thought that the Commission was settin~ up criteria that would be
very difficult to enforce, very discretionary, and very open to challenge.
"This is very simplelit's offsite or not, period.1I
Alan Richman said that he would put "this" in resolution form for the
next time around in hopes of getting through it quickly.
Welton Anderson moved to adjourn the meeting. Pat Fallin seconded.
All in favor, motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
.....~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
FORM ~O C, F. H O~CKEL B. 8. III L. CO.
special Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 28, 1983
Vice Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:10 with Lee Pardee,
Pat Fallin, Jasmine Tygre.
L-3 Quota System
Resolution
Alan Richman, planning office, went over the changes in this
resolution. On the first page, the staff added a WHEREAS
that the P & Z wanted about the ability and intent to use
multiple years of allocations. Richman said although WHEREAS's
do not get codified, they establish a record and does help
the city Council. Pardee suggested using the work willingness
rather than "intent" because the P & Z might not get those type
of projects.
Assistant City Attorney, Gary Esary, told P & Z that WHEREAS'S
have not force of law but they are useful in legislative
history. Richman said there is language in the resolution
about the pre-application conference, at which time the staff
will inform applicants about the possibility of multiple years
quota.
Richman pointed out a change in page 6 (4) (aa) the scoring
mechanism for employee housing. This language can deal either
with all employees for a new project, or those incremental
employees from a lodge upgrade. If there are no employees
generated, the Commission shall award full points.
For rehabilitation and reconstruction, the same type of
formula will apply. An applicant can apply to rehabilitate
and reconstruct rooms and get points, they can also rehabili-
tate other portions of the lodge. It should be public policy
if amenities of the lodge are rehabilitated, they should be
awarded points also. Non-unit space is everything in a lodge
that is not the guest room itself, every part of the lodge
that is used by the guest.
Pardee objected to the language "upon reasonable request" in
section (4) about the planning office advising an application
how many employees their project will generate. Pardee said
the applicant should give the planning office the number of
employees required to run the lodge. Ms. Fallin said she did
not like "reasonable request" either.
Richman pointed out the points for rehabilitation and
struction have increased to 15 points. These changes
response to the P & Z's comments at the last meeting.
is a definition of dormitory included.
recon-
are in
There
Pardee moved to recommend approval of resolution 83-6 which
amends the lodge development quota system as changed this
meeting and that the chairman or vice-chairman be allowed to
sign the resolution, seconded by Ms. Fallin. All in favor,
motion carried.
Pardee moved to adjourn at 5:30 p.m., seconded by Ms. Fallin.
All in favor, motion carried.
Kathry