Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19790710 BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, July 10, 1979, 5:00 PM, City Council Chambers, page 1 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a continued meeting from July 2, 1979 on July 10, 1979, in the City Council Chambers, at 5:00 PM. The members present were Olaf Hedstrom, Welton Anderson, Perry Harvey, Roger Hunt, and Lee Pardee. Staff representatives were Karen Smith and Richard Grice. AVVNA: Richard Grice was present to discuss the AVVNA, in which he explained it stood for Aspen Valley Visiting Nurses Association. Anderson stepped out from the discussion. Grice stated that the appl~tation came from Brian Goodheim and Neil Ross. They are requesting special review approval for the FAR bonus to provide additional commercial space, employee housing, and a reduction of required parking. Grice stated that the application has changed slightly by reducing the total commercial space that they are requesting and the total strucutre space they are requesting to 2330 square feet. Grice stated that the code allows .75 to 1 commercial space be right in the zone. A bonus of .10 commercial space provided that they construct .15 in employee housing. He stated that the .75 to 1 permitted by right stays at 2250. The .15 to 1 stays at 450. However, the bonus and commercial space they are now requesting is only 80 square feet instead of 300 square feet. The reasoning for this is that their lot is 3000 square feet, and they could not get more than 3 spaces in the back of the property. The employee unit is intended to house their secretary. Grice stated that they recommend that the committee's finding should be 2 things; 1. the intent of the FAR bonus has been met and, 2. that they need to make a recommendation to City Council as to what price guidelines should be fixed to the low-income guidelines. Harvey asked what the total square footage was. Grice replied that it was 2780, and before that it was 3000. Dunnaway asked if it was subject to the GMP. Grice replied that it was not considering that it was in the a-Zone District. Grice stated that they are simply asking for less than their .10 commercial bonus in return for allowing the employee housing unit. In this way, they will only need three parking spaces instead of four. Grice stated that there were two elements in parking. The first one is that there is parking requirements for three spaces per 1000 square feet of commercial space. The request is to reduce that number to 1.5 parking spaces per 1000 square feet. The second element is that they would like to eliminate the parking space for the employee housing all together. Grice stated that it is the Planning Office's recommendation that they approve the reduction in parking for the commercial space to 1.5 spaces per 1000 square feet and that they make a recommendation to City Council that the parking space for the employee housing unit not be required. Harvey asked Grice what the original application was. Grice stated that they asked for 300 square feet of commercial bonus. Hunt felt that most employees have vehicles and considering that there will not be a parking space for the employee housing unit; there will be one less commercial parking space for the secretaries' vehicle. Hunt stated that they should not say that the employee housing unit does not need a parking space in which in practicality it does. KSPN: SHOAF'S RIVER VIEW SUBDIVISION: Goodheim stated that it really enhances the ability of the employer to attract and keep the employees. Hedstrom asked if it was possible to have four parking spaces. Goodheim stated that it was not because htey only have 30 feet along the alley way. Goodheim noted that they would not encourage any employee parking there at all considering that they would be near everything in town. Goodheim stated that it was a PMH unit and that they do not have to provide parking. Their alternative is that they could make that area into 2250 square feet of office. Goodheim noted that this would be easier to finance. Harvey made a motion that they find that the application for the Aspen Valley Visiting Nurses Association Building expansion meets the intent of the FAR bonus, and further recommend to City Council that the rental and sale price guidelines established for the employee housing unit should be low-income PMH, and further that the off street parking requirement be reduced for the commercial from the 3 spaces per 1000 square feet of commercial space to 1.5 spaces per 1000 square feet of commercial space, and further recommending the required p~rking space for the employee housing unit be waived. Pardee seconded. All in favor, the motion carried. KSPN has withdrawn their application. Anderson stepped back in for this discussion. Grice stated that this was a preliminary plat stage for the Shoaf River View Subdivision. This application involves the splitting of a 30,010 square foot parcel in halve in order to create a second single family residence. There is already one single family residence in existence, so it is in accordance with an exemption listed in the GMP. Whenever there is enough land area for density for double density, and an existing dwelling can be a single dwelling duplex, one can cut off one additional piece of ground which would be restricted to single family use. Even though the R-15 Zone allows duplexes, this parcel will not be able to have the duplex for two reasons. 1. It would have to go to GMP competition to be other than a single family, and 2. it would never happen anyway because parcels created after a number of years ago, you have to have 20,000 square feet in the R-15 Zone. So, considering that this parcel of land would only be 15,000 square feet, it would permanently be a single family site. Grice stated that the location will be on Mill Street, just up the hill from Herron Park. This application has been referred to the City Water Department, Sanitation District, Mountain Bell, Holy Cross Electric, Canyon Cable, Rocky Mountain Natural Gas, and the Fire Marshall in which all of these have no problems with this application at all. They recommend the committee's approval. One comment from the Engineering Department in which they recommend that they approve the subdivision subject to the corrections that was present in the packet. Harvey asked about the flood line. Grice stated that the surveyor became confused and that no flood line exists. So the Engineering Department would like the flood line corrected on future plats. Grice stated that the building site is poor and that it goes down the hill. So between the cottonwoods and the stream margin review, the Engineering Department would like them to rotate the building. Pardee stated that the Engineering Department should not tell people where to build or to rotate their building. Hedstrom opened the meeting to the public. No comments from the public. Hestrom closed the meeting to the public. "'-" -' BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, July 10, 1979, 5:00 PM, City Council Chambers, page 2. Hedstrom asked to obtain a motion tp approve the Shoaf River View Subdivision preliminary plat subject to the correction, and attention to the final subdivision plat in the final matters, the flood plane indicated on the preliminary plat be corrected, the twenty foot easement along the westerly boundary route be made a part of the subdivision, the building site be adjusted to remove it from the stream margin review, and for the protection of well established large trees. Harvey moved to adopt the motion that Hedstrom made. Anderson seconded. All in favor. Motion granted. ZONING OF MIDLAND PARK: Karen Smith was present to discuss this project. She stated that the matter involves rezoning in which a public hearing will be held for this. This involves the acreage in which the County's housing project, Midland Park, was built. Smith stated that in May of this year, Midland Park was annexed into the City. This needs to be zoned because it does not have zoning until the City takes action on it. The Planning Office is recommending a multi-family PUD zoning, and also recommending that it be a mandatory PUD to accomodate the possibility for change through the PUD plan. PUD is a process by which you could bury the standard area and bulk requirements in order to fit the contours of the land or to meet unusual site characteristics. Smith stated that this particular zoning would be most consistent with what was zoned in the County and also it is fairly consistent with ajacent land uses in zoning in that area. The Planning Office recommends that this area be zoned RMF-PUD. That is what they suggest that the P&Z should recommend to City Council. Harvey asked Smith if they were zoning anything else besides the Midland Park project. Smith replied no. Hedstrom opened the meeting to the public. No comment from the public. Hedstrom closed the meeting to the public. Hunt made a motion that they recommend to City Council to establish the RMF-PUD Zoning for the Midland Park annexation. Harvey seconded. All in favor. The RMF-PUD Zoning passed for Midland Park. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AT THE PLUM TREE: Karen Smith was present to discuss the Transportation Overlay. Smith handed out to the committee the legal description of the Plum Tree site. Smith noted that they were considering the Plum Tree and or the Rio Grande as a Police impound lot. Smith stated that the Police came to them a couple of months ago and expressed a problem that they need some place to store their cars after they tow them. They have been using the industrial area in the Rio Grande. Smith stated that one of the proposals is to amend the SPA plan. Smith explained that the Planning Office was recommending against that in reason that a greenway was proposed for that area and the cars would be disruptive for that area. She noted that an argument' for that particular area would be if the fill continues to exist, and the cars would be raised above the river elevation, there will be some area left along the river that it would be possible to walk on. Smith stated that the argument would not last considering that the fill is there for the Mill Street improvements. Smith stated that they have looked at the Plum Tree site and that the Planning Office prefers that site. For reasons that it would not interfere with the greenway, it would not make a major amendment in the SPA plat for the Rio Grande. She felt that the Plum Tree should be recommended for the transportation overlay for the purposes of accomodating the impounded cars but also for the purpose of acting as an intercept parking lot. Smith stated that the area that they are proposing for the transportation overlay would be lcoated behind the tennis courts and would incorporate the ball area. The southern boundary would be Highway 82. The area would be bermed and screened like the tennis courts. This would not be visible to the highway or the residences which are located across the golf course. BIBBIG STREAM MARGIN REVIEW: Harvey stated that it would decrease the effectiveness with getting the cars to the people and towing them., It would probably increase the towing bill and the time that it would take. Anderson felt that it would be a waste of time, the taxpayers money, the Policeman's time, and gas. Harvey brought up the idea of doing a combination measure whereas the Plum Tree is used as an impound lot and the Police would be obligated if they put a car in the Rio Grande, and after a certain set time, they would move it to the Plum Tree. This would prevent a serious impact on the greenway. Smith stated that she did not think that it made much difference to McClung where the impound lot was located. At the staff meeting, the staff felt that the Plum Tree would be a better choice because it would be less visable, you would not be impacting the greenway plan, nor are you reducing options for furthur use of that property. Smith stated that they need some type of gate to help prevent the thefts from cars and stolen vehicles. Harvey suggested that they do a transportation overlay at the Plum Tree, and table the transportation overlay at the Rio Grande until they receive some imput from the Police Department as to what they would like to do. Smith stated that if they do the transportation overlay at the Plum Tree site, it would involve a recommendation for rezoning, use determination that intercept parking and Police impound lot are uses permitted. Hedstrom opened the meeting to the public. No comments from the public. Hedstrom closed the meeting to the public. Harvey made a motion; that we implement a transportation overlay zoning on the Plum Tree property and further recommend that we find that a use determination be appropriate for the Plum Tree property as both a Police impound lot and as intercept parking facility of a temporary and on an as needed basis, the legal description that Smith handed to the committee (which is on file in the Clerk's Office), part of the recommendation that the impound lot be bermed to minumize the visual impact on surrounding homes and from traffic on Highway 82. Anderson seconded. Smith recommended to Harvey that he change one thing on his motion, instead of finding the uses of intercept parking facility and Police impound lot to be permitted at the Plum Tree, Smith felt that it would be more correct to say, find those uses to be permitted within the transportation overlay district. Pardee seconded. Harvey change the motion to read, berming and or a natural screening. Pardee seconded. All in favor. Motion granted. Harvey made a motion, that the Planning and Zoning continue the public hearing on the use of the Rio Grande which is currently used as an impound lot, that they would postpone a decision on that until they receive more imput at the next meeting on the 17th from the Police Department and Transportation Office as to the viability of that use. Harvey changed his motion, that they defer action on the consideration of the Rio Grande property as a Police impound lot until the next meeting where they could get imput from the Police Department. Hunt seconded. All in favor. Motion granted. Grice told the committee that anything that is built 100 feet from the high water line on the stream has to go through stream margin review. Grice mentioned to the new members that among the reveiw criteria, there are several points to consider. 1. There is a requirement that there will not be any construction within the 100 year hazard flood plane. 2. That if there is a trail involved, that it be dedicated. 3. All attempts be made to implement the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. 4. No added erosion into the stream. 5. There may not be any changes in the stream channel or in its compacity {which includes the low-lands}. Grice stated that in this case, the only portion of the building permit that is in question is the far end of the balcony. Grice told the committee that this is an application for a new structure. He stated that Bibbig's property lies between the Roaring Fork and Midland Park. , - ""'" BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, July 10, 1979, 5:00 PM, City Council Chambers, page 3. Grice stated that the Engineering Department has brought up an issue. The Engineer's main concern was the possibility of the deck causing interference with the maintenance and operation with the ditch. Grice stated that the Engineering Department suggests to the committee that the approval be conditioned upon the owner agreeing not to develop the property in such a way that it would interfere with the operation and maintenance. Hunt moved that the Bibbig parcel on Park Ave. satifies the stream margin review proceedures, provided that the encroachment on the ditch becomes the responsibility of the owner of the property so that it does not interfere with any maintenance acitvities or what ever tost of additional maintenance activities for the ditch do become the liability of the owner. Harvey seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Hunt moved to amend his previous motion, to make the last condition a deed restriction instead of the last condition being encroachment on the ditch etc. Harvey seconded. All in favor. Amended motion is carried. MOBILE HOME PARK DISCUSSION: Smith stated that there was to be a memo distributed at this meeting by City Attorney, Ron Stock. Considering Stock is not present, Smith suggested that they table the item until next time. RESOLUTIONS: Reccommendation for Adoption of R-15A Zone District. Smith stated that it would be moderate in terms of uses in area and bulk requirements in the current R~15 Zone District, but would not allow duplexes except in the circumstances that ~ of the unit was deed restricted to employee housing price guidelines. Anderson moved to approve the Resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen number 79-7. Harvey seconded. All in favor. Resolution approved. Zoning of Lot 12, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision. Smith stated that this particular piece of land will soon be annexed to the City, and they recommend that they zone it R-15 to be consistent with the zoning and the subdivision around it. Anderson moved to approve Resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen Resolution number 79-8, Harvey seconded. All in favor. Resolution passed. Zoning Enforcement Officer. Smith stated that they hav,,',recommended this at their last meeting and that alot of condtiOlls were attached, that' no cone in the City is _ free to enforce this, and to monitor the conditions implemented, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission asked that the Planning Office prepare a resolution recommending to the City Council the need for a zoning officer. Anderson stated that Clayton Meyring, Building Inspector, has much to do now, and that they need someone to enforce these things. Hedstrom stated that they have wasted their time going through all the proceedures if no one is going to enforce the regulations that they have proposed on them. Hunt stated that there were two ways at looking at this. One thing is a "snoop", which he does not care for. The other thing is one who takes action on a complaint basis, this he does not mind. Pardee stated that they need "Sherlock Holmes". Hunt stated that all they need is another inspector that the developer has to be straddled with. If the building inspector was doing his job, then he would need some one to do that. Anderson stated that the building inspector can not do his job probably because there is too much work. Hunt replied that the building inspector needs more personnel, not more "snoops" going around. Harvey felt that the resolution was vague. The powers were not laid out. Hedstrom suggested that they defer action until the new members have a chance to study the resolution. Hedstrom stated that job description is an administrative matter; that they are recognizing a need, and they are trying to do something about that need. Anderson made a motion to adjourn. Harvey seconded. All in favor. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 PM. " ') / ) . D~~~~I:rk ~/ } // '- -~ Realmuto, . L' , Pam ~ '-'