Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740716 '" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C.F.HOECKELO.B.&L.CO. July 16, 1974 Regula,r Meetin5f ,1\.spen. P liinn;i:n<;J iindZon.;i:.n<;J Meeting WiiS ciilled to order by Cha,irrniin Spence ,Schiffer a,t 4:12 P.M, with Commission members Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Charles Collins, Robert Barnard, City/County Planner John Stanford, and Assistant Planner Donna Baer. Approval of Minutes - June 4, 1974; June 11, 1974; June 13, 1974; July 2, 1974. Old Business; H.P.C. Criteria Collins mentioned that he wished to correct two small items in the minutes of July 2, 1974. In regard to the 620 Hyman Build;i:ng conceptual presen- tation, the minutes read "The new plans have reduced the size of the building by 25% and that reduction came out of usable space". Collins asked if this figure was correct. Collins stated that he would also like to be shown in the minutes as casting a no vote on this same issue. Collins made a motion to approve the minutes as cor- rected, with the provision that the Planning Office check into the 25% figure used in the minutes. Jenkins seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried, Schiffer noted that because Ordinance 9 precluded the the Commission from doing anything that won't have a positive effect as far as putting the recommendation into effect, it seemed to be a consensus of the Commission that they should not make any recommend- ation to City Council. Since the P & Z was required to make a recommendation and a report, a report should be made to Council. Barnard stated that the Commission should request that Council change Ordinance 9. Geri vagneur arrived. Barnard stated that with the united opposition shown by the public against the district, that he would not be able to indicate that he would be in favor of of such a district. Johnson questioned the appeal procedures. Jenkins stated that the P & Z could be the appeal board. Jenkins further noted that the H.P.C. should not be the final authority. The H.P.C. should take on a staff function with the P & Z in terms of input. There should be an appeal before the Courts. City Attorney Stuller asked why Jenkins felt that the P & Z was more qualified to give an analysis of the issue. Schiffer stated that all concerns should be collected and submitted to the City Council in the form of a written report. Barnard made a motion that all concerns be put in the form of a written report, dated today's date; that this report be forwarded to City Council, and that the Planning and Zoning Commission, having received the recommended criteria from the Historic Preserva- tion Committee, forward them with the report to the City Council with no comment, and also the letters received from interested citizens. Collins seconded the motion. -1- -. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.a.ftL.CO. July ~.6, 192.! Regular Meetin.<;J , . Old Business; H,P,C, Criteria Old Business; Parking Recommendation Set Public Hearing Date; City Downzoning . -., . ,1\.spen Pla,nn;i:.n.<;J a,nd zon;i:n<;J ..,,' ' . .. All ;i:n favor, motion ca,rried, Barnard made a motion to set a date for a, public hearing to consider an a,mendment to Ord;i:nance 9 and/ or the adoption of the recommended version. Johnson seconded the motion, All in favor, motion carried, It was suggested that the public hearing be held on August 8, A report from the subcommittee on parking. Johnson stated that the subcommittee has suggested that the areas designated be purchased or leased by the City from their present owners and be used as parking areas to support the downtown core area. The sub- committee would like to see them presented as a fee parking area, and suggested that the streets in the immediate vicinity of the Mall and the downtown core be metered or have a parking permit system. The Rio Grande should be continued as free parking. The subcommittee also suggested that the proposed Mall be expanded at the earliest possible opportunity to further increase the pedestrianization of the core. Also suggested that limited time parking be imple- mented and expanded so that the Rio Grand parking lot becomes more viable, as well as the other lots. Johnson stated that this solution not only solved the downtown parking problem, but also stopped some building in the downtown core which could cause future problems. Schiffer asked if these would be surface lots or underground lots. Johnson stated that this had been left up to the City Council. Schiffer stated that he was concerned in that this was directly opposite from the Voorhees Plan recommendation. Also, if these lots were surface lots, there could be a problem with snow removal. If the lots were under- ground, the costs may be prohibitive. The subcommittee was composed of Bryan Johnson, Bryan Johnson, and Geri Vagneur. Vagneur noted that this plan limits the development in the downtown area, while supplying needed parking facilities until the rest of the transportation system has been implemented and is operational. This was only an interim solution. Schiffer stated that since the City Council had required the Commission to make a recommendation to them on the proposed zoning code on or before September 1, a public hearing must be set to get the input necessary to make a report, The next available date for this was August 8, 1974. Schiffer stated that the commission has held several public hearing prematurely, and noted that he felt this one was also, Johnson made a motion to set a public hearing on -2- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM I! C.F.HOECKELB.B.!tL.CO. .. ,!q;pen pl<J..nnin~ a,nd zon;i:n5) July 16, 1974 Regular Meeting Set Public Hearing Da,te; City Downzoning Vidal Proposal - Mountainedge, Conceptual; Ute Village Residences, Clarendon Residences, Preliminary Plat and Outline Development Plan the proposed rezoning map a,nd code on August 8, 1974. Jenkins seconded the motion, All in favor, motion carried. Vidal stated that he wanted to compare densities with the approved down zoning on Ute Ave, and the proposed zoning on the Mountainedge property, and what the applicant was proposing on these properties, In total figures, the downzoning proposes 140 units on these properties, while the applicant proposes 120 units, Also, under the down zoning the City receives no land, while with the applicant's pro- posal, the City receives 11,31 acres and 4.99 acres of open space. In regard to the Mountainedge property, under the downzoning, 72 units can be built. Under the ap- plicant's proposal, 100 units would be built. On Ute Avenue under the down zoning 68 units could be built, while the applicant was proposing 20. Vidal stated that the applicant's were concentrating the density on the Mountainedge property, this site was more pedestrian oriented, utilities are more capable to accommodate this. This was done to try to parallel a goal or position that the City was taking in their statement about Ute Avenue. Landry arrived at the meeting. Johnson asked how these figures for the Mountainedge property were arrived at. Block 6, which was re- commended Lodge, was calculated at a .5 Floor Area Ratio, which gave the figure 20,000 square feet, at 1,000 square feet per unit, or 20 units. The balance of the property below the 8040 line was con- sidered at R-15, and the land above the 8040 was calculated at the density allowed above the 8040. Schiffer asked about the phasing question. Vidal replied that this was negotiable within the 3-5 year range. Schiffer asked what the minimum number of units that would have to built right away would be. Vidal stated that the applicant would want to build the common area space, and at least 30% of the units. Schiffer noted that he felt that this project, if built now, would have disastrous effects. Vidal noted that with the downzoning, these properties could be developed in a short time at even higher densities, Schiffer stated that this project would have a tremendous immediate impact and did not feel that the long term benefits were worth this at this point. Vagneur stated that she was in favor of spreading the density out over these properties, rather than concentrating it on the Mountainedge property. Building sites cost would be prohibitive for the permanent residents, She further stated that the density should be on Ute Avenue where the density already existed. Schiffer stated that in terms of use and density, -3- -. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and zoning July 16, 1974 FORM5G C.F.HOECKELO.B./IL.CO. Mountainedge, Conceptual, Continued Clarendon Residences - Preliminary Plat and Outline Development Plan which are Ordinance 19 conceptual this was not in line with what he done in the area. considerations, would like to see Collins stated that he felt the project was of merit and showed good planning and flexibility with the concentration of density. He further stated that his position was that as long as there is any litiga' tion between the applicant and the City, he would not vote in favor of the project. Barnard made a motion to deny conceptual approval under Ordinance 19 for the Mountainedge project. Jenkins seconded the motion. All in favor, with the exception of Janet Landry who voted no. Motion carried. Schiffer asked Vidal if he would like to continue with the other projects. Vidal stated he would. Vidal stated that there were three PUD's under con- sideration, the Mountainedge, Clarendon, and Ute Village. P & Z's recommendation was required before City Council's public hearing. Donna Baer stated that the Planning Office had re- quested additional information on the Mountainedge PUD, and the Planning Office was not prepared to make a recommendation in the absence of that informa- tion, Vidal stated that the applicant was creating six single family lots along Ute Avenue. Donna Baer presented the Planning Office's considera- tions for the OUtline Development Plan. The sub- division comments are minor in character. She noted that there was a boundary dispute with Glory Hole. The recommendation of the Planning Office was approval of the Outline Development Plan. However approval of the Outline Development Plan could only be given conditional on the subdivision considera- tions. Schiffer stated that the code indicated to him that the PUD must be approved before the ap- plicant could start subdivision. City Attorney Stuller stated that this was open to interpretation. When the code was drafted, it was noted that this was not the intention, subdivision was to be complied with in addition to PUD. They may be simultaneous, but both are required. She asked if the sequence would interfere with how the problem was analyzed. Schiffer replied that this was not the case. Johnson made a motion that based on the recommenda- tion of the Planning Office the Commission approve the Outline Development Plan for the Clarendon Residences. Jenkins seconded the motion. Commission members Landry, Johnson, Jenkins, Barnard, Schiffer, yes. Members Vagneur and Collins, no. Motion carried, -4- -. .. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM \~ C. F. HOECKEL B. O. a L. co. !\.spen Pla,nn;i:n9 and ZO~i?9 July 16, 1974 Re5fular Me~tin)l'. . . . , . v ~ " Clarendon Residences ~ Preliminary plat and Outline Development Plan Ute Village Residences - Preliminary Plat and Outline Development Plan sch;i:ffer <\sked ;i:f iinyone ha,d <\ problem with con- sidering the Outline Development pl<\n simultaneously with subdivision, Schiffer then opened the public hearing on the Clarendon preliminary plat. Donna Baer stated that the corrections listed were minor, Boundary disputes should be resolved before a final plat is approved, Design requirements and Engineering considerations for the preliminary plat had been fulfilled, The Planning Office recommenda- tion was for approval, Schiffer asked for public comment. Discussion ensued on the street situation. Baer stated that the City Engineer had stated that the City did not need more than 60 feet right of way. The street could be widened adequately with this amount for future increased traffic. Donna Baer stated that the applicant would also be required to join a street improvement district before final subdivision approval is granted. Schiffer closed the public hearing. Johnson made a motion, based on the recommendation of the Planning Office, to give approval to the preliminarv plat of the Clarendon subdivision. Jenkins seconded the motion. Barnard asked about the considerations listed on the memornadum. It was noted that these need to be com- pleted before the final plat. commission members Landry, Johnson, Jenkins, Barnard, Schiffer, yes. Members Vagneur and Collins, no. Motion carried. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office's recom- mendation was for approval. The conditions would be handled in the final development plan. Two on site parking spaces should be provided, and the engineering has requested that the road remain pri- vate, rather than being taken over by the City. Vidal stated that at some point he may need to re- quest a variation in the lot width, due to the problems with the private vs. public road right of way or easement. This could be considered at the final development plan, Vidal stated that the park- ing could be taken care of. Johnson made a motion that, based on the recommenda- tion of the Planning Office, the commission approve the Outline Development plan for the Ute Village Residences, Jenkins seconded the motion. Commission members Landry, Johnson, Jenkins, Barnard, Schiffer, yes. Members Vagneur and Collins, no. Motion carried. -5- -, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMSG C.F.HOECKELB.B.& L. CO. . July 16, 1.~2! Re);!,ula,r Meetin9. . . . Ute Village Residences - Preliminary Pla,t and Outline Development Plan Woerndle - Preliminary Plat and Final Develop- ment Plan A~ren pla,nn;l:n5) a,nd zo?in<;J Schiffer opened the publ;i:.c hearing for the Ute v;i:llage Residences, Ms. Baer stated .that the Pliinning Office had re- quested that Mr, Larkin, who owned an outlot, that he take another parcel. This was acceptable as a conditional trade that once the C;i:ty owns it, this will be done. Ms. Baer stated that this either has to be corrected and shown as a different lot on a subdivision plat or be resubdivided, She also stated that they were asking for a 20' trail easement, The drainage situation also needed to be worked out. Schiffer asked for a cost benefit study on the public or private ownership of the road, Vidal preferred, if the City did not want the road, to have 36' right of way and a 5' sidewalk easement, rather than the entire 41' of right of wav which was the minimum for a private road. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office was recom- mending conditional approval. Schiffer closed the public hearing. Johnson made a motion that, based on the recommenda- tion the Planning Office, the commission approve the preliminary plat of the Ute Village subdivision conditional on the resolution of the considerations specified by the Engineering Department on a memo submitted to the Planning and Zoning commission dated July 16, 1974. Jenkins seconded the motion. Commission members Landry, Johnson, Jenkins, Barnard, Schiffer, yes. Members Vagneur and Collins, no. Motion carried. Ms. Baer stated that the plat had had only minor changes. She stated that they had changed the trail and are asking for twenty feet for the ditch, which is required, but a 10 foot pedestrian easement on one side only, They asked that no building occur on Lot 7. Ms. Baer stated that the changes have been agreed to. This was also the preliminary subdivision plat, Vagneur made a motion to approve the final develop- ment plan for the Woerndle PUD conditioned onap- proval of the subdivision, Collins seconded the motion. All in favor, with the exception of Janet Landry who abstains, Motion carried, Schiffer opened the public hearing on the Woerndle preliminary plat, Ms, Baer stated that most of the matters had been discussed under PUD, There were 7 single family dwellings with common areas. The lots were small to allow for clustering. An easement was being -6- ....... ,-.. .-.-..-.,. ..-..~->.-"""'P'--~""'" -.. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~ORM 51 C, F. HOECKEl B. B. II L. CO. July ~.6l 1974 Regula,r Meeting, . , .., -' Woerndle - Preliminary Plat and Final Develop- ment Plan, continued RBH Building - Parking Solution Ordinance 19 Reviews - Poncho Ski Repair, Exemption Schwartz Duplex - preliminary and Final Vroom Building - Final ,A~pen pla,nn;l:n5f <\nd ZO?;i:?~,. .., . , for <J. pump station, the ditch il,nd a. trail. The wa.ter si tua.tion had been solved.' . A 4% cash dedica~. tion was being made to the City, Schiffer closed the public hearing, Collins made a motion to approve the preliminary plat for the Woerndle Subdivis;i:on, Johnson seconded the motion. All in favor, with the exception of Janet Landry who abstained. Motion carried. Applicant was present to find out what they were required to provide as far as parking was concerned. Johnson stated that the parking subcommittee had recommended that off street parking requirements on all property be retained with the option of lease from the City or providing on site, The committee recommended further that optional parking buyout or lease from City be extended to include the entire commercial area. The applicant could either supply parking on the site or lease it from the City, or a combination of the two. One of the owner's of the building was present at the meeting. There were six units in the building. This project was the expansion of one of the units, coming out under the overhead balcony. Ms. Bear stated that the grounds for exemption were that the project was of insignificant impact. Barnard made a motion that, based on the recommenda- tion of the Planning Office, the project is of such a small scale as to be clearly outside the purposes of Ordinance 19, and to grant exemption for this project. Vagneur seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. It was noted that there was no final site plan for the project available. This was a requirement. The project would be rescheduled. Ms. Baer stated that the final plans were in order. Schiffer asked about the conditions for preliminary approval, Ms. Baer stated that the applicant had received a variance to buyout parking. However, applicant does not know how many. The lower floor uses have not yet been designated, the applicant was willing to comply with the engineering depart- ment recommendations, The brick samples would also need to be submitted to the H,P,C, The applicant was willing to comply with all conditions. Ms, Baer stated that one of the engineering depart- ments conditions was that if the alley has to be changed to make it accessible, it would be at the expense of the applicant. The Planning Office was recommending approval of the project. -7- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.1l0ECKELB.O.&L.CO. Re~ula,l;' Meetin:J, Vroom Building ~ continued " " , , . !\SP~? Plann.~ng and zonin<;J . . , July 16" 1.974 Barnard made a motion! ba,se~ on the Planning Office recommendation for approva,lr that the Commission give final approval to the Vroom Building under Ordinance 19 conditioned on applicant submitting brick samples to the Hlstoric Preservation Commit- tee, Johnson seconded the motion, Final All in favor, motion carried, Botanical Eye - Conceptual The applicant was not present at the meeting, villa Condominiums - Conceptual Schiffer told the applicant that it was a new policy of the Commission that meetings be cut at 6:30 P.M. He asked if applicant would like to continue this to another time. Art Dailey asked that the Com- mission consider this at this time, Ms. Baer stated that the applicant had submitted four site plans for the Commission to consider. Applicant's representative stated that in each of the site plans, there were 32 units and 48 parking spaces. He stated that it was difficult to get this many units and parking spaces on the site at a cost per unit which was feasible. Two sets of site plans were three story. The other two were two story units. Ms. Baer noted that this would be a PUD. Representative stated that the drawings represent different compromises of the original plan sub- mitted to the Commission. He stated that the 37 1/2 feet set back required by the Planning Office was impossible with 32 units on the property and 48 parking spaces. The two story units were 1,200 square feet per unit, the three story units are 1,500 square feet per units. The three story units were more economical, Ms. Baer stated that the planning Office would still like to see 37 1/2 feet on Seventh Street, Art Dailey stated that 24 feet was being supplied, which was greater than the requirement. Schiffer suggested that the Commission postpone making a decision on this until the next meeting. Jenkins made a motion that the meeting be recessed and continued on next Tuesday, July 23 at 4:00 P.M. Johnson seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 6:40 P.M, .&~~~~ Secretary