Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740820 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.f.HOECKELB.B.IlL.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning August 20, 1974 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Spencer Schiffer at 4:10 p.m. with Commission members Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Charles collins, Robert Barnard, and Janet Landry. City/County Planner John Stanford, Yank Mojo and City Attorney Sandra Stuller were also present. Parking Plan Old Business Chairman Schiffer announced that the Parking Plan, a report submitted by a P & Z subcommittee recommend- ing modification to the code would be brought up at the end of the meeting because maps were not available at that time. Amendment to Ordinance 9 An amendment to Ordinance 9 was brought up before the Commission in resolution form. Barnard questioned whether the correction was complete and Schiffer assured him that it was. Barnard moved to approve the resolution recommending modification of Section 24-12 (cl of the Municipal Code. Jenkins seconded. All in favor. Motion carriec Resolutions & Reports Resolutions for Chairman Schiffer's signature were presented by the Planning Department for actions previousl taken by the Commission. These Resolutions included a written report on Mountainedge PUD-ODP and also exemptions from the definition of subdivision for Jim Ward and Roy Vroom. Historic Overlay District Report Schiffer stated that the report prepared by the Planning Department expressing the wishes of the Commission on their recommendations on the Historic Overlay District was now ready to be forwarded to Council. Schiffer explained that one member would likl to change his position. The report would be submitted as it because it was the result of a formal motion made by the commission. Schiffer suggested that a minority report could be submitted with the report or a study session could be scheduled with P & Z, Council and H.P.C. present. Johnson felt the present reflects the action taken but that a study session could be scheduled. Jenkins moved to request a study session with City Council. Johnson seconded. All in favor, Motion carried. Chairman Schiffer would like that study session scheduled after September 1st. Trail Plan Amendments The Planning Department was seeking approval by adoption of additional proposed trails to the present trail plan. The alignment of trails were in various parts of the City. The West End Homeowners Associatiol was present to determine how the proposed Hallam trail would affect the neighborhood. John Stanford explained that at this point in time the type of trail, whether pedestrian or bike had not been determined. He further explained that Hallam Street had been selected as the most direct route between two destination points. he also explained tha" there was a good deal of school children traffic to be Trail Plan Amendments Motion Main Motion Main Motion Stream Margins - considered as well as a hope that the people who used Main Street could be diverted to a less dangerous route. The proposed additions would eventually work out into a complete intra-City system and planned in conjunction with proposed County trails. Members of the West End Howmowners Association express their personal opinions as to the necessity of the trail, the right of way, the safety of the school children, the diversion of traffic from Main to a residential area, and the selection of Hallam as opposed to Bleeker or Francis Streets. They also were concerned over the recalmation of public right of way for the purpose of a trail as they had gone to great expense to landscape and maintain this public right of way. Barnard felt that people would continue to use those routes they were now using and would not use that which was designation. He also had reservations as to adopting that which no configuaration was given. Schiffer also felt the same way as Barnard. He did not want anything to be decided on until they had a few more facts about the signing, how the trails would be used on Hallam and just exactly what the plans woulc be. Barnard moved to table this matter until such time as they could see some configurations on this proposed trail from the Planning and Engineering Departments. Jenkins seconded. Janet Landry suggested adopting those trails for which there was no controversy. John Stanford agreed that portions of the proposal could be adopted. Barnard called the question. Schiffer and Barnard voted aye; Collins, Jenkins, Landry and Johnson voted nay. Motion not carried. Johnson moved that we adopt the trail alignment on all the areas shown except Hallam Street. Motion was amended to state further that any configuration that is actually put in would have to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval before it is allowed to go in. Landry seconded. All in favor except Schiffer and Barnard who voted nay. Motion carried. Jenkins moved that they table the consideration of the alignment of Hallam Street until such time as they could see the proposed trail confiurations. Collins seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Ed Del Duca of the Engineering Department presented the plans for the proposed pedestrian bridge on the Roaring Fork River at Hopkins Street. The bridge would be eight feet wide, would be four feet above the water at its highest point and would have railing from three to four feet. The removal of trees would not be required. The Commission had no objection to these plans. Johnson moved to grant the stream margin request. Barnard seconded, all in favor except Collins who abstained. Motion carried. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMSII C.F.HOECKELB.B.llL.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & zoning Commission August 20, 1974 Aspen Institute request for exemption from Ord. 19 review Ms. Ellen Harlan and John Armstrong represented the Institute in requesting an exemption from Ordinance 19 review for the proposed Building"J"of the Institute's Master Plan. This building would house 24 bedrooms and supply housing desperately needed by the Institute. He explained that the Institute was now paying 150 thousand dollars for housing annually. Ms. Harlan had been under the impression that theiE presence before the Commission was only a formality. The Physics Building, Building "I" had been given conceptual, preliminary and final approval at a regular meeting of the P & Z. At the time of the public hearing by City council for Ordinance 19, the Institute came forward to ask how Ordinance 19 would affect their 1970 Master plan--Council stated that as the Master Plan had been presented, they would be exempt from Ordinance 19. She had also felt that positive recommendation for exemption from Ordinance 19 had been given by former Planner Herb Bartel. Yank Mojo explained that planning would like to see an overall density plan for the entire Master Plan and how this building relates to that density. It was agreed that the Institute property was a special planned area with regard to zoning but that plans for desity were pertinent for evaluation. Collins felt that the changes in the 1970 Master Plan were substantial enough to warrant Ordinance 19 review. He felt that the Institute's plans were in a state of flux and that previously given approvals did not apply because of these changes. John Stanford would like to clarify the Planning Department's recommendation--when the plans for Building "J"--chalet type housing was received and re- viewed, were looked at as other buildings that came in for Ordinance 19 review. Barnard felt that the commission should not be bound by previous approvals. Schiffer agreed that the Institute was a viable institution but that corners should not be cut. Barnard moved that exemption from Ordinance 19 review not be granted the Institute. Jenkins seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. City Attorney had recommended to the Institute that they come before P & Z for exemption. She claried that this recommendation was made from her recollection of prior events. Chairman Schiffer felt that the Master Plan is chang- ing and that zoning was changing and in that context the Institute's previous approvals might not be valid any more. -3- Peacock Exemption Temple Allen Exemption RBH Building -- '-'""-'-'~~'-'~~---'- ......--,.,~'''~.,.#-"'"---_. Mr. Dallas Peacock was present to request exemption from Ordinance 19 review. He had previously come before the Commission on April 16, 1974 to request exemption and at that time exemption had not been granted. He proposed an addition to an existing duplex; the total addition was an additional 900 square feet. His referrals were in order, he had obtained letters from neighbors on the West end of town in his favor. Planning's recommendation was positive as they had no knowledge of plans contrary to an addition of a duplex and everything was in order for an exemption. Collins and Barnard had reservation as to that large of an addition to that lot size. City Attorney Stuller explained that as the code is written, no position could be taken against additions as the structure was already a duplex and allowable in that zone. Barnard moved that an exemption be granted from Ordinance 19 review. Johnson seconded. All in favor except Jenkins and Schiffer who voted nay. Motion carried. Plans for the Temple Allen building located on Main Street & 7th and adjacent to the Hickory House are for a refurbishing job only. They plan to replace the asbestos shingles with wood planelling and convert the old house into an office building. Planning's recommendation was for conditional approval. There were no objections to these plans and felt that refurbishing the eyesore would be a welcome change. Johnson asked about the parking situation. Schiffer asked what kind of arrangements had been made for park- ing. Parking was available behind the Hickory House with 'access through the alley. Collins moved that an exemption be granted from Ordinance 19 conditioned upon the H.P..C designation of the building and approval of the plans and that 6 parking spaces be provided for use by this building. Barnard seconded, all in favor. Motion carried. Jack Walls of the architectural firm of Walls & Sterling was present to represent the RBH Joint venture in their plans for an office building on Main Street next to the County Court House. His request was for a show of support in the form of a letter to the Board of Adjustment for a variance requestf~rsetback on the proposed building. He explained that they had gone before the H.P.C. and received their support.in their quest for a setback variance. -4- -- FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.8.liL.C(l. ~~._.l-~. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting August 20, 1974 620 Hyman Preliminary & Final Christiana Preliminary & Final Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission A scale modelwas presented for a visual conception of the building to be located next to the Patio Building on Hyman. Planning's comments were that all referrals were in order, that the gross building size had dropped by 13% and the gross leaseable space dropped by 23% at the conceptual stage of Ordinance 19 from the original that had been rejected to a conceptual design that had been approved by the Commission at a previous meeting. Yank Mojo felt that the building was still in excess of FAR for the present and proposed zoning. 26 parking spaces would be required for thct size of a building. The Planning did not recommend preliminary and final approval. There was some discussion of the calculation of parking spaces. The representative from 620 Hyman stated the present proposed building had been reduced to 69% efficiency as opposed to the architect's usual goal of 80%. They were willing to provide the additional parking to what they could provide on-site. Barnard moved that preliminary & final approval be given on the condition that 5 on-site parking spaces and what- ever additional parking spaces shall be required under the new proposed zoning code or whichever zoning code is adopted based on gross leasable floor space. Jenkins seconded. All in favor except Collins who voted nay. Motion carried. Chairman Schiffer had been absent at the prior meeting on August 6, 1974, he asked for a background on that meeting which he had been unable to attend. The Christiana had come before them at that time for preliminary and final approval but was tabled at that time due to a discrepancy noted in plans with relation to buildings surrounding the proposed duplex. The owner and manager felt that he had explained the problem created by his architect surriciently and now awaited their decision on preliminary and final approval. The Commission felt they had been misled at the conceptual stage. Gantzel felt that the problem had not been created by his doing. Mr. Johnson stated they had been misled whether intentionally or un- intentionally. Johnson moved to rescind conceptual approval based on an erroneous understanding of what was actually true and reconsider conceptual. Barnard seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Barnard moved to adjourn the meeting. Jenkins seconded. All in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. and to be continued August 21 at 12:00 p.m. /', -_./ d2, _ , ~~<.-J ,::::><. 'J[ P-1,,'-ZiJ!. Recol1 ing Secret;ary