Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19741001 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORilI10 C. F, HOECI(El ~. 8. Il l. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning October 1, 1974 The meeting was called to order at 4:14 p.m. by Chairman Spencer Schiffer with members Janet Landry, Jack Jenkins, and Dr. Barnard present with Bryan Johnson having an excused absence. Also present was Yank Mojo, Greg Cole and City/ County Planner John Stanford. Vagneur and Collins arrived late. Approval of Minutes Rather than approve the minutes as they stood with possible erroneous parts, the Chairman asked the secretary to listen to the tapes and revise the minutes of September 17 since members felt that, due to some disorganization at that meeting, certain actions were under dispute. OLD BUSINESS: Zoning Resolution The chairman said that the Commission was not ready to act on the Zoning Resolution and that a study session would be set at this meeting. He asked the members to read the document carefully and any recommendations they might have be presented at the study session for consid- eration. Not on the agenda but members had indicated at the last meeting that they would like to send a recommendation to the City Manager as to the parking situation by the Villa of Aspen Townhouses. The Chairman entertained a motion to recommend to the City Manager that Bleeker between 7th & 8th streets and 8th between Bleeker & Main contain NO PARKING signs that no parking be allowed on those streets at any time. Barnard questioned whether they should get involved and said that the City Administrator should handle the problem. Schiffer stated that the City Manager did not have to accept their recommendation. Barnard asked what would happen to the house on the southeast corner of 8th and felt that the problem lay mainly on 8th between Bleeker & Main. Jenkins asked if there was off-street parking for those individuals who had houses there and Barnard was uncertain. Collins said that he had noticed signs up on the east side of 8th but he did not know if they were private or City owned. Mojo said that as far as he knew there were no houses that face on 8th st., just on Bleeker & Main. Barnard said that he had gone by that area and that the main problem that they should tackle was 8th between Bleeker & Main. Mojo said that the problem was caused by the Villas encroaching into the street. Dave Ellis, City Engineer, commented that the physical improvements were put in by the Villas at the request of Councilor the City and that they effectively reduced the right-of-way for the roadway by 25 feet. -1- City Engineer, cont'd He also mentioned that the street is supposed to be signed PARALLEL PARKING ONLY on one side and NO PARK- ING signs are up on the other side but they were placed by the Villas and the City would have to put up their official signs. Landry felt that the Commission had not defined the problem very well yet. Jenkins thought that they should wait and hear what the City Engineer says about if the on-site parking is adequate for the residents in that area and if so, then he would be in favor of no street parking at all. Schiffer tabled the motion at the recommendation of the members. Villas Reconsideration Due to minutes not being clear over this, the Chair- man asked to have the question of the motion recon- sidered since action would have to be taken at this meeting to correct any misunderstanding on action taken rather than wait until the revised minutes were available. Motion Barnard moved to reconsider the question of preliminary approval and Jenkins seconded. favor, motion carried. the Villas All in Mojo said that he had failed to tell the members about a plat that was to have been submitted to the Engineer~ ing Dept. before preliminary approval could be given. The City Engineer said that he had received the plat as of last Friday but could not comment on it yet. The Chairman said that it was his understanding that the Villa people would go along with any recommendation Engineering made. Also the approval was to have been conditional upon positive referrals from water, electric and telephone utilities and also satisfaction of the trail alignments. Motion Barnard moved to grant preliminary approval to the Villas outline development plan conditional upon the satisfaction of the Engineering Dept., receipt of positive referrals from the utility companies and the trail alignment being worked out. Jenkins seconded. All in favor except for Collins who voted nay. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Zoning study session Schiffer thought that the members ought to set a study session on the zoning recommendations for the coming thursday and if they got everything accomplished then have a special meeting the next week. Motion Barnard moved that they have a study session on thurs- day, October 4, and a special meeting on tuesday, Oct. 8. Jenkins seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Stop Sign at Gibson & King Streets Schiffer wanted the members to be aware of the horren- dous traffic problems near Gibson St. and asked that there be a recommendation to the City that either Gibson be made one way west between King & Neal or a stop sign be placed on Gibson to prevent more accidents from occurring. He asked that it be put on the agenda for next meeting. -2- ,. ,,' ,'" FORMIG C.F.HOECKELB.B.IlL.Co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves October 1, 1974 Regular Meeting Stop signs, cont'd SUBDIVISION: Lot 3, Cast Creek Sub. Aspen Planning & Zoning Stanford thought that Gibson & King are in the County and that they were aware of the problem and were work- ing on it within the subdivision and were developing a plan. Schiffer believed that King is in the City and Stan- ford said that King, if in the City, would be worked on within the masterplan. Schiffer asked if a yield sign could not placed in the interim and thought that the P & Z should consider the situation at the next meeting. This was a public hearing on a request to resubdivide a lot with 62,000 square feet in Castle Creek Subdiv- ision between Castle Creek and Butte Road. Request is to portion off 17,000 sq. ft. to another interest with utility and driveway easements thru the portion cut off. Planning Office had received positive referrals but did wish to submit into the record a letter from adjacent lot owners opposed because of subdivision covenants. Mojo said that the Planning Office's position was that if they cut up the lot, they will create a non-conform- ing lot in an area that has been proposed R-30. Schiffer questioned the Planning Office on their concern over no street frontage since the plans sub- mitted showed only one lot with street frontage and Mojo said that it could be worked out so that both would front the street. Schiffer pointed out that the plat as submitted did not have both lots fronting a public street or highway as pursuant to the design requirements. Vagneur asked about the protective covenants in the subdivision but Mojo advised that that was a private matter and he could not address himself to that. Mrs. Patsy Newbury, the applicant, asked Mojo what he meant by non-conforming lots and he replied that with the proposed zoning (R-30) lots would be required to be 30,000 sq. ft. and the question arose over what the zoning was presently. Mojo believed it to be R-15 under Ordinance 19. Mojo said that he was more concerned over the size of the lots than the street frontage. Schiffer commented that even if they gave conceptual approval, that didn't necessarily mean that they had to grant final when the new zoning comes into effect. The City Attorney pointed out that there was such a thing as conceptual commitments and said that if approval is given that they put in that no commitment had been made to grant final approval. Barnard stated that any decision made on the size of the lots would be fellacious and that they would have to go by what is in effect now. Mrs. Newbury asked why she had not been told before this meeting that she was not within the design requirements and also why she had not gotten onto -3- Lot 3, Castle Creek Motion Exemption Pabst & Morse Motion ORDINANCE 19 REVIEWS: RBH final ...........-...;-..-.1,.- ..._.<<,-..._..,~_. the agenda until now when she had submitted the plans on May 3rd. Schiffer said that they had found something wrong in the design requirements and even if the Commission gave approval they should make it clear that in no way can they get final plat approval if the zoning recommend- ations are approved to go to Council and Ordinance 9 takes effect. Barnard moved to deny preliminary plat approval based on the failure of the plat to satisfy design require- ment 5 (d) and Vagneur seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Request was made to grant exemption from the definition of subdivision since applicants had a joint venmre which they dissolved and both submitted affidavits stating that neither ,had the intention of avoiding subdivision regulations when the dissolution occurred. Attorney for Mr. Morse, John A;F. Wendt, Jr. argued for his.client that the proper quit-claim papers were not drawn up "due to advertance and neglect of'counsel ... but that both parties had effectuated its provision in that each party had treated his respective interest as his own." The City Attorney, in a memorandum to John Stanford, stated "that the contention that the partitioning of the land under the circumstances testified to by the applicants does not come under subdivision review is a valid premise,..." The City Attorney and Mr. Wendt discussed Colorado and Municipal law regarding joint ventures. Collins wanted to compare the size of the House Care building against the property owned by Mr. Pabst and rented to the City but members did not feel this to be a valid point. Barnard said he could see no difficulties but that if any more parceling of land occurred, they would have to come before them under subdivision regulations. Barnard moved to give positive recommendation that the dissolved joint venture be given exemption from the definition of subdivision under section 20-10 (b). Vagneur seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Collins abstained. Vagneur question if she had a conflict any longer but it was determined that since she not longer worked for any of the interests, there was no conflict. Architect Jack Walls represented the building and said that only a few changes had been made. They had added an elevator inside the building and the alley situation had been dropped by the County so the requirements for the alley access would be as they had been before. Mojo said that the Engineering Dept. was going to require that the roof and sunken courts provide retention capacity and drainage. Letters and various agencies were in order. Walls said that the only other condition of their approval was that they obtain a variance from the -4- ,~ -- FORMI'I C.F.HOECKELB.B.1l L. CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves October 1, 1974 Regular Meeting RBH final, cont'd Motion Limelite conceptual Motion Aspen Planning & Zoning Board of Adjustments to buyout parking spaces which they had obtained. Jenkins questioned the number of spaces the P & Z had required but minutes presented were not specific; in the number th~y had to buyout. Walls SalQ that he remembered asking for a definite number for their plans and he was under the impression that they were to buyout under the old code which the variance was granted for. Schiffer felt that since they had done what the members had asked them to do, obtain a variance, there was not much they could say. Barnard also felt that the situation was ex post facto and said that since they had given RBH an out, it had been taken. Schiffer said that he remembered discussing with members the problem but did not remember ever giving a number. He felt that the tapes would problably show that they had said to buyout under the existing code. Jenkins made the point that the P & Z should check into the problem since they had shown no consistency and this was unfair to people like Roy Vroom who bought out under the new code. Barnard pointed out that Vroom had volunteered to do that. Barnard moved that they grant final approval under Ordinance 19 to the RBH building and Vagneur seconded. All in favor except for Jenkins who voted nay. Motion carried. Mojo said that this was an application for a two story addition to an existing lodge and that the developers, taking into consideration previous concepts denied, had come back with a plan consistent with the zoning for Lodge 1. The property would add an additional 13 units with the applicant retaining 12 parking spaces required for the previous buildings plus designating 5 rooms and 1 bedroom apartment for employee housing. The parking will provide 1 space per each new unit. Mojo also mentioned that he had talked to architect Don Ball about employee parking down at the Rio Grande property and that this would be a good experiment. No view plane or corridor would be obstructed. Dr. Barnard asked if the Planning Office was recommend- ing the plan and Mojo replied in the affirmative. Vagneur moved to grant conceptual approval to the plans and Collins seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Post Office exemption Mojo explained that this was an application for exemption from Ordinance 19 to increase the size of the loading ramp, install an electrically operated hydraulic lift and extend the roof to cover the present and proposed deck area. Motion He said the Planning Office recommendation was that the project was so small in scope as to be within the exception provision of Ordinance 19. He also mentioned that the current zoning is CC and proposed to be C-l and that the use is consistent with zoning. Jenkins moved that they exempt the Post Office from -5- ,... Post Office, cont'd Ordinance 19 and Barnard seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Dr. Sheriff exemption Pat Maddalone of Benedict & Assoc. presented the application for an exemption from Ordinance 19 so that a building permit could be issued for interior work to be done so Dr. Sheriff, a dentist, could rent an area in the Benedict building. Ms. Madda- lone advised the'members that partitions, interior and plumbing work would have to be done. She reminded them that this was an already existing building. Schiffer asked how much remaining space there would be and Ms. Maddalone replied about 1,000 sq.ft. Mojo said that the Planning Office felt that this was consistent with the use and could foresee no problems. Motion Barnard moved that they grant exemption from Ordinance 19 for an already existing building and Vagneur seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Landry moved that they adjourn and Barnard seconded. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. '~1<1v~ ~,.Z~ Deputy City erkV, , -6- -' , .