Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740604 - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 C.F.HOECI(ELB.B.lll.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning June 4, 1974 Meeting was called to order at 5:10 P.M. by Vice Chairman Spence Schiffer with Commission members Bryan JOhnson, Robert Barnard, Chuck Collins, Janet Landry and Assistant Planners John Stanford and Yank Mojo, and City Attorney Sandra Stuller. Approval of Minutes Approval of the minutes of the May 7 and May 21 meetings was tabled until a future date. Public Hearing -- Downzoning of Public Lands and Amendment to the Zoning Code on New District for Public Lands Schiffer noted that legal notice had been published. He then opened the public hearing on the zoning of public lands. John Stanford made the presentation for the Planning Office. He stated there were two districts, public and park. Objectives here were to support and pro- mote the public element of an urban design plan, and promote additional space for playgrounds, help implement the urban run-off management plan, and the urban development plan. It would protect the ski runs below the 8040 line, and preserves existing open space and landscaping. Schiffer asked for public comment. There was none. He then asked for comments from the Commission. Schiffer closed the public hearing. Schiffer stated that he had no problem with the pro- posal but that in the resolution which would be passed on to City Council, the second WHEREAS stating, "WHEREAS, the Commission, to effectuate the creation of these zone districts, must make corresponding changes to the Aspen Municipal Code, Chapter 24 thereof, which changes have been properly noticed and heard," he would like to insert "Chapter 24 thereof, and to the zoning district map". Johnson made a motion to approve the resolution, with the only modification being the addition of the words " and to the zoning district map" after the comma following the thereof, in the second WHEREAS. Janet Landry seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Set Public Hearing Date for Historic Preservation Overlay District Schiffer noted that before a public hearing date could be set, the Planning and Zoning Commission would need to give preliminary approval. Jack Jenkins arrived. Judy Ferrenberg submitted a resolution from the Historic Preservation Committee to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Barnard noted at this time that he had a conflict of interest, and would not take part in the discus- sion. Schiffer also stated that due to the fact he had numerous clients who would be affected by this, that he also would abstain.from voting and discussion at this time. He stated that if there were no ob- jections, he would proceed and not make comments or take part in the vote. Schiffer asked if the Commission felt there was any problem with the district in relation to the Aspen """-"'''''~'''';'''''''''-_';.''''''''''''''~---'.'''''-'~'^''-'''',.""",,,,"""" - --. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.f.HOECKELB.a.&l.CQ. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning June 4, 1974 Set Public Hearing Date for Historic Preservation Overlay District general plan and the effect of the designation on the surrounding neighborhood, There was no comment from the Commission. Schiffer asked if there were any other considerations at this time, or opposition. Landry made a motion to give preliminary approval to the Historic Overlay District designated in the resolution the Commission received from the Historic Preservation Committee. Jenkins seconded the motion. Commission members Landry, Jenkins, Johnson, Collins, yes. Schiffer and Barnard abstained. Johnson made a motion to set a joint public hearing with the Historic Preservation Committee for June 25, 1974. Collins seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Old Business; Gillis Resolution Schiffer noted that City Council amended the resol- ution forwarded by the Commission concerning Bruce Gillis, deleting some of the WHEREAS clauses, with the body of the resolution remaining the same. Barnard made a motion to approve the Gillis Resolu- tion which the Commission had approved eliminating the WHEREAS clauses. Johnson seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Richardson Duplex Exemption Resolution Schiffer explained that this was an exemption from a subdivision that was passed; applicant would like a resolution to that effect. Collins made a motion to approve the Richardson Resolution for the exemption from the subdivision regulations under which it's considered a duplex. Landry seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Hibberd Project Schiffer explained that Hibberd had a new proposal for the Commission. City Attorney Sandra Stuller explained the pending court case. She stated that this was a new ap- plication, and noted that the outcome of the new proposal would have no bearing on the litigation. Schiffer suggested that the Commission should place this item on the agenda for conceptual presentation under Ordinance 19. ~arking Proposal Schiffer stated that there were certain aspects of the parking proposal that could not be done under the printed public notice. Some of the more impor- tant aspects of the proposal could not be done under this notice, and Schiffer suggested that probably the best thing would be to republish. Schiffer asked that members at this time should note what they would like to see published in the new notice, so that all main considerations could be included in the notice. -2- - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIlM!O C.F.HOECKElB.B.lll L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning June 4, 1974 Parking Proposal, continued Schiffer noted that some additional information that should be obtained is what relationship existed be- tween the Colorado Municipal League Standards and the City of Aspen in terms of ratios of parking spaces to square footage. Schiffer stated that he felt other studies should be made concerning the buyout provision or option; projections should be made of the number of parking places required at the ultimate build out of the City. Schiffer explained that this decision would have an ultimate impact on the character of the downtown area at some future date. If off street parking is pro- hibited in the area in question, and there is limit- ed land available for municipal buyout lots, such impacts must be considered in the long run. In terms of the legal notice, Barnard stated that he agreed with Johnson's first recommendation, "The prohibition of the construction of private off-street parking in the.area bounded by the north side of Durant and the south side of the alley between Bleeker and Main and the west side of Hunter to the east side of Monarch", provided that these people have to satisfy off street parking requirements through a buyout. Jenkins stated that he felt consideration of a parking district should be in- cluded in the published notice, so that the burden could be shared, rather than being born by only those building new buildings in the area. City Attorney Stuller stated that this could be done as a recom- mendation, but did not need to be included in the published notice. Schiffer stated that the public this was going to be discussed. proposal was necessary. should be aware that A comprehensive Boundaries for the area in which off street parking would be prohibited was discussed. Barnard asked whether the boundaries could cut across two differ- ently zoned areas. It was noted by Schiffer that this could be accomplished, as long as there was some rational basis for what the Commission wanted to do in relation to the overall plan, and trying to achieve some goal that is to the benefit of the City. Collins stated that the map should as in the original public notice. this map should be revised to show rounded by the dotted line. be republished Landry felt that the area sur- Barnard felt that the area should include all the CC district. This would imply moving the area under consideration one block east. The C-l area on the west should still be included as this was developing as CC. Jenkins made a motion that the published notice in- clude extending the dotted line to the east one block. Johnson seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. -3- ,..... -, , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIIM ~I C. F. HOECKEL B. B. II L. CD. Regular Meeting Parking Proposal, continued Aspen Planning and Zoning June 4, 1974 Collins asked if the previous motion to define the limits of the area excluded the possibility of im- plementing item 1 of Bryan's proposal outside the dotted area. He further stated that if this was so, he would not like to see this option closed at this time. Until such time the Planning Office could supply the Commission with information in regard to the amounts of traffic generated, etc., he felt that to publish less than this may be limiting to the Commission. Collins made a motion to extend the dotted area to cover all the shaded area that was considered in the original publication. Motion dies for lack of second. Barnard made a motion that the Commission publish notice according to the last motion that was ap- proved. Johnson seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Jenkins asked City Attorney Stuller if there were any feasible alternatives to the parking district. She replied that the only one they had come up with was a municipal facility. Schiffer felt that all al- ternatives ways of undergrounding parking should be addressed. Schiffer noted that another element of the plan was that people in the fringe area would be encouraged to provide employee off street parking. Jenkins inquired whether figures for the required employee parking could be come up with. Mojo stated that they could, after making certain assumptions. Johnson made a motion to set a public hearing on the parking question on June 27, 1974 at 5:00 P.M. Jenkins seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Chuck Vidal, Clarendon Site Vidal stated that he had three alternatives for the Commission's consideration in regard to the Clarendon site. It had been previously proposed that six single family lots be located on the property. The Commission had requested an investigation of a ten unit cluster. The difference in the alternatives was basically a difference in the parking location. Vidal explained that the ten units would be sold as building sites, with the parking in a common area. The first alternative showed the parking coming off the extent ion of West End Street, the second changing lot position with parking off Ute Ave. or West End, and the third off of Ute Ave. Buildings would be built within the circle of the lot, which was about 1200 sq. ft. of ground area. Vidal reitterated that the only differences in the three alternatives was the parking location and the access. -4- ,,-. FORM 5~ C. F. H DECK EL B. B. lit L. CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning and Zoning June 4, 1974 Regular Meeting Clarendon Site, continued Aspen Mine and Commission Company Election Brinkman Building Ordinance 19 Reviews - AEM Apartments, Preliminary and Final Johnson stated that he felt the six unit plan was more appropriate. A vote was taken. Consensus of the Commission, with the exception of Charles Collins, was to go with the six lot plan. Johnson stated that he would like to object to the building in the Mall of a permanent type structure in the Mall without the review of the P & Z. Bill Dunaway stated that this had been approved by the City Council and the Mall Commission. Barnard made a motion that the Commission make a recommendation to the City Council and the Mall Com- mission that any and all further structures to be built in the Mall first come before the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval. Seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. Schiffer stated that the election for Chairman and Vice Chairman should take place on the second regular meeting in June. Assistant Planner John Stanford stated that Deana Brinkman was going to take the green house off the structure and lower it. It would a skylight similar to the original plans submitted. He noted -tha t the H. P . C. had approved the plans. The sky- light would be at the present roof line of the present structure, which had been the H.P.C.'s major objection. - Stanford stated that the Building Inspector had the right to make major revisions and make adjustments without again going before the Commission. Schiffer stated that the important thing was to pre- vent this happening again. It was suggested that a stamp, even though bureaucratic, may solve the problem. Donna Baer, Assistant Planner, presented the plans. Two conditions of the conceptual approval of two weeks prior were (1) eight parking spaces on the site, and (2) rentals be covenant for long term only. The first condition had been met, and a letter from the applicant had been received showing a willing- ness to meet the second condition. Further considerations were primarily engineering ones. (1) Provide for roof drainage directly into dry wells (2x2xl); (2) adequate on site drainage retention; (3) trash storage and removal; (4) side- walk, curb and gutter; (5) snow removal. Ms. Baer stated that conditional approval could be given provided revised plans are reviewed by the Engineering Department to ensure compliance. She also noted that evidence of the covenant was neces- sary. -5- -""-"""-~'~""'---"~-~.'-"~--'" ,-'~""'....,--. ,-. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM" C. F. HOECKEL a. B.1t L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning June 4, 1974 AEM Apartments, Preliminary and Final Collins made a motion to give preliminary and final approval to the AEM Apartments under Ordinance 19 on the following conditions: that they provide for roof drainage directly into dry wells; that they provide adequate on site drainage retention; that they provide trash storage and removal; that they provide sidewalk, curb and gutter; that they pro- vide snow removal facility or programs satisfactory to the Planning Department; and that there be a restrictive covenant recorded such that the property will only be rented on six month or longer leases. Landry seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Vroom Building - Preliminary Ms. Baer stated that the conditions of conceptual approval were (1) that the lower floor and com- mercial use should be restricted to pedestrian, tourist oriented uses and these should be designated by the applicant, and (2) compliance with parking requirements that may be adopted. The first con- dition need not be done till final approval. All referral letters were positive. Engineering Department considerations included delivery access should be made from the alley side, and have a screened trash storage area accessible at alley grade; if regrading of the alley was antici- pated, approval would be necessary and costs for regrading or relocating utilities would be the res- ponsibility of the developer; site improvements should provide for on site retention capacity in accordance with the Urban Runoff Management Plan; developer should covenant to join any future special improvement districts including street, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and drainage. Ms. Baer stated that these were basically routine, and applicant had agreed to these. Parking was the only unresolved question. Ms. Baer stated she had suggested that Mr. Vroom request a variance to buyout under the present code require- ments. He is located in the c-l zoned area. Plan- ning Office was recommending that in line with the Commission's proposal, applicant would possibly be in a buyout area. However, exact figures were not as yet determined for the new parking policy. Would applicant be required to buyout under the old code or the new? Jenkins noted that other had been re- quired to abide by the new parking requirements. Barnard stated that it was unfair to ask people to agree to un adopted figures. Ms. Baer further mentioned that the Historic Preser- vation Committee would like to look at brick samples when the building would reach that stage. Johnson made a motion that the Commission require that Mr. Broom buyout rather than to provide off street parking on the site, and that in accordance with that, the Commission make a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment that he be granted a variance so that he may buyout. Landry seconded the motion. -6- ,-. FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.CO. --- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting June 4, 1974 Vroom Building - Preliminary, continued Limelite Lodge Addition - Conceptual Aspen Planning and Zoning All in favor, motion carried. Johnson made a motion to give preliminary approval to the Vroom Building, under Ordinance 19, upon the following conditions; that the lower floor and commercial use should be restricted to pedestrian, tourist oriented uses and these should be designated by the applicant; that the applicant agree to comply with all the Engineering Department recommendations which the Commission had on a memo dated May 6, 1974; that the applicant submit brick samples to the Historic Preservation Committee pursuant to their request; and that the applicant agree to comply with whatever parking requirements may be established. Jenkins seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Baer stated that this was a third story addition to the existing Limelite Lodge. Existing zoning was C-l and AR. The lodge was also restricted in height by the Wheeler Opera House view plane. A variance for about four inches would be required. The request was for fourteen additional units. This would be maximum density for current zoning. Ms. Baer further informed the Commission that if the building was built after 1956, it would need to provide on site parking, which would require 27 spaces. Ms. Baer stated that height and bulk should be ad- dressed. Including the new addition, there would be approximately 15,000 sq. ft. of floor area on a 21,000 sq. ft. lot. Landry made a motion that the project be tabled until the Commission has the Planning Office's recommendations on the square footage and parking recommendation presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission, not necessarily acted upon. Johnson seconded the motion. Jenkins stated that the lodge community needed en- couragement to upgrade this type of facility. Condominiums have really been a problem to these businesses. He further stated that at the concep- tual presentation, the Commission could consider this further, and not table for these reasons but consider them at another stage. Schiffer stated that if density was to be considered, it must be considered at the conceptual stage. Mr. Paas stated that no motel had been built in this town for the last six or seven years, as this type of project was not economically feasible. He further stated that during the past few years, there had been criticism of the quality of the motel units in town. A vote was taken on the motion to table. Commission members Collins, Landry, and Johnson, yes. Schiffer, Barnard, and Jenkins, no. Motion NOT carried. -7- --_._~~.'~'- r FORM 5~ C. F. HOECK EL B. B. II L. CO. - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Limelite Lodge Addition Conceptual, continued CDES Building - Preliminary Reevaluation 620 Hyman Building Aspen Planning and Zoning June 4, 1974 Jenkins noted that this was a much less dense use of the land than other buildings, and was less intense use of the land. He further stated that a lodge could not be supported with much less density. Schiffer noted that another consideration was the height and the bulk. He stated that he was unsure whether consideration of this should be done at this stage. Johnson noted that this was the reason for his vote to table. He felt he was unsure of what they were talk- ing about in respect to this project. Barnard sug- gested going out and taking a look at this project. Ms. Baer also asked what the Commission would want to consider in regard to the number of parking spaces for the lodge. She stated that 27 spaces would be required, with the 2 to 3 ratio now required by the code. Schiffer stated that this could be considered at another stage. Johnson made a motion that the Commission table the Limelite Lodge conceptual presentation until June 11, 1974. Seconded by Barnard. Jenkins asked what was being considered in the motion to table. It was stated that the only consideration was to go see the site of the project. All in favor, motion carried. Tabled at request of applicant. Ms. Baer stated that she had informed Kit Mason that the board was not interested in hearing the same building plans again. However, Mr. Mason had under- stood that the board was requesting some figures and comparisons with the adjacent buildings, which had been established. Mr. Mason stated that they wished to present this information to the board for their direction. Schiffer stated that under Ordinance 19, if a project was denied, the Commission could not reconsider the disapproval now. The only way it could have been re- considered would be if one of the members on the pre- vailing side of the motion, had made a motion to reconsider at that meeting or at the next regular meeting. It was already past the point where the original building could be reconsidered. Schiffer further mentioned that he felt Mr. Mason was asking the Commission what they would approve or disapprove. He suggested that he turn to the Planning Office for direction. Mason stated that he was willing to make some con- cessions for a building that may be approved. Barnard stated that this was the job of the Planning Office. -8- --......~;,_.....~_.~..._."~. r -. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM!O C.F.HOECKELB.B.ll l. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning June 4, 1974 620 Hyman Building Mason stated that although there was no motion to the effect of reconsideration, there were elements that were unknown, such as the comparisons with the ad- jacent buildings. He stated that he had gotten the impression that this was specifically requested to be presented to the Commission, and that such information was needed to make an evaluation. Mason stated that they were looking for direction or conceptual approval for some other density. Mason asked if he could present a modification of this project at this time. Schiffer stated that he needed to be on the agenda for Ordinance 19 conceptual approval. The whole process had to be began again. Mason stated that he felt the Commission could then agree on what would be acceptable to the board. Schiffer stated that the commission could not tell the applicant what kind of building to build. He further noted that there were no parameters in Ordinance 19, and that this had caused previous problems; the ord- inance was discretionary. The applicant could either come back with a new building under Ordinance 19 or wait until new zoning had been established. Johnson made a motion that the meeting be adjourned. Collins seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 7:50 P.M. ~7 /) . / / '<trt~"./tC0 ~ ~ Secretary '"-,~-._-