Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740618 ,,-',- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C. F. HOEC~EL B. B. 1\ L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen ~lqnning and Zonin~ June 18, 1974 Meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Spence Schi~fer with Commission members Janet Landry, Jack Jenkins, Robert Barnard, Charles Collins, Geri Vagneur, and Bryan Johnson, Assistant Planners John Stanford and Donna Baer at 4:07 P.M. Approval of Minutes Landry made a motion to approve the minutes of April 2, May 7, May 21, and May 23, 1974. Jenkins seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Old Business; Election of Chairman and Vice- Chairman Schiffer opened the meeting for nominations. vagneur nominated Spence Schiffer for Chairman. Johnson seconded the nomination. Barnard made a motion that the nominations be closed. Collins seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Johnson made a motion that the Commission nominate Schiffer by acclamation. Landry seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Barnard nominated Bryan Johnson for Vice Chairman. Landry seconded the nomination. Barnard made a motion that the nominations be closed. Vagneur seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Landry made a motion that the Commission vote be unanimous. Jenkins seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Old Business; Set Study Session for Rezoning Maps and Code Schiffer stated that a date needed to be set for a study session for the rezoning maps and code. It was noted by Johnson that this needed to be done as soon as possible as Ordinance 19 expires July 23. Schiffer noted that the commission should meet with Council on the parking issue. The study session on the rezoning would be held Thursday, June 20, at 4:00 P.M. Barnard stated that the Council had requested meeting with the P & Z next Monday, June 24. Barnard made a motion to request a study session with the City Council on parking. Johnson seconded the motion. Bartel noted that there was a Council meeting that Monday. All in favor, motion carried. Schiffer suggested that this study session be held Tuesday at noon. ~.,-_.-...- ~ ~""~,",-_.,.,.---,~. "..~~...~-_..,,"""'- ,~ ....... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.!lL.CO. Asp~n Planni~9 and zonin<J June 18, 1974 . ,. Regular Meeting Old Business; Shaddow- view Condominiums, Final Plat Approval Schi~fer stated that the applicant at the May 21 meeting had understood that they had received pre- liminary and final plat approval. However, they had only received preliminary plat approval. Schiffer stated that there was a hardship situation involved. Applicants have requested that the Commission hear this under old business. Landry made a motion to place this item on the agenda. Johnson seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Donna Baer stated that the plat had been checked by the Engineering Department and the planning Office, as well as by City Attorney Stuller. There were no additional considerations. She asked if there were any other considerations concerning the retaining wall. Ms. Baer stated that she had consulted with the Engineering Department concerning the retaining wall, and they had no problem with it as long as it was engineered. The next problem was would it be con- sidered by the Building Inspector as a fence, and would it meet the fence requirement. Paul Hamwi, representing the project, stated that the retaining wall would actually be 6', but there would be a 2' abutment above the parking area. There was a six foot drop off, and Hamwi felt that two feet was minimum to keep the cars in the parking lot. Collins stated that his point in bringing this up at the last presentation was that those people on the lower lots may have to look at six to eight feet of retaining wall. Hamwi stated that without this retaining wall the parking lot would drain into the lower lot. Hamwi further noted that actually, this was a six foot retaining wall and a two foot fence. Collins stated that the applicant was creating a need for the retaining wall, and that there should be a limit to what the neighbor has to look at. Hamwi stated that the code required that the applicant pre- vent drainage on the neighboring property; the lot required the retaining wall, and created the situation. Ms. Baer stated that there was no restrictions to the height of the retaining wall in the code. Ms. Baer stated that the long term covenant was being required, and the applicant was willing to provide this. Other than this there were no considerations except for the considerations that are to be included in the subdivision improvement agreement such as a four per cent cash dedication, agreement to join future sidewalk, curb, and gutter districts, etc., that were considered at the first preliminary plat hearing. -2- ,.-, - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C.F.HOECKELB.B.II L. CO. Aspen Flanninej and zoning June 18, 1974 Regular Meetin9 Shaddowview Condo- miniums, Final Plat Approval, continued County Planning and Zoning Certification Airport Noise Study and Resource Inventory Maps Schi~fer asked Collins i~ th.e retaining wall was so significant that it could' be the basis ~or denial of final plat approval. Collins replied that the best construction should be adapted to the site. This had been circumvented by putting up an objectionable physical element. Schi~fer noted that if the neighbors had any objection a public hearing had been held where objections could be heard. Barnard made a motion that the Commission grant final subdivision approval to the Shadowview Sub- division conditioned on the execution of the sub- division improvement agreement. Johnson seconded the motion. Commission members Schiffer, Johnson, Landry, Barnard, and Vagneur, yes. Collins and Jenkins, no. Motion carried. Bartel explained that in 1970 the Regional Service Authority funded a noise study and flight pattern study together with land use criteria for the airport. In 1971 it was adopted by the County Planning and Zoning Commission. The airport master plan completed in 1974 contained new maps for noise patterns and flight patterns. These have been adopted by the P & Z as amendments to the airport noise and land use study. Statute required that the County Planning and Zoning Commission certify the adopted plans and amendments to the municipalities within the County. The first map was a 1982 composite noise rating pro- jection. This map identifies the area within which residential land uses are not recommended because o~ noise. The second map was the updated flight pat- tern map. Bartel stated that no action need to be taken by the City P & Z. Barnard asked if what Bartel was saying was that no one could build houses here. Bartel replied that within that area, because of the noise, if a residen- tial subdivision was approved, noise complaints would happen, and there would be a possibility of litiga- tion against the airport. This was not a consistent land use with airport operations. Barnard stated that with the ~lood plains, etc., people were being deprived the use of their land. Bartel stated that the figures were based on the existing aircraft that use the airport and the increased landing and take-offs projected to 1982. Vagneur asked if the individual landowners in the area had been notified. Bartel replied that no in- dividual notices had been sent, but that the plans had been considered at public hearings. Vagneur stated that she felt such owners should be notified. -3- *..._.-_.","'..'--_.",...............~ ",0__ ,- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.a.ft L. ca. June 18, 1974 Regular Meeting County Planning and Zoning Certification - Airport Noise Study and Resource Inventory Maps CDES Building - Request for Exemption from the Definition of Sub- division Woerndle PUD - Final Development Plan; Public Hearing Aspen Plannin<jandZoning The Resource Inventory had been completed by the Colorado State University, ~unded by pitkin County, the Aspen Valley Improvement Association, and the Natural Resource Department of the Colorado State University, The study inventoried the entire county ~or some select resources. From these considerations they had arrived at a land suitability map. This map did not go into detail on the town site. These maps were available in the Planning O~fice and in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder. Ms. Baer stated that the CDES Building was primarily an office building project which had received pre- liminary approval from the P & Z. She further stated that the planning Office and the Engineering Department had reviewed the project, and there were no obvious requirements that had not been met. Barnard made a motion that the Commission grant ex~ emption from the definition of subdivision. Johnson seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Schiffer opened the public hearing. Ms. Baer stated that the Commission had approved an outline development plan, which had been forwarded to Council. The final development plan was intended to be done simultaneously with the subdivision plat. The subdivision plat was not yet in, so that the Planning Office was requesting that the matter be tabled, or approval be conditioned on subdivision changes. If subdivision required changes, the applicant would have to go through the whole procedure again. PUD considerations were listed on a handout submitted by the Planning Office: (1) Off street parking areas be shown; (2) drawings sufficient to evaluate arch- itecture, or designate site of the building, setback, and the height of the buildings; (3) landscaping of private sites should be restricted to natural aspen cover; (4) development schedule and all conditions should be included in a written agreement. Schiffer noted that until the subdivision was approved, the applicant could not continue, so that the matter should be tabled and the public hearing continued until the Commission had the necessary additional information. Schiffer asked ~or comments from the public. There were none. Johnson made a motion to continue the public hearing to July 2, 1974, and that this matter be tabled until that time. Jenkins seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. -4- ,.. ........ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOEC~ELa.a.IIL.Co. Aspen~lanning and Zoning June 18, 1974 Regular Meetin~ Ordinance 19 Reviews; Mountain Chalet - Exemption Law Four-Plex; Conceptual The Villas; Conceptual Ms, Baer stated that Ralph Melville Of the Mountain Chalet would like to do a remodel which consists of changes on the first and second floor. The Planning Office was recommending an exemption from Ordinance 19 due to the insignificant impact of the project in that it is outside the intent and purpose of Ordinance 19 review. Melville stated that they wanted to incorporate two small rooms into a larger room in the manager's quarters, and add a couple of bedrooms to the unit. In doing so, they would be removing some rental units. The present front line would be followed for an additional ten feet, and then drop back in. Three rental rooms would be removed. 160 sq. ft. would be added. Vagneur made a motion to grant the exemption from Ordinance 19 for this project. Collins seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. Baer stated that this was a request for a four unit apartment building. The recommended zoning map showed this area as multi-family, and the Planning Office recommended three two bedroom apartments on the site. The request was for four two bedroom units. They could also build five one bedroom units, or six studios under the formula. This recommendation also included five on site parking spaces under the new resident parking formula. It was noted by the applicant that the four plex would be limited to long term rentals, and would be willing to covenant to that effect. Six parking spaces would be required, at a rate of 1 1/2 per two bedrooms. Landry noted that since the Commission was so close to the new zoning density requirements that they should not approve the project in this form, as it was too dense. Jenkins stated that the project was less dense than others approved. Schiffer stated ~hat the ordinance had no parameters, and since there was only a recommended density, each project should be considered on a case by case basis. Barnard made a motion to give conceptual approval to the Law Four-Plex under Ordinance 19, conditioned upon the applicant providing six on site parking spaces, and entering into an agreement with the City or otherwise covenanting for long term rentals. Vagneur seconded the motion. Commission members Vagneur, Barnard, Johnson, Schiffer, yes. Landry and Collins, no. Jenkins abstains. Motion carried. Ms, Baer stated that there were two plans, but that they differed only in the location of the swimming pools. The request was for a 29 unit condominium -5- ,..----.-'--- -. -.. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOfIMIO C.F.HOECKELB.B.8:L.CO. June 18, 1974_ Regular Meetin;r The Villas; Conceptual, continued Aspen ~lannin;r and zoning development at the corner Of Highway where the existing Villas lodge is. to remove the lodge and replace with development. 82 and Seventh The proposal was condominium The recommended zoning maps called the site lodge PUD and multi-family PUD because it was zoned to use. If the lodge was to be removed, the Planning Office would recommend a multi-family PUD zoning. It was recommended by the Planning Office that the project be withdrawn for a new site plan or denied on the basis that major revision should be required. Highway Dept. requested 12 1/2 feet on Hallam and on 7th Street in order to allow them to widen the high- way. Planning Office was also of the opinion that any project on the State Highway should be set back 25' in addition to the 12 1/2 feet. On site parking plan must be revised; continuous curb cuts were not permitted. All units should access only into the interior court; entrances on highway would encourage stopping and parking in a highly congested area. Density is 3,440 sq. ft. ever that recommended, or approximately one three bedroom unit. This project was close to being within the recommended density. The site plan needed to be revised to the extent that the Planning Office did not care to comment at this time on the landscaping, and other conditions. The project consisted of eight three bedroom units and twenty one two bedroom units. More than enough parking was shown, but this might change when the site plan was revised. The Planning Office wanted to emphasize the critical nature of the corner from the viewpoint of a useful development and also from the viewpoint of the entrance to Aspen. Bartel explained that the highway right of way in that section was 75'. Main St. was 100'. The City should acquire additional right of way so that the width is the same as Main St., which would mean 12 1/2' on either side. Art Dailey stated that there were two items he wished to address. As Ms. Baer stated, the project was in line with the land use recommendations, multi-family, and the recommended densities for this area are 20 two bedroom units per acre. with 1.6 acres, this implied that they could build 32 two bedroom units. Dailey further stated that the plan could be modified so that they would come within the proposed densities. Dailey submitted a drawing which showed very roughly what the additional setback would mean to the project. This would squeeze the common area. Schiffer stated that some of these items should be discussed at a later stage in Ordinance 19 review, or under subdivision or PUD. Ms. Baer stated that she felt, when major site plan revisions are required, that approval should not be given when it was not clear what was being attempted in the project. -6- ---~----~ ,'- -... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C.F.HOECKELa.a.8: L. CO. Aspen ~lanning and zoning June 18, 1974 Regular Meetin;r The Villas; Conceptual, continued Mountain Edge, Clarendon Residences, Ute Village Residences Schiffer stated that they should be looking at the use in terms of the land use plan, whether they wanted at this location a multi-family and townhouse use. Schiffer stated that he was in favor of this type of project, in terms of the townhouse use. Landry stated that she would like to see the project lowered to the oroposed density. It was agreed that the project would be built at the proposed density. Collins stated that under the PUD, density could be made even lower with other considerations on parking, etc. The impact of this project would be very strong, and some possibility should be con- sidered in regard to density. Collins felt that the density question should be considered at the concep- tual stage. Collins stated that he also wanted to take the posi- tion as being against anything that was in litigation between the City and any applicant. Dailey stated that the reason that thp.y had brought the plan in was to try to end the dispute with the City. Collins stated he felt that legal action should be withdrawn before the City or any board would take action on any proposal brought in. Jenkins made a motion to give conceptual approval to the Villas under Ordinance 19, conditioned on the Commission taking another look at setback, density, and building configurations, at the next stage of preliminary design presentation. Johnson seconded the motion. All in favor, with the exception of Charles Collins, who voted no. Chuck Vidal was present with the project of the Mountainedge project, and Ute Village Residences, and Clarendon Residences. Due to the scope of the project, the Planning Office did not have a recom- mendation for him today. An on site inspection should be scheduled for the next regular meeting, at which time the Planning Office would give their recom- mendation on all three projects. Vidal stated that two of the projects would be going through PUD and subdivision; one of the projects would go through PUD, subdivision, Ordinance 19, annexation and a street vacation. Vidal submitted to the Commis- sion a schedule of interphases if the project received approval. Vidal stated that they were presenting an outline development plan for PUD for all three proposals, and a conceptual presentation for the Mountainedge. The Clarendon and the ute Village sites were not going to be developed, but were single family lots. It was noted that the recreation area would be for the Ute Village area and the Clarendon site. In regard to the Clarendon site, lots had already been -7- '".................._--,...-._,_.------~.,,>"'--^;-._~."~- , - -... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C.F.HOEC~ELa.a.&L.CO. Aspen ~lanning and zoning June 18, 1974 Regular Meeting Mountainedge, Clarendon Residences, ute Village Residences, continued established from a previous subdivision. These pre- viously subdivided lots are 54', with 6,000 sq. ft. in them. In PUD, minimum width is 60'. If PUD was approved, this project would not have to be pro- cessed through subdivision. City Attorney Stuller asked if Vidal meant that he would go through exemption. Vidal stated that the reason that that subdivision is not valid is that the lot width was substandard. By going through PUD, they could get approval for a substandard lot width. Stuller stated that subdivision was mandatory under PUD. Vidal stated that he then would be going through subdivision. Stuller stated that she had suggested that the lots be made conforming, and then request an exemption from subdivision as a resubdivision without the intents and purposes of the subdivision chapter. Vidal could not parcel off those lots and sell them being substandard when they are all in one ownership. The lots would need to be conforming. This could be done by replatting and asking for exemption from subdivision regulations. Vidal stated that they had interpreted the code as saying subdivision was necessary where it had not been previously subdivided. City Attorney Stuller asked if what they meant was that they did comply with Chapter 20 by asking for an exemption. Vidal noted that what she was saying was that they would get PUD approval and then ask for an exemption, and not have to go through subdivision. Stuller stated again that if the lots are all under single ownership, they should be replatted and made conforming. The small lot exemption does not apply if the lots are adjacent and under single ownership. She asked why he was going through PUD, when he could just replat it and ask for an exemption from subdivision. Jim Moran stated that with PUD subdivision, lots could be less than the required width. The sub- division part would be presenting the original plat. The PUD superimposed would allow the variances in the lot size. It was further noted that if the land was replatted to 60', it would take up some of the land wanted by the Engineering Department and would be 3' short still. One lot would be less than 60' anyway. The alignment as is is necessary to develop all the lots. Collins asked about the physical improvements on the lot. In ~UD, you need to have some improvements. Ms. Baer stated that this could be required. Vidal noted that you could go PUD with residential lots, and no improvements. It was zoned mandatory PUD. Baer noted that the commission could do the height, bulk, lot coverage, setback requirements as done for the Woerndle project. Ms. Baer noted that the drives are all going to come off Ute Ave. Vidal stated there would be three drives. city Engineer Dave Ellis had also requested that on the Clarendon and ute Village sites that the City be given enough land so that ute Ave. would be 60' right of way. -8- '~"'''''''''''''"''~- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM,~ C. F. HOECKEL a. B. 8: L. CO. Aspen planning a,ndZoning _ June 18, 1974 Regular Meetin5!, Mountainedge, Clarendon Residences, Ute Village Residences, continued Elks Building, Exemption Under the Mountainedge, Vidal presented a, model, which he felt was the best way to show the massing of the project. There were no modifications to what they had already stated. The project would be built low down off the hill, and the developers requested that Garmisch and Juan Streets be vacated. This would minimize automobile flow in the area. Fifty parking spaces would be provided. Included in the plan is employee housing. It was not sure yet what the mix would be yet, but it was a possibility that there would be 100 three bedroom units, with one kitchen per unit. The building would be run as a hotel. There would be a central management, and the city would collect taxes on this. Vidal stated that there would be restaurant facilities and would be a full service hotel, which included the elements of such a business. Barnard asked if density had been transferred from the steep part of the property and brought it down onto the level portion of the property. Vidal stated that existing zoning would allow 300,000 sq. ft., or about twice the number of units proposed. When the density was calculated, everything above the 8040 line was eliminated. All of the units in the hotel would be on a time- ownership basis except for the commercial space. Vidal stated that there will be people who will buy the units who don't intend to use them, as an invest- ment. All time periods will not be sold, so there would be rental time periods; and of those that are sold there will be renting out of units, even though someone owns them for a particular period of time. This provides greater flexibility than the standard condominium unit. Schiffer stated that he felt that people would buy a time slot intending to use the facility for that time. Vidal stated that this was a many faceted market, and this type of buyer was one element of it. Schiffer noted that the Planning Office had requested more time to evaluate the project, and suggested tabling the project for a short period of time. Collins stated that again he would like to express his concern whether this board should consider any application when certain pieces of property are in suit against the City. He felt that it was not appropriate that this board consider this at this time. Barnard made a motion to table this project for an on site inspection and at the request of the Planning Office for further information until the next regular meeting. Seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. Bartel stated that a building permit was required for new windows for the Elks Building. The Planning -9- ,"-' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM ,0 C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen planning and zonin~ June 18, 1974 Elks Building, Exemption, continued Office was recommending an exemption for this. It was noted that Stanford had contacted as many members of the H.P.C., and they have no problem with this. The windows were metal. Johnson made a motion to grant exemption from Ord- inance 19 for the Elks Building, Jenkins seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Vagneur made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Jenkins seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 7:02 P.M. -(1!VC&'-' -e~ Secretary