Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740221 ,r" - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR,.. SO C.F.HOECKELB.B.a:L.CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 21, 1974 Meeting was reconvened by Chairman Bruce Gillis at 5:15 p.m. with members Chuck Vidal, Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Spence Schiffer, Geri Vagneur, and Janet Landry. Also present City/County Planner Herb Bartel and Assistant Plan-' ners Donna Baer and John Stanford. Stevens - Ginn Building Chairman Gillis reminded the Commission that they ap- plicant had been asked to return at this meeting in order that the Commission could consider the uses and the variances requested by the applicant. Gillis pointed out that the recommendations of the Planning Office concerning the uses was that the uses that conflict with the mall uses be deleted as uses for the Stevens - Ginn Building. Should be uses that a permanent resident would require. Schiffer stated that he agreed with those recommend- ations. Vidal stated that conceptually, he agreed with that also, but felt there may be some specific uses there which the Commission would like to discuss. Ms. Baer pointed out that the applicant would have to ask for a fourth variance. Stevens questioned if a shoe store would be considered tourist-oriented. Vidal stated that he would like to see approval of the project, but would like to see if possibly the appli- cant could open up the space between the buildings more if it is achievable. Schiffer stated that he would prefer not to give any recommendations to the Board of Adjustment. Chairman Gillis stated that as far as he was concerned, has no problem with the variances. Ms. Baer pointed out that the Planning Office and the Commission had encouraged the applicant to develope this project together and felt that perhaps the Com- mission should make recommendations to the Board of Adjustment. Schiffer stated that although he did not have any pro- blems with the variances requested, felt that the Board of Adjustment should deal with those aspects of the application. Johnson stated that if the Commission did not make formal recommendations to the Board of Adjustment, was sure that the applicants would be sure to give the Commission's comments to the Board. Jenkins questioned what mechanisms were available to control the uses. Ms. Baer stated that the best mechanism for this would be by future review. Vidal questioned if the Bergman project's uses were covenanted. r^' '"'"'" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM 10 C.F.HOf:CKELB.B.&l.CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 21, 1974 Chairman Gillis questioned if it was the recommenda- tion of the Planning Office that the uses be cove- nanted. Vagneur expressed the feeling that if so, should only be for a period of designated years, not for eternity. Ms. Baer stated that she would not think so. Further pointed out that Bergman's project was only one use in one building. Vidal stated that he felt what should be done is to covenant to restrict it for the use restriction that the Commission is presently looking at, but also en- able the applicant, when conditions change, to come back to the Commission and the Board of Adjustment to either include or exclude some other type of use if conditions have changed. Give them the ability to modify that condition. Ms. Baer stated that that would be incorporated in the building permit review. Vidal pointed out that you can have considerable change in use without coming in for a building permit. Vidal suggest the City Attorney develope something similar to a covenant which would incorporate the possibility of change. Stevens stated that that amounted to an encumbrance. Pointed out that a covenant on that property running with the land is not looked at very favorably from a legal standpoint and also from a lease standpoint. Vidal stated that he agreed with that, but felt that a covenant is a very effective device, and because a lot of people look at covenants when the building is being sold, including the lending institutions and the title companies, that it does not get slipped a- side. Feel it is very effective device. Stevens stated that he felt they agreed in principle to the Commission's definition of the uses, but do not like the idea of a covenant. Schiffer stated that he, too, felt the City Attorney should devise something similar to a covenant. Would like to see the Commission restrict the uses in a way that is fair and workable for the future. Vagneur made a motion to accept the neighborhood shopping center-type uses for non-tourist uses on the condition that the City Attorney and the appli- cants come to a mutual agreement on a way of guaran- teeing the uses. Motion seconded by Schiffer. Vidal stated that he would like to incorporate in the motion that whatever device is created, structuring it to where those uses can be modified by either party at a future point in time so that it does not become absolute. Chairman Gillis stated that he felt that would come -2- - - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM\O C.F,HOECKELB.B.8l L. CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 21, 1974 under mutual working out of the problem, without hav- ing to be in the motion. Vidal stated he felt the Commission should acknowledge the fact that it does not have to permanent. Jenkins stated that he felt requiring provide covenants on use was unfair. unsound approach. new buildings to Feel this is an Schiffer stated that he felt there would be a problem going to a building with existing uses and requesting that they covenant their uses. Main Motion All in favor, with the exception of Jenkins who was opposed and Johnson who abstained voting on this pro- ject. Motion carried. Nick Heller was present to represent the project. HELLER EXEMPTION Heller submitted plans of the proposed addition. Stated that the sole purpose of this addition is to provide Heller with more privacy. Stated that pre- sently, he is living in a studio which is basically a big room. Would like to have own bedroom and guest room. Heller stated that on the existing property there is presently a triplex. Stated that it is located on 6,000 square feet. Stated that he has only covered 1/3rd of the existing lot with structure and has pro- vided three parking spaces. Vidal questioned the possibility of the proposed ad- dition becoming another unit. Heller stated that the only access to the addition would be through a spiral staircase in his apartment, and there would be no outside access. Stated that it would be impossible to build an outside stairway to the addition due to setback requirements. Landry stated that she was withdrawing from considera- tion on this project due to conflict of interest. Jenkins questioned if the addition would extend over any of the other units. Applicant stated that the addition would be over his unit only. Stated that the only extension over another unit is a 3' wide balcony. Explained that the addition would contain 2 bedrooms and a bathroom. Heller stated that he had no intention of renting the addition out. Pointed out that there are presently 1950 square feet presently, and proposing to add 393 square feet. Vagneur stated that she had heard of a parking problem in that area. Heller again pointed out that he had provided off- street parking, but the tenants were not necessarily complying. Also pointed out that most people have -3- r" .~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'~ C. F. HOECKEL a. B. & L. CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 21, 1974 more than one car. Further pointed out that he had two accesses to his parking. vidal made a motion to exempt this addition since it is not probably that it would be made into a separate unit. Motion seconded by Johnson. Schiffer stated that he felt this project comes within the scope of the exemption section of Ordinance #19. Main Motion All in favor, motion carried. Molny Office/ Residence - Conceptual Presentation Robin Molny was present to represent the project. Molny explained that he was proposing doing the pro- ject with Dale Eubanks. Stated that there had been some changes since writing the letter to the Commis- sion. Molny stated that the land in question, at the end of East Hyman Avenue, will fall within the stream margin regulations. Stated it contains 13,045.7 square feet. Submitted map of land and located proposed project. Molny stated that they were proposing to move two Vic- torians onto the site. Houses are currently located on the corner of Original and Durant. Stated that one of the houses gets moved for another project regard- less. Molny stated that his original intent was to take the small Victorian which he now owns and place it on the property. Stated that Bartel had reviewed the site and had very serious reservations that the proposed area should be left open, and Molny agreed. Stated that at that point, tried to put a package together, as per his description in the letter. Bartel also suggested transferring density. Molny stated that Eubanks' use would be residential and his own use would be office and residential. Molny showed houses as they are now on the site. Stated that the configuration of the land dicates this pro- posal. Molny stated that in his house, would have a rental unit on the first floor, his own residence and office downstairs. Stated that Eubanks proposal was that he would live downstairs, possibly, and convert the house into two apartments from ground up and one apartment in the basement. Stated that Bartel had reservations about this. Stated that another item which is of serious concern to the applicants is the fact that if they put parking on the site, will probably take a great deal of land fill to create a level space. Feel this would be detrimental. Chairman Gillis questioned how many units, not in- cluding offices, are they proposing. Molny stated that there would be five. Stated that his office could easily be converted into another ren- -4- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOllM \~ C. F. HOECKEL a. B. II l. co. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 21, 1974 tal unit. Stated that presently the property under Chapter 24 is capable of supporting 8 unlimited and one limited unit. Vagneur questioned how this project would fit in with the proposed downzoning of the entire mixed residential area. Vagneur further questioned if Mr. Eubanks would be in- tending to use this as part of the housing on the com- mercial building which he is proposing. Molny stated that there was no connection. Vidal stated that he felt they could not get away with having no parking, feel that it would not be practical. Molny stated that they recognize parking as a problem and felt the contour survey would reveal more. Stated that if it was the feeling of the Commission that the applicant should attempt to provide on site parking, they will. Would rather do all or nothing. Molny stated that there were some other problems which he would like to raise. Stated that the applicants would be dividing the property equally as follows: Down the middle of the two lots and then on an angle to the center line of the river. Stated that lots are required to front on the street, and would assume that that is from the standpoint of fire protection. Ms. Baer stated that she would assume that was required due to circulation and fire protection. Vidal questioned how the applicant planned on getting access to the back lot. Molny stated that if the applicant had no parking, would walk. Stated he could not do preliminary plans on the project until he has received the contour sur- vey. Felt that fires could be fought on the back lot. Stated that in order for Mrs. Carr to sell the appli- cant to sell us the easement, technically she needs an exemption from subdivision regulations. Molny stated that the applicant would like an exemp- tion from subdivision regulations because they~e drawing a line down the middle. Vidal stated that he would require more research done in terms of building permits, etc... Wanted to know if the Commission could create a site without access. Molny stated that it was his intention to discuss the matter with the City Attorney. Ms. Baer asked the applicants if they could hold it in common. Molny stated that would not be possible because it com- plicates the mortgage. Stated it would make financing difficult. Chairman Gillis stated that he felt the Commission -5- ,-- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM!~ C. F. H OECKOL O. B. '" L. co. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 21, 1974 should make a site inspection. Stated he was con- cerned about doing the filling by the river. Molny stated that he had not necessarily said that parking would have to go in the center. Jenkins stated that he felt another consideration was density. Felt that six units on that area was too great. Molny stated that it was slightly more than half of present zoning. Questioned what the Commission would be comfortable with. Vidal questioned how many square feet were contained in the houses. Molny stated that under Mixed Residential in the Aspen Land Use Plan, feel that this project falls in that category. Schiffer pointed out that the applicant was required to explain and describe how it applies to those con- ditions. Molny pointed out that in the Aspen Land Use Recom- mendations it says, "Properties located in the desig- nated mixed residential land use category and the pro- ject complies with the use recommendations of the 1973 Aspen General Land Use Plan by providing for a mix of residential uses interspersed with limited amounts of professional office uses." Schiffer added that it also requires that it be in areas where these conditions presently exist. Ques- tioned if there were other offices in that area. Molny stated that there were none to his knowledge. Vagneur stated that she felt the project was too dense. Landry stated that she too felt the project was too intense. Stated that she did not object to the use. Stated that she would rather see three living units and an office. Vagneur stated that there was a doctors office within two blocks. Schiffer stated that he did not have any personal pro- blems with the office, but has problem with broaden- ing the statute that the Commission has to work with. Vagneur questioned Schiffer on what distance another office should be to be considered in the area. Stated that there was a business office within 4 blocks. Vidal stated that he felt the Commission could approve anything that was acceptable in the old zone. Was zoned AR. Schiffer stated that that was not his interpretation. Feel the Commission does not have that discretion. -6- " - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM" C.f.HOECKELB.a.& l. CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 21, 1974 Molny stated that another unit in this proposal turned into another professional office would be illegal. Jenkins stated that he did not feel there was any pro- blem with putting an office in that area. Chairman Gillis pointed out that he encouraged doing something with the old Victorian houses, but felt the applicant should cut down on the density. Molny stated that as far as uses were concerned, ques- tioned the Commission on what "area" actually meant. Further questioned if they could get approval con- ditioned upon an interpretation from the City Attorney on whether or not that would be an acceptable use in that area. Vidal stated that he would like to see the applicant return with alternatives as to how many spaces that they could get access to, etc... Molny stated that Eubanks is willing to drop from three units to two, and stated that he (Molny) would still like to do what he is proposing because it is a house and would like to put his office and living unit in the basement oriented toward the river, with the house remaining basically the way it is now. Molny submitted pictures of the houses. Stated that in order to be converted into the proposed dwelling units, would have to be re-arranged. Stated that the house is '1000 square feet. Jenkins stated that when you start talking about any- thing in the area of 20 units per acre, feel that is entirely too dense for that area. Jenkins stated that at the modified R-6 would give 8 units or four duplexes per acre. Molny questioned if this was an area which the Com- mission is actively considering rezoning R-6. Vidal pointed out that it was an area which would be amended in the Ordinance #19 map. Pointed out that in a mixed residential zone, the Planning Office has rec- ommended a downzoning. Vidal stated that he would like to see what the park- ing would look like before evaluating the site. Felt that there was no argument against use at this point and that the Commission was concerned with density. Chairman Gillis stated that the Commission would not vote on this project at this meeting, but would ask the applicant to return with more information on con- ceptual. Johnson stated that he felt the Commission should not ignore the fact that this project is saving two Vic- torian houses in Aspen. Molny stated that he did not wish to deceive the Com- mission, but there is a possibility that they would -7- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 21, 1974 FORM 5~ C. F. HOECK EL B. B. a: L, co. Aspen Cooperative Housing Partnership - Conceptual Presen- tation not be as they are now. Schiffer reminded the Commission that they have 30 days to act on this project unless the applicant wishes to waive the 30 day limit. Vagneur stated that she would like to see the build- ings go two and two, without putting a protective cove- nant on the use of Molny's office. Landry stated that she agreed. Johnson stated he would like to review the site be- fore making any decision. Jenkins stated that he had no problem with the use or the transfer of density. Rick Farrell, Baryard Hovdesven, Dr. Bill Wesson and Monte Hughes were present to represent the project. Farrell stated that the applicants have optioned the property 19cated on South Monarch Street, down hill from the Caribou Condominiums. Stated that they were proposing to build a fourplex for their own use. Stated that each one of them would end up owning one of the units that results. Farrell submitted memo to the Commission showing con- ceptual site plan. Stated that the architecture sug- gested in the memo was very preliminary. Hoped the Commission would consider density and use rather than the exact building layout. Stated that the general idea was a towhouse type unit with two bedrooms, two baths, living room, kitchen and dining room and pos- sibly a small basement area for storage. Chairman Gillis questioned if the applicant felt that circulation would be a problem. Farrell stated that it could be because any time you have a dead-end street, not an attractive planning situation. Stated that there is a street below what is known as the Hirst Apartments, which provides some circulation. Chairman Gillis questioned if one parking place per unit would satisfy their needs. Farrell stated that it would. Vagnuer questioned if the proposal was to limit these units to the owners use and not to be used as rental units. Farrell stated that they would prefer not to put some covenant on it over an indefinite period. Stated that he would not live in this unit forever, and since it is in a tourist zone, at some time he would probably sell it. Feel that putting a covenant on it would restrict future marketability. Felt that if it does revert to a tourist use, that would be appropriate. Farrell further stated that he would probably rent -8- -~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.f.HOECKElB.B.llL.CO. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 21, 1974 his unit out at Christmas. Stated that the intent of the applicants is through this method, allows the ap- plicant to create these units for their use at about $50,000 or less. Feel that to get an equivalent unit in the open market would cost probably $70,000. Jenkins stated that the only thing that dictates use is the zoning in the area, so feel that is an academic subject to discuss. Felt any discussion should be in the way of circulation, etc... Jenkins stated that in that area in particular, have no problem with parking, density etc. during the off- season. Stated that it is generally a tourist accom- modation. Farrell stated that this project was designed for per- manent use. Did not disagree with Jenkins that it probably will, at some future date, become a tourist accommodation. Stated that density and parking spaces are in compliance with existing zoning code and reco- mmended land use. Schiffer stated he did not understand what the reason- ing was behind having two units be two stories and the other two units have three stories. Farrell stated that that was an issue for the prelimi- nary architectural review. Stated that at this time the problem is to produce 12,000 square feet - gets pretty tight on the site. Stated that the applicants have not involved an architect at this point. Schiffer stated that he did not understand how the applicant could maximize views by creating three stor- ies. Farrell stated that that would be by going higher in order to look over the surrounding uses. Stated that the only real views are out of the corners. Pointed out that the architecture is very uncertain at this time. Ms. Baer pointed out that the Caribou is uphill from the proposed development, as is Mountain Queen, so the view is lost anyway from the street. Vagneur questioned if the ownership would bring the project under subdivision. Farrell stated that it would. Questioned the Commis- sion on what problems might arise in subdivision. Pointed out that Mountain Queen's solving their utility problem also solved the problem for this application. Chairman Gillis stated that if this project is to be considered tourist oriented at some future date, not appropriate for the Commission to even consider it. Vagneur stated that she would not like to see the ap- plicants cut out on that basis since the housing pro- blem is so critical for permanent residents. Landry stated that she did not feel the project would -9- ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C.F.HOECKELB.B.IlL.CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 21, 1974 for permanent resident use. Stated that if it were, that site is too inconvenient. Stated that for a woman to maintain a household would be difficult and would maximize the use of a car for a woman living there. Farrell stated that he felt that was a personal value judgment and felt it more convenient than Red Mountain or Starwood. Stated that would be their other alter- native. Vagneur questioned if the applicants could live with one bedroom. Applicants expressed desire for the extra bedroom for guests, etc... Jenkins stated that he felt the biggest problem was access and was not sure that this was a suitable site for more development. Vagneur questioned if there were problems concerning fire protection. Ms. Baer pointed out that the procedure for making the street at the top of Monarch has not begun yet. Chairman Gillis stated that until the Commission gets more information from the economist, etc.., does not feel that Commission should get into more condominium use. Farrell requested that the Commission disapprove the project since the applicants had entered into a con- tract that requires approval or disapproval to es- tablish their legal position in terms of the contract. Felt that by the Commission not saying anything, does not help the applicants. Jenkins made a motion to deny this project on the basis that there are more appropriate places to put permanent resident, townhouse type units. Motion seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Margaret Meadows & Aspen Center Chairman Gillis stated that the public hearings on sub- division for Margaret Meadows and Aspen Center will be continued to March 5, 1974 at 5:00 p.m. Johnson made by Jenkins. adjourned at a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded All in favor, motion carried. Meeting 7:30 p.m.