Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19730809 fORM 10 C. f, HO~CKEL B. B. 8: L. ~O. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning August 9, 1973 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Jim Adams at Vidal, Barbara Lewis, Bryan Johnson and Jack Jenkins. County Planner Herb Bartel and Assistant Planner Donna Trueman Property Joint Meeting With City Council H-Designation, Crystal Palace - Preliminary Approval 5:15 p.m. with Also present Baer. Charles City/ Planner Herb Bartel stated that James Trueman had been talk- ing to a prospective purchaser for the 8-acre parcel which he owns. Bartel suggested that the Commission meet on Tues- day, August 14th to discuss permitted uses for this area. Further stated that Trueman would not close with the City until he knows what the Commission plans to do with the land. Bartel stated that the City Council had requested a joint meeting with the Commission for August 20th. The purpose of the meeting would be to discuss Ordinance #19 and the current member-vacancy on the Commission. Florence Glidden and David Finholm were present from the His- toric Preservation Committee and reported that the Crystal Palace was an acceptable candidate for Historic designation. The following Resolution for H-HistgriciOuerlay District - Crystal Palace - Preliminary Approval was read: '~EREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee has conducted a preliminary investigation of the Crystal Palace (Lots K and L of Block 81, Aspen Townsite) which indicates that said structure and site is eligible and has been selected for H, Historic Overlay District designation, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Committee is in receipt of the owner's written consent to said designation, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning has reviewed said proposal for its general planning considerations as required by Section 24-9.1 (e) 2. a., NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Aspen Planning and Zoning CommisEion hereby grants preliminary approval to the designation of the Crystal Palace as an H, Historic Overlay District under Section 24-9.1 (e) 2.a." Barbara Lewis moved to adopt the Resolution, seconded by Bryan Johnson. All in favor, _motion carried. Joint Public Hearing date with Planning & Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission was set for Sep- tember 4th. It was pointed out that one of the primary areas of concern for historic designation is the area from Durant to ~ block north of Main and Monarch to Hunter. Barbara Lewis made a motion to authorize the Historic Pre- servation Committee to proceed with the investigation of that area, seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. . ""~.W"_""__'''''''_-'''~''~_____'''''~~'_''''';~~~''''_''''_._'----'__~""_~~ -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning 100 Leaves August 9, 1973 FORM I' C.F.HO~CKELB.B.8:L.CO. View Corridors - Ken Hubbard, attorney representing Carl Bergman, was present Carl Bergman and distributed a letter to the Commission stating that if their revised building plans were accepted, wouM avoid in- trusion of the building into the proposed view plane. Stated that the Commission would need to approve two things: (1) an intrusion of 10' into the open space in front of the building; (2) the elimination of some of the otherwise required parking spaces. Bartel pointed out that the view plane consideration had been tabled by City Council because they wanted discussion of possible trade-offs. Bartel stated that the open space trade-off is a proper consideration in this case. Hubbard stated they would like to be considered under Or- dinance #19 at this meeting. Chairman Adams stated that the Commission was not prepared to do that at the present time, and would prefer to stick with the view plane consideration. Bergman and Hubbard then submitted building plans that they felt would be in full compliance with the view plane as pro- posed. Commission agreed that the plans as submitted were in com- pliance with the proposed view plane. Jenkins made a motion to approve the plans as relates to the view corridor, seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Bruce Gillis arrived. View Plane - Rubey Park Attorney Jim Moran was present representing Curt Chase. Bartel showed slides illustrating the two proposed view planes from Rubey Park - Aspen Mountain and Independence Pass. Moran pointed out that the view corridors wouH limit the building height on Chases's property to approximately II' in front and 19 feet in back, or an average of 14-15'. It was pointed out that at the request of the Commission, the height line had been lowered. Questioned how that affects the cross-section. Moran stated he felt it would be valuable for the Commission to visit the site. Further stated that Jim Reser of Tri-Co Management had done the cross-sections. Chairman Adams suggested the Commission take a field trip to Rubey Park to see what the effect of the proposed view planes would be. Charles Vidal left the meeting. ---- R ! I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning August 9, 1973 fORM 10 C.f.HO~CKELB.B.8:L.CO. Bibbig-Drew Land Exchange At this point, Moran submitted the cross-sections prepared by Reser. Moran pointed out that if one walked a short dis- tance to Wagner Park, would be able to see all of Aspen Mountain and Independence Pass. Bartel stated that the view from Rubey Park was wanted since Rubey Park is a transportation concentration, rather than a casual stroll through Wagner Park. Moran stated that the City and Chase were in similar posi- tions because neither knows what they're going to do with their property. Questioned whether or not the Commission wanted to preserve that view at such a high cost to Chase. Bartel pointed out that the view corridor in no way restricts what can be done underground, and that 11' is all that is re- quired for a single-story building. Moran stated that the compromise would be a trade-off that would allow the property to be developed in the future in the same manner as the surrounding property which is C-l district. Stated that they wanted to preserve the "build- ability" that is presently there. Bartel pointed out that they didn't need a view corridor if there was no building on the property. Further pointed out that the Commission had acknowledged its willingness to wait by their request for Council to table it. Their concern is what happens after Ordinance #19 is not in effect. Bartel stated that he would like to handle the consideration while still under Ordinance #19. Would like to either es- tablish a compromise corridor or make an agreement that the view corridor would be a consideration. Moran stated that he would like to have in that type of ar- rangement a concession from the City that the establishment of view corridor and corresponding adjustments would be made accommodating what would otherwise be the holding capacity of that property under the then-existing zoning. Bartel questioned whether or not they wanted a compromise or just didn't want a view corridor. Sgggested that the En- gineering Department shoot other angles and gat a copy of the cross-section for the site inspection. Also would like to investigate with the City Attorney the possiblity of not at this time passing specific corridor but some arrangement for view consideration criteria after Ordinance #19 is no longer in effect. Assistant Planner Donna Baer stated that the land exchange was between Mrs. Bibbig and husband and her daughter. pointed out that the lots were located on Park Avenue. Stated that Section 20-3b requires that with a subdivision lot line the Commission must okay any lot line change. .."---~..~"",._",...,-".~.,, . FORM '0 C,F.HOECKELD.B.&L.CO. . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning August 9, 1973 Building Permit Review - Apex Building '';If.l Carl Nutzhorn, attorney representing Mrs. Bipbig, submitted a map and explained that since the house in which Mrs. Bibbig plans to live for the rest of her life is on her children's land, they planned to exchange ownership. Nutzhorn submitted the map from the Planning Office showing the lot line change and the resulting parcels. Nutzhorn pointed out that the land was located in the resi- dential, multi-family zone. Mrs. Bibbig's daughter and son- in-law plan to retire there and not build more than a duplex. May at some future time exchange land with Banker, but would still not build more than a duplex. Barbara Lewis made a motion to approve the lot line change on Sec. 20-3b of the Subdivision Regulations on the condition that it would be recorded at the Courthouse. Seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. Larry Windes and Randy We dum were present representing the developer Sherman and Company. Building would be located on lots G, H, and I, Block 94, on the corner of Hunter and Hopkins. Windes stated that the bulk of the working drawings were done before Ordinance #19. Stated it was a commercial building on commercial core lots with C-C zoning. Gave a brief explanati6nl1of building and relationship to commercial core and mall. Submitted plans of building and explained that the building does not interupt the proposed view plane for the park. Explained that the uses tie closely to the objectives of Ordinance #19 and complies with the zoning requirements prior to Ordinance #19. Stated there was a large open interior area which is not counted in the open space. Further explained that this was the first phase and that there was an additional stage in the project. Due to problems with a land sale contract, that was being held up. Felt that the building was designed so that it is compatible with and will enhance the mall and the historic overlay dis- trict in the area. Gillis stated he would like the op~n~on of the City Attorney on the land sale contract. Questioned the parking, legality of the contract, and the open space. Gillis asked if they had considered underground parking. Wedum stated that the Planning Office said that in order to make the core area pedestrian-oriented, they would prefer that developer purchase parking from the City. Lewis stated she would like more space on the outside. It was potnted out that the building met the open space requirements. fORM I~ C. f. HOECKEL B. B. 8: L. CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning August 9, 1973 Christiania Lodge Ms. Baer explained that the Historic Preservation Committee has asked to look at the plans for the project in view of their consideration for the core. Chairman Adams stated that the purpose of Ordimance #19 was to get a handle on growth and felt that this was contrary to it. \ Barbara Lewis left the~eeting. Gillis questioned their ability to obtain a liquor license because of their proximity to a school. Chairman Adams stated that the Commission would get together to discuss the presentation and get back to them. Ms. Baer stated that this was a proposal to expand the Chris- tiania Lodge on Main Street. Gantzel submitted site plans and stated that he would like to bring out in the conceptual presentation several of the problems that he was facing. Ms. Baer pointed out that Gantzel proposes to add 13 additional units. Gantzel currently has twelve limited units and 13 unlimited units in the lodge. Proposal is to remove 2 of the unlimited units and add 13 units. Gantzel discussed the problems of density requirements and definitions of limited and unlimited units. Stated he could be flexible in the amount of units he would add. Chairman Adams gave a brief history of the area and stated that little lodge growth was wanted in the west end. Want to keep tourist zoned areas toward the core for transportation system. Gantzel questioned the Commission about exactly what he could build and what density they would allow in that area. Stated that all the units he plans will have independent cooking facilities. In theory, under the studio concept, could put 6 people in a unit and could be long-term rental. Ms. Baer pointed out that the Planning Office had recommended to Gantzel that he could use the area for: (1) a small square footage office to conform with the mixed-residential; or (2) cottage-type units similar to the Panabodes he has. This would all be in keeping with the mixed-residential concept of the new land use plan. Gantzel's proposal of additional density of that intensity is not in keeping with the purposes of Ordinance #19 in that area. Chairman Adams stated that there was no area where there can be any sizeable increase in lodge accommodations. Discussion fORM 50 C.F.HO~CKELB.B.8:L.CO. .-#., RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning August 9, 1973 of tourist accommodations in relation to transportation sys- tem followed. Adams stated that the purpose of Ordinance #19 was to get a grip on the problem of growth. Chairman Adams questioned Ms. Baer on alternative uses for that property. Ms. Baer suggested the possibility of re- modeling the entire lodge. Further stated there were two considerations with Gantzel's proposal: 1) use; (2) density. Because it is an existing lodge allowing some expansion. Planning Office recommended the limited office space or the cottage-style expansion, whatever would realistically and logically fit on that property. Chairman Adams stated the meeting would be continued on Tuesday, August 14, at 5:00 p.m. Meeting closed at 8:00 p.m.