Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19730918 ,"''',,", RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FQR~" c. F. ~QE"~H 8. a.1t l. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning September 18, 1973 5:15 p.m. with Chuck Also present Assis- Meeting was called to order by Chairman Jim Adams at Vidal, Bruce Gillis, Bryan Johnson, and Jack Jenkins. tant Planners Fred Wooden and Donna Baer. Minutes Chairman Adams pointed out a correction to the minutes of August 30, 1973 as follows: McEntyre Apartments, Ordinance #19 Review - "Commission concensus was to deny the request". Commission concurred with the correction. Jenkins made a motion to approve the minutes of August 28, 1973, August 30, 1973 (as corrected), September 4, 1973, and September 6, 1973. Seconded by Gillis. All in favor, motion carried. Oklahoma Flats Rezoning Wooden stated that the Commission had previously held the public hearing on the rezoning of Oklahoma Flats, and at this point, must make a recommendation to the City Council. Wooden stated that he felt the PUD concept was valid, but didn't feel Commission could modify R-15 to at- tatch conditions to that zoning. Wooden pointed out that while Ordinance #19 is in effect, could recall this particular discussion of PUD. Felt that conditional zoning is not acceptable. Vidal stated that the Commission could adopt a policy of encouraging more of that land to come in under a PUD plan, with the possible concession of greater density being allowed. Wooden stated that the Planning Office presently en- courages PUD plans. Vidal stated that he felt the PUD plan with possible concessions could be a concrete incentive on a sliding scale. Wooden stated that R-15 zoning allows either a duplex or a single-family dwelling on 15,000 square feet. Wooden pointed out that the rezoning under discussion was under the present zoning. Jenkins made a motion to authorize to draft a Resolution recommending homa Flats area from R-6 to R-15. All in favor, motion carried. the Planning Office rezoning the Okla- Seconded by Gillis. Apex Building, Ordinance 4F19 Review Larry Windes, Randy Wedum, and Attorney Jim Moran were present representing the Apex building. Ms. Baer explained that the present proposal involves removal of one of the sub-basement . '" "'...., RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM <, C. F. ~O[CKEL B. a. It ~. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning ;JSeptember 18, 1973 Ms. Baer pointed out that the project had been re- duced by approximately 9,000 square feet. Chairman Adams explained that the Commission could either accept the request with conditions or deny the request. Felt that it was still too intensive of use in that area. Vidal pointed out that since the developer owned an adjoining lot, would like to see a plan for use of the total property. Felt it would be more bene- ficial if they submitted a Master Plan. Gillis stated that he would like to see the developer produce a less grandiose building, and felt they could still realize a profit. Johnson stated that he would like to see some area removed from the top of the building. Jenkins explained that he felt the Commission would be obligated to let everyone who owns land in the com- mercial cote develope to that extent. Felt the proposed building was too much in that light. Windes questioned the Commission on what the optimum density allowable would be and coull they provide some guidelines. Chairman Adams stated that the Commission could direct the Planning Office to write up a denial and state the reasons for their objection, which would give the de- veloper some guidelines. Vidal suggested that rather than denying it, ask them to wait until some criteria were established, and to develope a Master Plan. Jenkins stated that everything that has come in under Ordinance #19 has come in at the maximum density. Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office, too, would like to see a concept presentation for the whole pro- perty. Johnson made a motion to deny the request and authorize the Plannning Office to send them a written denial with the reasons for denial stated in the letter. Seconded by Gillis. Chairman Adams stated that everyone had a general idea what the Commission was trying to say. Windes suggested a study session with the Commission and the developer in order to receive direction. Could include the Planning Office. - - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS too Leaves FORM'" C.F.~DECKELB,a.It~.<.:o. Regular Meeting AspenLPlanning & Zoning September 18, 1973 Moran stated that the problem resulting from a denial is that the workability from that point is difficult. Questioned the Commission on what mid-range or low- range density would be. Vidal stated that this would be related to.. the capa- city of that particular land and the problems it creates. In the core area, the attitude of the Com- mission could be to increase the density after Or- dinance #19. Vidal stated that the massing of the building is significant, not just the cutting of square footage. Moran question the Commission on their meaning of intensity. Jenkins stated that in gener, Aspen is presently well-balanced, and questioned how much bigger the members of the Commission would like Aspen to become. Moran stated that it wasn't possible to conceptualize until there was some framework. The only guidelines presently are current zoning. Vidal explained that the approach up to now has been to cut density in half across the board, and this hasn't solved the problems. Need to establish some constraints and evaluate them. Criteria need to start being developed. Further pointed out that the Com- mission had a year to come up with the number that Jenkins had asked for. Main Motion Gillis, aye; Johnson, aye; Vidal, aye; Jenkins, nay; Adams, aye. Motion carried. Les Rocheuses M~. Baer asked the Commission if they had seen the Air Pollution report and recommendations of the state. Further stated that there was 1 fireplace/ unit in this project, and felt that the Commission should consider the impact. Ms. Baer further pointed out that the planning Office felt the density was too high for anything on that side of Original. Need mechanisms to insure permanent housing an additiwn to a covenant accompanying the deed. Pointed out that the applicant had presented this pro- ject as permanent housing. Don Fleisher stated that he had found the covenant is a good tool to use. Stated that the first covenant the Commission had suggested they commit themselves to was for 6 months. Vidal questioned the Commission on (1) What is per- manent residency; (2) how do you guarantee permanent residency? ,p" -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM", C.F.~OECK[L9.8.ltL.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning September 18, 1973 Ms. Baer pointed out that one of the purposes of Or- dinance #19 is to provide permanent housing. Chairman Adams stated that one thing this project would do would be to prevent sprawl and keep people from using automobiles. Perhaps should allow this type of building. Fleisher stated that the fireplace problem arises when there is one in every tourist unit. Felt fireplaces should be in permanent housing, not in tourist. Size of unit should also be a factor. Fleisher further stated that tbis project was 10 3- bedroom units on 5~ lots or 16,500 square feet. Gillis made a motion to approve this project subject to a residency covenant that meet with the approval of the City Attorney, seconded by Johnson:. All in favor, except Jenkims, who abstained. Motion carried. Aspen Institute, Conformity with Master Plan Donna Baer reminded the Commission that they had requested to see the Institute's Master Plan. Stated trot the addition they were planning was a Physics building on Gillespie Street. Commission asked the Institute for an update of the Master Plan and any changes they had made and requested that this be on file with the Building Inspector. Amos Jordan, Richard Pratt, and Charles Merdinger were present representing the Institute. Jordan stated that the 1970 revisions are only changes in shape, not in placement or use. Jordan stated that the Chalet won't be built until spring of 1974, but Institute was still planning on starting the Physics building this year. Chairman Adams stated that he felt the Master Plan should reflect the buffer zone. Gillis questioned the Institute representatives as to their knowledg~ of the Greenway Plan. Vidal made a motion to approve the request under the conceptual presentation, the preliminary approval, and the final approval, seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Commission emphasized that the approval was for the Physics building only. Commission stated that they would like to see an update of the Master Plan before Ordinance #19 expired. ~. ~o;-_._;o-~_'_____"_'_'~'''_~'"'''_''~'_:-~~~''~_~'''''"''''''_~_-_'_._' fORM", C.F.HOECKELB.B.IiL.CO, ,r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning September 18, 1973 Ute Avenue Condo- minium Subdivision - Ordinance #19 Review Chairman Adams opened the public hearing for Ute Avenue Condominiums Subdivision, Preliminary Plat. Vidal excused himself from the table due to conflict of interest with adjacent property. Ms. Baer stated that this project consisted of 14 units on 23,900 square feet. Mr. Murphrey, the developer for the project, stated that the units would range from $75,000- $120,000 per unit. Further stated that at this price range, there would be very little if any outside rental. Murphrey eXplained that they would save most of the trees. Site was inspected by a landscaper who stated that there would be no problem with the trees, and as little root damage as possible. Murphrey pointed out that there would be only 2 curb cuts of 12 feet. Stated that there were no problems with visibility on the private road. The buildings would be 3-stories with a rise going from 90' to 100'. pointed out that the average occupancy would be about 27%. Bruce Kistler, attorney representing the developer, stated that this is not tourist-oriented and pointed out that the higher the cost of the unit, the less likely the owner is to rent it out. Jenkins stated that he did not like the idea of ab- sentee owners. Stated that this does not produce the needed revenue for the City. There would be no tourist income or permanent housing. Murphrey stated that the buildings only cover 27% of the lot area, and provide a high tax base. Stated that reasearch in this area showed that this type of occupant will spend an average of $200/day. Stated that approximately 70% of taxes are paid by condominium owners and tourists. Murphrey further pointed out that they had provided the required parking. Chairman Adams closed the public hearing. Ms. Baer stated that there would be a fireplace in each unit, and it would be along an already congested street. Felt the Commission should see the site. Chairman Adams stated that he felt the Commission should visit the site independently. Stated that this item would be on the agenda for the next re gular meeting. .-"~;...,..._~_~,_",,-.,,,,,~~,.,_..".._.~~,,._.,.____k_____'___' " RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOR~" C. F. HOECKH S. S. I> L. co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning September 18, 1973 Bruce Gillis made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:10 p.m., seconded by Johnson. All in favor, meeting adjourned. // G .........,...~~_,_'-_...._,._"..._~.....".,""""....""~..~~.~N'.