Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19780905 BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.,DENVER R E C O R D OF P R O C E E D I N G S Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 5, 1978 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on September 5, 1978, at 5: 00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Charles Collins, Ellen Anderson, Welton Anderson, Donald Ensign and Olaf Hedstrom. Also present were City Attorney Ron Stock and City Manager Mick Mahoney. Approval of Minutes Ms. Anderson moved to approve the minutes of August 15, 1978, as amended, Ensign seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Goldsmith - Grice introduced the application. He noted that the duplex Subdivision is located at 793 & 795 Cemetary Lane, zoned R-15. The Exemption City Engineer has no problems with the application. The present tenants of one side indicate that they are leaving the area and the Goldsmith' s intend to sell that unit to their son. The Goldsmiths occupy the other side. Danielsen recommends approval subject to a six month mini- mum lease. The Planning Office recommends approval. Hedstrom moved to recommend exemption of _-the _.Goldsmith condominiumization from strict application of the subdivi- sion regulations inasmuch as their intent and purpose has been accomplished and it appears there will be no reduction in the supply of Low and Moderate Income Housing and sub- ject to the six month minimum lease restriction of Ordinance 53, Ensign seconded, All in favor, motion approved. A & L Development - Grice introduced the application. He noted an existing Subdivision duplex half completed. The zoning is R-15 with 30, 000 sqft. Exemption The existing unit has only been rented once short term. The second unit has never been occupied and will be sold for $175, 000 which is out of the employee market. Danielsen recommends approval with the six month minimum lease re- striction. The Engineering Department recommends approval without condition, The Planning Office recommends approval with the provisions of Ordinance 53. Hedstrom moved to recommend exemption of the A & L Develop- ment condominiumization .inasmuch as the intent and purposes of the subdivision regulations have been met and it appears there will be no reductions in the supply of Low and Moder- ate Income Housing and subject to the six month minimum lease restriction of Ordinance 53, Ensign seconded. All in favor, motion approved. 430 E. Hopkins - Grice introduced the application. The unit is located on Subdivision West Hopkins Avenue and South Fourth Street. The zoning Exemption is R-6 with 9000 sqft. The Engineering Department recom- mends approval without condition. Danielsen notes that one side is vacant and the other is occupied by a person who is not a Low or Moderate Income employee. He recommends approval subject to the 90 day notification and the right of first refusal option with six month minimum lease re- striction. Hedstrom moved to recommend exemption of the 430 W. Hopkins condominiumization inasmuch as the intent and purposes of the regulations have been met and there appears to be no reduction of Low and Moderate Income Housing and subject to the six month minimum lease restriction of Ordinance 53, Ensign seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Hunter Square - Reents introduced the application. He noted ths,t there Preliminary Plat is a conflict in the written notification of the public hearing. Stock suggested they open and table the public hearing to the next regular meeting. Collins opened the public hearing. Jeffrey Sachs Sachs noted that he is a tenant in the Hunter Square Complex. He stated that condominiumization often affects the taxes IWZ Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 5, 1978 because of the increase in value. Many leases in town contain tax escalation clauses which fall on the tenant. He does not feel this will affect him since there is no such clause in his lease. Ensign moved to continue the public hearing and table action on this item to September 19 , 1978, Ms. Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Golf Course Lots - Reents introduced the application. He submitted a map of Rezoning the property, Lots 12 & 13, West Aspen Subdivision. It is currently zoned P-Park and is part of the golf course property. He submitted copies of letters from out-of- state property owners. He noted that this is a rezoning request initiated by the City Council. They request to rezone to R-15. This will facilitate a land trade for the Aspen One property adjacent to the Rio Grande site. The land trade will be two developable lots in the West Aspen Subdivision of 30, 000 sqft. total for 59, 000 sqft on the Aspen One site. The Aspen One property will then be re- zoned P-Park as open recreational space with the Rio Grande property. This land is planned to become the Riverside Park Area. Without this acquisition, the proposal be- comes a park surrounding an incompatible use. This pro- perty is currently used to house a lumberyard operation . which is a legal non-conforming use in the zone. He noted 6 advantages and two disadvantages to the trade-off as itemized in the Planning Office' s memo of August 31, 1978 . The Planning Office feels the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. He noted that these are previously sub- divided lots on the golf course, The Planning Office recommends approval. Stock felt it an advantageous and appropriate trade-off, all aspects considered. Reents noted that all response from surrounding property owners has been negative. The Open Space Council also opposes it. He noted a letter from Aaron Sherman who felt he was mis- lead by the Planning Office who represented the area would remain open space which affected his decision to purchase his property. Collins asked the exact location of the two subdivided lots. Reents stated they are located on Homestake Drive. He noted that Lots 6-11 are also zoned P-Park. The City Engineer' s Office feels that Lots 6-9 are involved within the Fairway. They do not feel Lots 10-13 are in that Fair- way. Ms. Anderson questioned the legality of the proposal.. Stock noted that they are considering rezoning of the property. The Council will consider the legality and public interest in the land trade. Stock' s legal opinion is that it is legal to trade this property.. He noted that this property was purchased with sixth penny money which has dedicated uses for the use of this money. If the people decided by vote to sell the property, the obtained money would have to go to the sixth penny fund. Similarly, any trade would necessitate dedication of the property to the use for which that money was originally envisioned. Ms. Anderson read the section of the code with which she was concerned. Stock noted that the property may be traded but the property obtained must be dedicated to the same use. Any other type of trade would necessitate a vote. Ensign asked how many Lots are owned by the City. Stock said Lots 6-13 are owned by the City and zoned P-Park. Ensign asked if this would have to go through full sub- division procedures. Stock said no. He noted that the development potential for the Aspen One property is greater under the GMP than that for these two lots. He noted the complaints from surrounding property owners are -3- BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.,DENVER R E C O R D OF P R O C E E D I N G S Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 5, 1978 from two standpoints. The first is the effect on them of the rezoning and the second is the appropriateness of the trade. Mayor Standley was present to offer a presentation. The Council is asking P&Z to rezone this property. If they do rezone, they can only sell after a public vote. They choose to trade for the Aspen One- property. He noted- that they have been attempting to acquire this property for at least five years. They have downzoned it twice, from commercial zoning to R-6 to R-15. It is presently possible to construct 5 duplexes on this property as zoned. They have considered several possible uses for this pro- perty. He noted that the two lots acquired on the golf course would represent a 1% increase in the lots in the Snowbunny area. It also represents a less than z% de- crease in open space. He asked them to weigh the many advantages against the disadvantages. Collins asked why these two golf course lots are allowed duplexes. Reents noted that there are alot of duplexes in the area. Collins opened the public hearing. Chuck Lyons Lyons noted that he is a resident in that area. He pre- sented a petition with 250 signatures opposing the re- zoning. He submitted a map showing the location of those who signed the petition. He noted that there were as many signatures from downtown people than those who live in this subdivision. He also noted that there are no duplexes in that loop. He noted that this land was bought for open space. They want to retain it for that use. The City said they did not want shopping centers, etc. Now they want to develop it. He noted that not one per- son on the petition is opposed to the Aspen One Property but they don' t want to lose this open space. Ensign asked why the people in town were opposed to this. Lyons said because they feel it should remain open space since this is what it was bought for. He felt they will sell lots 6-11 eventually. He noted that they receive $700, 000 per year from the sixth penny and the golf course takes $400, 000 per year. Collins asked how many filings there were on this. Lyons said three. Collins asked if these properties could have duplexes on them. Lyons said no, they are all single family. He noted that Lots 16 and 17 are vacant. He feels the residents are complaining about the method they are using to acquire open space. He noted that they will not be gaining any open space in this manner. Francis Whitaker Whitaker noted that he was not speaking against the ac- quisition of the Aspen One property. He also noted that there is no member of City Council or the Planning Com- mission present that served on those commissions when the acquisition took place. He stated that Texas International Petroleum wanted to develop a center on this property. He served on Council during this action.. They purchased this 212 acres in one package to prevent this development. He feels it very dangerous to take action against a previous acquisition that was overwhelmingly supported by the pub- lic. He read a letter from the Pitkin County Parks Asso- ciation against the rezoning of this property. He noted that he was on the Charter Commission that drew up the Charter. He disagrees with the City Attorney' s interpre- tation. He urged the P&Z to retain the status of open space on this property. He also noted that the Council was in favor of selling the Plum Tree after the acquisi- tion of this property. The voters turned it down. -4- Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 5, 1978 Josephine Mann She read a letter opposing this rezoning. Jon Mulford Mulford is the Chairman of the Aspen/Pitkin County Open Space Advisory Board. He read a resolution from the Board supporting the acquisition of the Aspen One property for the purpose of open space. They ask that the terms of settlement be referred to this board for their recommenda- tion. He feels that the information provided is not ade- quate for a recommendation to City Council. Jeff Sachs Sachs spoke in relation to the City Charter. Fie read Section 13. 4 from the Charter which states that this question must go to a public vote. He questioned the method by which Council was introducing this application. He felt they should table this until Council presents it in a legal manner. Bill Dunaway Dunaway, Editor of the Aspen Times, noted that he attended the Charter meetings and feels the key word in this Charter section is "held in public use" . He felt this land is not in public use. Jeff Sachs Sachs felt that the City Attorney' s interpretation did not address whether this land is for public use. Collins noted that the P&3 will follow the ,City Attorney' s interpretations. Francis Whitaker Whitaker noted that that land was bought for open space and has been used by the public ever since. Aaron Sherman Sherman owns the house directly across from this property. He purchased it on April 1, 1978 , and was pleased with. the location and the unobstructed view. He checked with the Planning Office before purchasing and they assured that this land was dedicated park and would not be changed to residential or commercial. He feels he was mislead. He feels this is a dangerous precedent to set. They do not object to acquiring the Aspen One property. They dis- agree with the methods used to acquire it.. They do not feel this is a trade. He feels there must be other con- siderations in this trade, be it money or land. Mayor Standley stated that the City has maintain no comment on land acquisition the Charter. He confirmed that this is noted that there will be a boot for the balance the trade. He stated that they written agreement to purchase or trade the right to in that manner by a land trade. He City to pay to do not have a at this point. Aaron Sherman Sherman noted that the distance from the lot line to the middle of the tee is 35 feet. He feels the proper method of acquiring property is through condemnation. They also have the right of bonding. He noted $325, 000 from the sixth penny that could be used. He said there are other parcels on the golf course land that could be traded. Reents noted land on Cemetary Lane owned by the City and zoned R-15. However, this property is contiguous with the larger golf course property and would fall under subdivi- sion regulations . Aaron Sherman Sherman stated that he does not object to acquiring the Aspen One property. He does object to the method of this acquisition. He could not address the legal side of this . He felt the City has better methods to acquire this. He feels they are setting a dangerous precedent and viola- ting property owners rights . -5- BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.,DENVER R E C O R D OF P R O C E E D I N G S Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 5, Reents noted that although Sherman stated that it is 35 feet to the property line from the tee, that it is measured to the corner of the lot. He questioned the possibility of hooking the golf ball onto the property. He reiterated that the other suggested property would have to go through full subdivision procedures and is not being considered. ?anonymous She noted a large line of trees separating the two lots on Cemetary Lane and there are houses on either side. The trade of this land would not obstruct views or dis- turb the residents . Pat Detweiler She lives on Cemetary Lane. She noted that the residents always assumed that the two golf course lots were single family lots. Ensign asked if this was covenanted. She did not know. Michael Gassman He feels acquiring the Aspen One property is very worth- while. He did not feel this is the appropriate way to do it. He did not feel they should compare the value of different parcels of open space. He noted the importance of growth management and its link to open space, He stressed the meaning of "open" space. He felt they are contributing to the problem they are trying to solve. He agrees it is a very small parcel but it is important, He urged them to support the current zoning. Stock noted the Charter requires that this acquired land must be the same use as the original use for the traded , property because of the funds used. He asked the P&Z to consider the affect on the public and surrounding property. He felt the citizens present should voice their opinions on whether the property should be traded to the Council. Edeltroude Lyons She noted that, in circulating the petition, only one person was in favor, three had no opinion, and the rest were happy to sign the petition opposing the rezoning,. She felt the public wants to leave the property at the present zoning. Mayor Standley noted that the only party that. voiced their opinion in this that did not have a vested interest in this property was the Open Space Advisory Board. He noted that the Council and the County Commissioners established the OSAB to determine mechanisms to acquire open space, to rank and evaluate the relative importance of various pieces of open space and to recommend trades when neces- sary. The Board supports this approach although they do not specifically recommend this trade. He noted that there have been land trades without the vote of the people. He felt the people should come to the Council meeting and voice their opinions on the trade. Chuck Lyons Lyons asked if they had ever sold park property before. Standley could not answer. Edeltroude Lyons Lyons asked if they had ever rezoned to trade property. Smith said the Creektree property required rezoning. Lyons asked if the people voiced their opinions. Standley said the people of Oklahoma Flats objected. Chuck Lyons Lyons said the reasoning has been "in. the best interest of the city" and most people present are in objection. He questioned who is "the city" . Bill Dunaway Dunaway noted that he does not own property in the area in question but felt this acquisition is in the best in- terest of the city. He supported the trade. -6- Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 5, 1978 Chuck Lyons Lyons noted that the petition contains 250 signatures from all over town and felt they should recognize it. Edeltroude Lyons Lyons asked if they recently bought land for public use. Mayor Standley noted that the city purchased Triangle Park last year for about $90, 000. Collins closed the public hearing. Collins noted that this is not a legal discussion of the trading of this property, they must decide on the rezoning. He did not feel they should consider the possible prece- dent they would set since it has been previously set. They must consider the impact of the rezoning. Hedstrom asked if Collins felt they should consider the rezoning only as part of the trade and the benefits gained by the acquisition of the Aspen One Property. Collins said the City Attorney advised them to consider it in terms of the overall community. Hedstrom agreed that the acquisition of the Aspen One property is desirous but felt it pre- judices the merit of the rezoning. He did not agree with the rezoning because it violates the original intent of open space and sets a bad precedent. Stock did not feel they should consider the merits or demerits of the trade itself, they should look only at the rezoning, its consistency with the neighborhood, its impacts and its consistency with the Master Plan. He noted that they can condition approval upon deed restricting the remaining lots for park purposes. He asked that they do not base their decision on the acquisition of the Aspen One property. Ensign asked the reasons for not rezoning. Stock said they must consider the property owners and the impact on them. Ensign did not feel the viewplane impact on the property owners a legitimate argument but he felt the city had represented that this would always remain open space and this is a crucial point. Stock felt they were informed that in the past city property has not been developed. Hedstrom felt that developing on this property will detract from the city. Ensign asked if the ballot suggested that this will never be developed. Stock said the ballot question established sixth penny sales tax and limited its use. He felt the Council used this property as an example. Ensign felt this should be a matter for a referendum. He felt they should approve the rezoning in order for Council to con- sider the bigger question of the trade. He felt they should recommend a referendum to determine the use of this property with their rezoning approval. W. Anderson could not see a good reason for rezoning except for the trade. Hedstrom agreed with this . He noted that it had not been shown that failure to rezone would make acquisition of the Aspen One impossible. He felt there are larger elements in this than property acquisition. Collins did not feel they should include the referendum recommendation since the Council will determine whether this is legally necessary. Ms. Anderson asked if they had any guarantee on the use of the golf course property if rezoned. Stock said the limitation on the use of the property is through the funds originally used to acquire the property. Ensign asked if the lots on Chatfield were sold. Reents said half of them are developed and most are sold. recommend Ensign moved that the P&ZAto Council rezoning of Lots 12 & 13, Filing #2, West Aspen Subdivision, inasmuch as it conforms to the intents and purposes of the zoning ordinance and with the provision that Lots 6 - 11 be per- manently deed restricted to their current use, -7- BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.,DENVER R E C O R D OF P R O C E E D I N G S Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 5, 1978 Ms. Anderson seconded. Hedstrom could not find any reason to rezone these lots. Ensign felt it is for the public good. W. Anderson felt that open space should stay open space and opposed the rezoning. Roll call vote: Hedstrom, nay; Ensign, aye; W. Anderson, nay; Ms. Anderson, aye; Collins, aye; motion approved. Aspen Club Rezoning Reents introduced the application. He indicated the lo- cation on a map. He stated that this is an application for zoning of a parcel of land within the Callahan Sub- division which, by resolution, has been recommended for annexation. Part 4 of the resolution charges the P&Z to zone the parcel R-R with a PUD overlay. The Planning Office supports the zoning. The Engineering Department wishes to work out a public road right-of-way as opposed to an easement. Ensign asked what is the minimum lot size of Rural Residential. Reents said two acres minimum. Collins opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the public. Collins closed the public hearing. Ensign moved to rezone the Aspen Club property to RR/PUD inasmuch as it conforms to the intents and purposes of the zoning ordinance with the provision that the road right-of-way be worked out with the City Engineer prior to rezoning, Hedstrom seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Alpine Hardware and Grice introduced the application. He stated that the Pitkin Appliance, applicants wish to relocate the Alpine Hardware and Conditional Use the Pitkin Appliance Company into space located in the Trueman Commercial Project. The Trueman Commercial is under an SPA plan. The uses allowed are the same as in the SCI and NC zone. The Planning Office recommends approval. Hedstrom moved to approve the Alpine Hardware and Pitkin Appliance application for conditional use determination for an appliance and hardware store in the Trueman Com- mercial Project inasmuch as those uses are defined as conditional and within the intent of the N/C zone, Ensign seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Slope Reduction Joe Wells of the Planning Office felt the present slope Revision reduction formula is totally uninterpretable. He dis- cussed several problems with the present formula. The Planning Office proposes a calculation based on the per- centage of slope. They propose that 0-20% would get full density credit, 20-30 would receive 50% credit, 30-400 would receive 25% credit and anything over 40% would not receive any credit. He gave two examples of property and what they would be allowed to build under the new formula. Ensign asked if this new formula is as restrictive as the old. Wells said it is equally restrictive assuming that steep slopes are less developable than flatter ones. Collins opened the public hearing. Collins continued the public hearing. Definition of Collins opened the public hearing. Collins continued the Subgrade public hearing to the next meeting, September 19, 1978 . Ensign moved to continue the public hearing on the Slope Reduction Revision and the Definition of Subgrade, Ms . Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved. W. Anderson moved to adjourn the meeting, Ensign seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 7 : 45 PM, Sher Simmen, Deputy City Clerk