Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19780606 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 June 6, 1978 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on June 6 , 1978, at 5: 00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Olaf Hedstrom, John Schuhmacher, Donald Ensign, Joan Klar and Welton Anderson. Also present were Karen Smith, Joe Wells and Richard Grice of the Planning Office, City Attor- ney Dorothy Nuttall, Building Inspector Clayton Meyring, and Sanitarian Tom Dunlop. Approval of Minutes Schuhmacher moved to approve the minutes of May 16, 1978 , as is, Klar seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Anderson moved to approve the minutes of May 23, 1978, as is, Ensign seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Smith asked that they split the item of Volume Ratio under Old Business since Clayton Meyring is present at this time for comment. Continuation of Smith noted that this item was tabled from about a month Discussion Regarding ago. She noted that the problem is the code is unclear Floor Area Ratio as to the inclusion of private balconies and overhangs. Calculation They propose modification of the last sentence in this section to include, "exclusion of private balconies-. and private patios and terraces. " She noted that Meyring suggests deleting private patios and terraces from the amendment since it may create some bad situations. She noted the problem with the word "usable" and its defini- tions. She also noted a problem with the definitions of basement and subgrade. She noted P&Z felt that the main concern was with the mass of a building above ground and that the language in the code sufficiently covered basements. The Planning Office recommends leaving sub- grade in the language or redefining basement in the code, Meyring noted that the previous zoning ordinance has no definition of floor area. He has used the definition in the Uniform Building Code with no problems. He feels the key word in this is "usable" . If the building will not function without it, it is "usable" and calculated in FAR. He noted that when he sent plans to the International Conference of Building Officials for a plan. check, they did not include private balconies. Anderson suggested deleting the word "usable" and adding "areas underneath the projections of roofs and balconies above necessary for the function of the building" . Meyring supported this. Klar supported this. Nuttall felt it a good improvement in the language. Hedstrom asked the Planning Office to draft an amendment.. Anderson noted that there is no definition of "subgrade" in the code. He suggested the definition read "any floor where the ceiling is completely below ground" , The Board discussed the definitions of subgrade, underground, and basement. Hedstrom asked if the P&Z is qualified to write such definitions. Nuttall suggested setting up a committee to investigate these definitions.. Hedstrom aske3 the Planning Office to coordinate this committee and come back with their results. Wedum-Pardee Smith introduced the application. She noted that the P&Z PUD and saw this in March as a different application. At that Subdivision time they considered subdivision exemption for condomini- Exemption umizing the duplex. The Planning Office recommended ap- proval with the following conditions: 90 day right of first refusal, 6 month minimum lease and several conditions of Dave Ellis, City Engineer, regarding dedication of roadway and easements.. A concern arose that in the dedi- cation of these lands, this would reduce their land below the density for an additional unit. The applicants have Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 1978 rephrased their application for a subdivision and PUD exemption application asking permission to build a third unit on the site and condominiumize all three units. Nuttall felt that condominiumization can involve all three units even if they are not contiguous. She suggested conditioning approval on the commitments stipulated by the applicant (Homeowner' s Association, open space, etc. ) The Planning Office does not feel it appropriate to exempt a parcel from the PUD requirements with such outstanding geologic features on site. Smith found it difficult to determine that this application will comply with all the objectives of PUD approval. P&Z must find that the pro- posal meets all the objectives of PUD to exempt it from full procedure. Full PUD requires a detailed site plan to determine these criteria; exemption does not. She noted that James Reser calculated the density reduction formula which shows they are 230 square feet below the re- ininimum required for three units. Reser attests that he cannot be more acurate than ±500 sq. ft. The applicants submit that it is unfair for them to be reduced to two units when the figures are so close. Ellis ' agreement with the applicant is that they will give easements for the roads rather than dedicate the right-of-way and in giving easements, they do not reduce the density for the right-of-way. Therefore, the density question only con- cerns the slope. The Planning Office feels this another reason it should not be exempted from PUD. Smith felt they should also go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance because of the slope reduction formula. Nuttall felt the Board of Adjustment has no jurisdiction on that question. Smith still felt they should not be exempt from PUD. She felt they would not necessarily recommend against the full PUD application if the application came back with a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Klar asked why there are two letters from Reser on the same parcel. Pardee explained that one was figured on the County formula and one on the City formula. Klar asked the location of the proposed unit. Pardee showed the location on a map. Ensign asked if they are building it themselves. Pardee said they would like to. Pardee said he will live in one of the units and is concerned with controlling it. They want a Homeowner ' s Association controlling the site. They will use the same type of materials and style as the duplex. Schuhmacher asked why they can't be more accurate than ±500 sq.ft. Wedum explained the process of measuring the slope reduction and the reasons for such inaccuracy. They feel it complies with the requirements and it is an appropriate building site. He noted that this was ap- proved for four units last year contingent upon a quiet title which was denied. He noted the engineering concerns were on the site where the duplex stands now. Ensign asked why the quiet title was denied. Wedum said they did not finish the quiet title before the 90 day recording period, therefore losing their approval. They reapplied and were denied because of reduction of the property. He submitted a drawing of a proposed house on the site showing proposed parking. He noted that the water is adequate, he has letters from the Fire Departmentf geo- logical reports, etc. , all supporting this site. He felt that the duplex was major land manipulation and does not anticipate such disturbance at this site. He has the criteria for a Homeowners Association dealing with common facilities, maintainance, landscaping, etc. He noted that they are losing 1/3 of their property to easements and right-of-ways. Smith noted that they are not losing that area to easements. Wedum said they can BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.,DENVER R E C O R D OF P R O C E E D I N G S not build on this property, nor use it for any :other pur- pose, therefore, he felt they are losing it. Klar asked Smith about the previous approval. Smith said that this came back to Council on February 14 , 1977, with some modification. They had to delete some land from the application because of a land boundary dispute. The Planning Office did recommend approval at this time, although they did _recommend clustering the units on the eastern end of the property. The Planning Office' s con- cerns at this time were poor access to the site, the driveway intersection on Gibson Avenue, visual impact, lack of consideration of alternatives, potential adverse impacts on Spring Street. This was opposed by the resi- dents of the neighborhood. Council' s motion to approve was denied. Smith felt this another important reason for it to go through full PUD since the neighbors should get a chance to voice their opinion. Wedum noted that the final approval came in December and the neighbors were able to voice their opinions. He felt they are within the intent of PUD. Ensign asked what purposes would be served by going through full PUD. He also asked if it is possible to interpret the slope reduction formula favorably for the applicants. Nuttall said if it were closer it wouldn't be such a con- cern but it is 1500 sq.ft. Wells hoped that this will prompt a revision of the slope reduction formula. He felt he is qualified to read the formula but he can't tell them any more than Reser. The line is very arbi- trary. Pardee noted that they did not tell Reser what they wanted, it was totally legitimate. Hedstrom asked if this is a question for the P&Z or the Board of Adjustment. Nuttall felt that if the report said that this is to the best of their judgement it was within such amount, it is for P&Z . She is concerned with the magnitude of 1500 sq.ft. Hedstrom felt that if they do not disagree with the formula they must consider the results valid. If they do disagree with the formula, they should use the mechanism set up to deal with that.. Smith said her main concerns are with site and archi- tectural compatibility. Pardee said that the people of Oklahoma Flats cannot see this parcel. Smith said she was not sure of this without full PUD and detailed site plans. She was also concerned with the extent of exca- vation and its impact. Klar asked the positioning of the two duplexes that were previously applied for. Wedum said that he had one unit placed on this exact site. Wells said that they must consider the residents and their concerns, Pardee said many people appreciate the existing duplex since it is solar and excavated to camoflage it. Klar felt that all the questions have been previously addressed. Smith noted that that site plan was different. Wedum felt the main concern was the density.Klar said she abhors red tape and is confused why they must discuss questions that have al- ready been answered. Ensign asked the purpose of sending this through PUD. Nuttall suggested that they table this until the applicant comes back with the answers P&Z is looking for. Hedstrom felt the Commission is favorably inclined but needs more information. Wedum asked what points he could clarify for them. Ensign felt they should rationalize the slope reduction formula, Pardee said they are within 1/2% and can't get any closer. Klar wanted to see the original plan that was approved. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 1978 Anderson agreed with this. Ensign moved to table action on the subdivision exemp- tion request on the Wedum-Parde property until the applicants have provided additional information to the Planning Department and mutually agree on a time for P&Z action, Schuhmacher seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Code Amendment Smith introduced the amendment. This is regarding the Ordinance #10, 1978 Growth Management Plan. During the reviews, two smaller Public Hearing projects were not approved. P&Z recommended to Council that they consider an ordinance addressing the adverse impact the Growth Management Plan has toward small pro- jects. !She recommended deleting the requirement that commercial projects must receive 30% in the category of community commercial services, such as medical, dental, banking, etc. Council agreed with this recommendation and Nuttall prepared the ordinance. If approved, this ordinance would make it possible for the Hutch and La Tortue to be eligible for commercial allotment in 1978 . This may not be the last amendment for the Growth Management Plan. Hedstrom asked if this is approved, will it approve the two small projects. Smith said it would make these two projects eligible for allotment. Smith noted Ordinance 10, 1978 , P&Z resolution of May 4, 1978 , and the Plan- ning Office memo of June 2, 1978, for the record. Hedstrom opened the public hearing. There were no com- ments from the public. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. Klar asked if this would affect the larger projects . Smith said this would apply equally to all projects . No one will have to provide 30% of the community commer- cial service category with this ordinance. The larger projects do not have much difficulty providing these facilities and would score higher if they do. Ensign moved to adopt Ordinance #10, 1978 , amending Section 24-10 . 5 (c) of Ordinance 48 , Series of 1978 , by deleting the requirement that applications not receiving a minimum of 30% of the points available under Section 24-10 . 5 (b) (3) shall no longer be con- sidered for a development allotment, Klar seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Oliver Grice introduced the application. The applicant owns Subdivision six contiguous lots. There is a duplex under construc- Exemption tion on Lots N, O, and P. The applicant wishes to condominiumize the duplex. Mark Danielson has no problem with this since it has never been occupied. Dave Ellis, City Engineer, would like to see exemption granted for the gjg4exergaand the division of these three lots. This is a,.,vioTation of Ordinance #48 , 1977. Grice noted that if the applicant condominiumizes the duplex and dedicates its land, he could then sell the other three lots and avoid the GMP. This could only be prevented by the memory of the building inspector or perhaps a title search. Wells noted that this is a loophole in the GMP. Grice recommends that the P&Z sees a condominium declaration from the applicant. Ensign asked what could prevent him from selling these lots to three separate corpora- tions. Wells said it is illegal but they could not stop him. Klar noted that condominium declarations can be amended so this would not stop him either. 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 June 6, 1978 Hedstrom asked if it is the P&Z responsibility to con- sider these problems in considering this application. Gideon Kaufman noted that he could not get title insur- ance. Klar asked how much more he could build after the duplex. Grice said nothing without an allotment. Kaufman noted that they could attach a deed restriction. He asked that the P&Z attack the loophole instead of going through the back door. Ensign moved to recommend exemption to the Oliver property granted conditionally upon approval of the condominium declaration by the City Council prior to granting exemp- tion, Klar seconded. Hedstrom asked what is the purpose of the condominium declaration if it can be amended. Grice did not know if it would make any difference but could not offer a better solution. Anderson did not feel this would accomplish anything. He suggested that they grant the exemption and plug this loophole immedi- ately. Ensign amended his motion to exclude the pro- vision for a condominium declaration to City Council, Klar seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Sign Resolution Donald Ensign stepped down due to a conflict of interest. Aspen Institute Hedstrom noted that with Chairman Collins absent, the vote now would be two ayes and two nays. He asked Smith if the resolution is defeated, in limbo or what. Smith said she felt it is technically defeated. Ensign asked that they vote for the resolution since it reflects the action of P&Z . Hedstrom felt the words sound too nega- tive for his intention. He asked Smith to revise the last paragraph. Smith revised it as follows: And be it further resolved by the Commission so as not to falsely encourage the pursuance of the application as submitted, that these concerns should be satisfied prior to any approvals because of the magnitude of the possible im- pact on the community and that the Commission hereby encourages the applicant to address the above in a specific manner. Schuhmacher moved that the resolution of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the application for conceptual subdivision and PUD approval of the Aspen Institute Development Plan as read by Karen Smith be adopted. Wells noted that by voting against the motion, they are slowing it down since it must have a recommenda- tion from P&Z to Council. Klar noted that this is not the motion that she would like to see go to Council but she does want to see Council consider the Institute at its next meeting. Anderson seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Schuhmacher, aye; Anderson, aye; Klar, nay; Hedstrom, aye. Motion approved. Anderson noted that he changed his vote because there would be no productive purpose served by tying the vote in regards to the pro- gress of the Institute' s application to City Council. Volume Ratio Wells gave a short history of the consideration of FAR Residential Lots in the residential areas. He noted the Planning Office recommendations of . 3 in R-6, . 16 & . 2 in R-15, . 13 in R-30. He also noted the Board of Realtors recommenda- tions of . 5 in R-6, . 233 &. 33 in R-15, and , 13 & .17 in R-30, which is also endorsed by the West End Association. Wells noted that these last figures are in excess of the specific houses that were studied by the Commission for having excessive FARs. Anderson noted that the studies they have done seem to indicate that an FAR is not necessarily the control to keep houses in scale. He suggested an overlay district Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 6, 1978 in the West End. Wells felt the only control would be by examining the adjacent houses. Klar asked how many lots there are left in the West End for development. Wells noted that the larger homes on the market now are so expensive that they are being sold with the condition that the surrounding lands will be subdivided and devel- oped. Schuhmacher noted that land is so expensive, people tend to tear down small Victorians and build large homes. Gideon Kaufman noted that the group that initiated this consideration is no longer concerned. He asked that they consider an overlay district. Wells felt that the ad- ministrative burden of an overlay district is too much. Anderson asked if it might be better to let this die. Klar felt they would regret letting it die since the West End is so important to Aspen. Hedstrom noted that the Council considered an overlay and did not appropriate the necessary money. Wells noted that the research in setting up an overlay district is enormous. Ensign felt they should adopt the Board of Realtors recommendation until they can come up with a better solution. Wells suggested a height limit. Anderson felt this is a can of worms. He endorsed Ensign' s pro- posal and suggested adding that additions to existing Victorian houses on substandard lots be granted some sort of exemption from FAR. Smith noted that they pro- vided for that allowing special cases to go through a special review procedure in the code. Enisgn moved to recommend adoption in the code of the Board of Realtors recommendations for FAR as follows: . 5 in the R-6, . 233 for single family in R-15, . 33 for duplexes in the R-15, . 13 for single family in R-30, . 17 for duplexes in R-30, and that a special review procedures be made available to applicants with additions in any of these zones. The Board discussed this motion. The motion died for lack of a second. Anderson moved to table action on FAR, Schuhmacher seconded. Roll call vote: Schuhmacher, aye; Anderson, aye; Klar, aye; Ensign, nay; Hedstrom, aye; motion approved. Ensign noted that Council needs some action on this, Anderson noted that they have studied this in detail and can not come up with a reasonable solution. Anderson moved that the_P&Z ,recommendation to- city Council is that after exhaustive and intensive study and many man hours by commissioners and staff, the only reasonable method of accomplishing purposes of bulk con- trol in residential districts in Aspen is through crea- tion of a historic overlay district with perhaps stream- lined methods for administration, Klar seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Klar moved to adjourn the meeting, Schuhmacher seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 7: 30 PM. Shery/Y Simmen, Deputy City Clerk