Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19960220PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20,1996 Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 4:35, present were Sara Garton, Jasmine Tygre, Timothy Mooney, Robert Blaich and Steve Buettow. Excused were Marta Chaikovska and Roger Hunt. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Garton asked about the newspaper add for two open seats on the Commission. Amy Schmid, Deputy Clerk, replied that Timothy Mooney's seat had expired and there is an opening for one alternate. a • f 35 Buettow stated that he had received several comments on the visual nature of the pedestrian bridge. Garton replied that the Commission reviewed it thoroughly and approved it. Amy Amidon, Planning Staff, responded that she had also received several comments and that the bridge did not go through an aesthetic Design Review Process. HPC reviewed the bridge in terms of location, and did ask if the bridge could be more architectural rather than the straight engineered solution. Amidon stated that she too had heard comments on the visual nature, people either love it or hate it. Buettow replied that the Commission had agreed with and promoted the idea of a pedestrian bridge. However, there were no drawings or plans. Garton responded that there were photographs and the bridge will probably be incorporated differently with the new entrance to Aspen. Amidon stated that it is meant to be removed someday. Tygre noted that the Commission is still having trouble getting their packets if they do not make it to City Hall on Friday's before it's closed. Holiday's that fall on Monday make it even more difficult. Dave Michaelson, Planning Staff, responded that effective immediately the police department has agreed to hold packets that have not been picked up and the Commission can get them at the Courthouse. Garton asked if the Commission had a work session scheduled with Council concerning Small Lodge Text Amendments. Amidon responded the work session will be Tuesday, March 12, and will include the ord. 30 discussion. STAFF COMMENTS Michaelson responded that he had given the Commission the Aspen Mountain PUD submittal so there would be more time to review it. It will be heard on March 19. There were no public comments on items not on the Agenda. MINUTES MOTION: Tygre moved to approve the minutes of February 6, 1996. Second by Blaich. Motion carried, all in favor. Garton opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the public. 616 WEST MAIN LANDMARK DESIGNATION Amidon requested that the Commission table this hearing until March 19 to give the applicant sufficient time to get through HPC. MOTION: Tygre moved to table the Landmark Designation of 616 West Main to March 19. Second by Mooney. Motion carried, all in favor. Garton asked if notification should still be provided for tabled hearings. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, responded that we should have proof of notification before a public hearing is opened. Amidon replied that she will ask the applicant to bring in proof of notification. 918 EAST COOPER LANDMARK DESIGNATION Proof of notification provided. Amidon stated that Staff and HPC recommend that P&Z approve the Landmark Designation noting that three of the Historic Landmark Standards are met; Architectural Importance, Neighborhood Character, and Community Character. 2 MOTION: Blaich moved to approve the Landmark Designation of 918 East Cooper Avenue, Lot 2 of the Phillips/Gordon Lot Split, Lots O and P, Block 35, City and Townsite of Aspen. Second by Tygre. Motion carried, all in favor. Garton asked if the Council had taken action on the Landmark Designation of Iglhart's. Amidon replied they had not, it is even more complex. Amidon stated that she felt this may be a learning experience for HPC, because HPC had another project come up recently that did the same thing. Demolition of the kind is still a critical issue and should not be allowed because there would be no point in having this preservation program. Hoefer responded that in the past HPC has not thoroughly documented what they wanted done. For the future when HPC wants something done a certain way and/or would like certain things left, it will be clearly set forth,in the resolution. In the cases so far, because the resolutions were not clear, the developer could argue that he did not completely understand what HPC wanted. Garton adjourned the meeting at 4: 5 5 . ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Blaich asked about the "Accessory Units Low Occupancy Issue" Report. Michaelson replied that after staff reviewed a copy of the memo from Dave Tolen, staff felt there were several big numbers missing, i.e., the response rate was about 50%, but, a number of people did not answer the question as to whether or not someone had lived there. Michaelson stated that George Krawzoff, Consultant, would make some phone calls and firm up the data. Staff felt they could give the Commission a number of how many ADU's are occupied and who are they occupied for. A work session has been scheduled following Krawzoff's results. The memo given by Tolen, was essentially a summary per category rather than a statistical analysis. Blaich noted that having it appear in the paper, when the Commission does not have the information until after the fact, puts pressure on the Commission. Michaelson responded that if staff had known the information was to be released, it would have been handled differently. Mooney stated that he hoped there would be enough information for the Commission and Staff to make recommendations as to what needed to be done to keep the ADU program intact. If the program is not working the only option will be cash -in -lieu. That is why this Commission wanted that information. Contractors have stated that the ADU's are used so they can build up to the maximum FAR. Michaelson replied that staff could not make a recommendation with confidence based on the numbers given. Buettow noted that ADU's are designed so they can avoid cash -in -lieu. When they are approved and not rented, the Commission is not getting anything in return. If the Commission voted cash -in -lieu, there would be more money to develop projects like William's Ranch. Hoefer responded that a requirement would have to be tacked on the ADU, that would require the applicant to go through Housing to keep the ADU occupied. Michaelson noted that in the AACP there is a specific component of the AACP and Housing that states the ADU's should not only be deed restricted, but put under the management auspices of the Housing Authority. Hopefully, this survey will give the Commission that option. Mooney inquired if the AACP component could be retroactive for the ADU's that are found in noncompliance with the Commission's original assumptions. Blaich recommended that as Staff studies this, they think about specific penalties that could pass City Council, or possibly give someone in noncompliance the opportunity of cash -in -lieu. Hoefer stated that in terms of enforcement, when a unit is being transferred, make a restriction that the ADU would have to be bought out, or go under the auspices of the Housing Authority. Blaich noted that some people who bought a house did not know about the constraints and the Realtor should be responsible to make the buyer aware. Blaich stated that a penalty clause or buyout option should be built in. Buettow responded that presently the ADU program is a failure. Buettow stated that the majority of homeowners with ADU's, that he has talked to, regard them as an additional guest suite. Hoefer stated that the insert "The Enterprise", in the Denver paper made it sound as though an ADU could be used for anything. Garton stated that the Commission has to consider whether or not an ADU would be a burden on a neighborhood or would they be appropriate. Buettow agreed noting that often times, rental property in a Single Family neighborhood, will deteriorate it. Michaelson commented that is the advantage of cash -in -lieu. The pool of money will allow this kind of development in appropriate areas. M Blaich responded that when someone puts the ADU in with the intention of having someone live in it, giving a local employee a place to live, that is fantastic. The problem is when that person changes their mind or sells the house, the Commission has no recourse. Buettow noted that it opens the door for caretakers, or part-time residents who come and go, rather than people who are here working full-time. Garton responded that there is a minimum of six months if it goes to Housing and the Commission liked the idea of bringing life to a neighborhood of second homeowners. The intentions were good. Buettow stated that the Commission should look carefully at whether they feel the ADU's will be used as intended. Amy G. S , id, Deputy City Clerk