Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19991102ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2~ 1999 COMMISSIONER~ STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS ..................................... 1 MINUTES ............................................................................................................ 1 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ......................................... 1 ADU RESOLUTION LIST ................................................................................. 1 CODE AMENDMENTS ...................................................................................... 2 CODE AMENDMENT (PUB) ZONE DISTRICT & DEFINITIONS YELLOW BRICK REZONING TO (PUB) AMENDMENT ............................ 2 WILLIAMS RANCH SUBSTANTIAL PUD AMENDMENT ........................... 2 REFERRAL TO CITY COUNCIL ADU FAR BONUSES ................................ 9 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2~ 1999 Jasmine Tygre, Vice-Chair, opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission at 4:35 p.m. with Steven Buettow, Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney, Ron Erickson. Roger Haneman arrived at 4:40. Bob Blaich was excused. Staff present were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Ohlson and Chris Bendon, Community Development; Chuck Roth, City Engineering Department; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER~ STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS Ron Erickson distributed an article on development in China; they have taken a stand against sprawl. It was a capital offense in China to develop farmlands without the proper approvals with the death penalty for spreading sprawl. Erickson stated that he had given Julie Ann an ad for Mittel Europa. Joyce Ohlson replied that community development researched the conditional use that P&Z granted and there was no violation found in terms of the approval. Jasmine Tygre said that her recollection from the meeting was consignment sales from local homes and hotels. Ohlson said there were no specifics about the goods having to be from local entities. Erickson stated that there was concern for the erosion of the S/C/I Zone District. Ohlson stated the blue binder contained materials for the AACP meeting on 11/11/99. She distributed the work program for the next year. Ohlson reconfirmed dates for November (9, 11, 16, 22, 30)and December (7, 14)meetings. Erickson suggested that the commissioners take a day before the end of the year to clear their calendar. Buettow noted that they had talked about having a once a month meeting for future issues to accomplish. Ohlson said that the work load program could include some of these issues. Jasmine Tygre presented Tim Semrau with a Proclamation from the City of Aspen for his work on the Planning and Zoning Commission. MINUTES MONTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes from 10/19/99, 10/12/99 & 07/20/99 meetings. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 6-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None were stated. ADU RESOLUTION LIST Steven Buettow inquired about the ADU list. Ohlson responded that the list was about 90% complete. The list will include the owner's name and mailing ad&ess, 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2~ 1999 location of property and any restrictions that might apply to that ADU. Erickson said that it should be published or at least available to anyone that wanted it. Roger Hunt stated that the list should include the occupancy and availability status; the housing authority should make the list available to the public. He said that these issues should be included in the Resolution. Jasmine Tygre stated that she had the same thoughts; who maintains the list or where the list was available. Ohlson said the housing office would be responsible for the outreach and availability but community development would be responsible for the database information. Erickson said there was no mechanism for tracking the rental of the units and it would be impossible to find out if the units were occupied. Hunt said if the owner would call when the unit was rented, his/her name could then be deleted from the list. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve P&Z Resolution #99-35 requesting Community Development and Housing Authority create and maintain a comprehensive inventory list of Accessory Dwelling Units (AUDs) in the City of Aspen with the modifications as so stated from the discussions. Steven Buettow second. APPROVED 6-0. INFORMATION ITEM: CODE AMENDMENTS Chris Bendon said that this item would be on the 11/16 meeting agenda. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS (10/19/99): CODE AMENDMENT (PUB) ZONE DISTRICT & DEFINITIONS YELLOW BRICK REZONING TO (PUB) AMENDMENT Jasmine Tygre opened both public hearings. There was no public comment. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to table action and continue the public hearings for the Public Zone District Code & Definitions Amendment and the Yellow Brick Rezoning Amendment to 30 November 1999. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 6-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/06/99, 09/21/99): WILLIAMS RANCH SUBSTANTIAL PUD AMENDMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for Williams Ranch. Chris Bendon distributed a revised resolution from a meeting that occurred earlier this afternoon. He said the questions from the previous meeting were in regards to soil 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2~ 1999 erosion control measures that were proposed above Williams Ranch and the access easement and the condition of that access easement from the cul-de-sac to Spruce Street. Bendon noted that Chuck Roth, City Engineering Department was present to answer any technical questions. Bendon stated that the emergency access was in fairly poor condition. He said that the developer installed it according to the required specifications and the city engineer signed off on it, since then the damage has taken place. Bendon stated that this was removed from the conditions. Bendon said that when the project actually came in (1994-95) there were two projects, the Williams Ranch residential and the Smuggler Mine re-opening for mining and mine tours. At that time there was a requirement for the Smuggler Mine to re-grade a road and install soil erosion controls for water that would run- off from that road. Bendon stated that the 2 parcels were in different jurisdictions; Williams Ranch was in the city and Smuggler Mine was in the county. The residential portion went forward with the 70/30 affordable housing and the mining portion did not. The soil erosion improvements were on the final plat but were no longer necessary because the mining operations did not go forward and they were not in the City's jurisdiction. He said that staff suggested that they were no longer an obligation. Roger Hunt said that when the commission originally reviewed the project, Williams Ranch/SilverLode and the Smuggler Mine were reviewed together because it was one parcel. He said that when the improvements were made there was an agreement and the approval would not have been given had they not made those commitments. Hunt asked how Smuggler Mine got back into the loop as far as being committed to make those improvements when it becomes necessary. Bendon replied that that he was not sure that it was possible; the improvements were promised based on the re-opening of the mine with site operations. He said that the county and the federal agencies would be involved if that ever happened because of the former superfund status of this property. Bendon stated the commissions concerns were justified and that the project changed and those concerns could be addressed if the mine was ever to be re- opened. Hunt requested that the county be made aware of certain obligations and prior agreements that the mining operation had. Bendon suggested that the condition be re-worded. David Hoefer stated that the agreement of record would be used to place the county on notice legally. Hunt said that the new owners of the property needed to be protected. Tygre stated that this was important for a promise to be kept because the next owner will not be held responsible. She said the homeowners may be affected in the future if there was erosion and who would be responsible for the soil erosion mitigation after the property was sold. Tygre stated that the owner of the mine had the same obligations to fulfill to the neighbors. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2~ 1999 Hoefer said there could be a condition for the approval. Tygre stated that she did not want to owner of the mine or this developer to say that City Planning & Zoning signed off on something that we did not sign-off on and this was where the danger lied. Hoefer stated that the City Council would be the sign-off and everything would be done to make sure that the county was notified properly. Tim Mooney asked if these representations were made on the final plat. Bendon said that they were, but it wasn't on their property or in their control. Bendon said there were 2 applications and the county parcel (the mine) was not part of this application. Hunt stated that in the future, annexed parcels would have to be scrutinized more closely and required added conditions for approval. Bendon said that if you did require a condition it must be under your jurisdiction and if not in your jurisdiction, then obtain approval from that body that has the jurisdiction. Bendon stated that the remaining concerns were with the trails, the open space parcel condition and the ditch requirement. There were 2 trails, the vertical trail (up and down) and the horizontal trail (across the map). The green parcel was the open space parcel, Lot #36, held by the Williams Ranch Homeowners Association and the brown parcel was a City Park. The open space parcel was used as a staging area, which was significantly disrupted. Bendon said that the vertical trail between Lots #10 & #11 of SilverLode was not developed because it did not go anywhere, there were no connections. He said the horizontal trail the open space section of trail was developed in a crude way. It was not developed through Lots #33, 34 & 35 and neither was the most southern portion from Williams Ranch Lot #27 through SilverLode Lot #15, which was on a steep cross-slope and fairly difficult to develop. He said that the last 5 feet of the vertical trail was landscaped with grass and he said that he requested that last 5 feet be filled in with gravel to delineate the trail. Bendon reiterated that after the meeting this afternoon, many of the recommendations have changed as far as the trail; the homeowners association did not want the development of the horizontal trail through Lots #33 to 35 because they were close to the homes. The original developer was somewhat adamant about not developing the most southerly portion because of the site complexities. Staff suggested that the trail be re-developed through the open space parcel, through Lots 33, 34, 35 and then the connection (which already exists) to the vertical trail; the most southerly portion of the horizontal trail not be developed because of it's challenging surface. Roger Haneman asked if there would be signage to indicate the trail. Bendon responded that it could be added; the intent was to connect to the Lani White Trail. Hunt said that since the homeowners did not want sidewalks, could a trail like treatment be placed along the SilverLode Drive to accomplish the trail connection. Mooney said people were walking through the Centennial parking lot and connecting with 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2~ 1999 the Lani White Trail by sidewalks to the street. Bendon stated it wasn't platted or dedicated as a trail. Hunt noted if a trail was used for a specified number of years, it became public domain. Hoefer responded that it could be done by prescription for a number of years. Chuck Roth stated that it was 18 years. Tygre asked what the recommendation was in the new resolution. Bendon stated the new resolution had the aesthetic considerations of the open space parcel and the trail left to Council; the trail through Lots 33-35 and the southern portion be left to the Homeowners Association. The condition of the easement still needed to be repaired; the Homeowners Association could be granted some money left from the developer's escrow with the city to either landscape or re-establish the trails. Tygre stated that if the trail easements were part of the approval, why were they being given up. Bendon said the homeowners said they did not want that trail developed and the money would be available later on if they wanted to develop a trail and or re-landscape the open space parcel. Tygre stated this was a public easement not just for the homeowners. Bendon said that was true. Fred Soyka, Centennial, said the current trail ended at the Centennial property line, then cut across the lawn to the sidewalk and up. He said that people could not walk to the Lani White Trail unless there was a connection made; currently there was no way to get across. He said there were probably between 12 and 15 20-foot pine trees on the edge of the road, making it more difficult to connect the trail. Erickson asked where the $10,000.00 came from to grant the homeowners landscape improvements. Bendon replied that the money was from the developer held by the City in escrow for improvements; it was subject to Council approval. Hunt said to connect to the Lani White Trail would make sense to go across the public parcel, why not do that. He said that the trail connection through Lot #36 should connect to the vertical trail also; maybe easements could be exchanged if the homeowners did not want the trail in one place then replace it at another place. There was consensus to keep the trail easements through the property as part of the original approval process and this approval process. (3 The water feature was not an amenity of any importance and the homeowners did not want a faux water feature so the commission agreed to forfeit that condition. © The section of the vertical trail above the upper road and ® sidewalks were to be given-up. ® The horizontal trail, south of the vertical trail, and ® Providing moneys to the homeowners to bring the open space parcel into conformance would be kept. Chuck Brandt, attorney for applicant, stated that the developers obligation for a sidewalk was fulfilled from Molly Gibson Park; construction of the trail through the City Park was not the developers obligation. He said the water feature from the 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2~ 1999 enclosed Salvation Ditch was a problem because the Salvation Ditch did not want to grant an easement for a re-creation of that ditch and the developer did not own a water right for the ditch. Brandt stated that Williams Ranch Joint Venture would build sidewalks if they wanted sidewalks and build trails if that was what was wanted; there was money in escrow to do those things. However, the homeowners (10/25/99 letter from Gary Wright, president, in packet) did not want sidewalks; did not want the water feature; did not want the southerly horizontal trail or the upper vertical trail (west of SilverLode Drive) or the middle of the trail between the vertical trail and open space parcel developed. Brandt said that the developer had an obligation to construct the sidewalks under Ordinance 52. The developer was asking for an amendment that deleted the obligations for those sidewalks, the homeowners don't want them. He said they were also asking for an amendment to delete the obligation for the trail along the steep portion of the southerly area; staff recommended this as well as the homeowners. Brandt said they would leave the easement but asked not to require the developer to construct the trail at this time. He said the homeowners association could have the $10,000.00 in escrow for the trail construction or for what ever. He said the homeowners have placed new topsoil and re-seeded the open space parcel. Brandt said the emergency access from Lot #1 was what was in need of repair after it was constructed to the specifications and accepted by the city but since then it has been trashed. He said it was beyond the developer's ability to force the homeowners to do something. He stated that they have asked the City Attorney's Office to send a letter to the Williams Ranch Homeowners Association and SilverLode Homeowners Associations urging them to work with the homeowner that has apparently caused the problem, to address this issue. He said if escrow money was needed, it would be there as well. Erickson asked who signed-off on the emergency access as designed. Hoefer replied that it was the Fire Marshall. Tygre asked why the homes were built so close to the easement. Brandt responded that the lots were small and the homeowners needed to be involved because of the proximity. Tygre said that the easement was there and the developer built the houses too close to the easement. Brandt said the main pedestrian use was not on that portion of the trail because it doesn't go anywhere. Hunt stated that he would like the Parks Department to connect that trail through the city owned parcel and then the trail would connect. Buettow said the Centennial Homeowners requested that the trail be removed from their property. Brandt noted that they met with the Centennial Board in February and asked for an easement where that footpath existed and Centennial did not want an easement granted. Buettow stated concern for the Centennial Homeowners. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2~ 1999 Lisa Markalunas, Williams Ranch Lot #34, stated opposition to the trail and entered her letter into the record (Exhibit 4). She pointed out a significant grove of trees and the steepness of the terrain, which would prohibit trail construction. Markalunas said the Centennial footpath got all of the pedestrian traffic and this trail would be repetitive. She noted that the developer built the houses. Helen Palmer, Williams Ranch, stated that the homes were close together; the Joint Venture built and planned this development. She said that the homeowners did not choose to be that close and did not know that they were that close to the path when they were selected by the lottery. Palmer asked the commission for help in solving these problems to be good neighbors. She stated that they have worked on the open space very hard and if they received some of that money, then they could hire a landscaper to help in the spring. She noted that Stan Clauson explained that the water feature could not have any water in it but it was to be a reminder of the Salvation Ditch. She stated that the Salvation Ditch was beautiful in it's natural state but it was underground now through the property and it can't be brought back. She said that the end of the trail was at their parking lot. Palmer submitted a letter (Exhibit 5) for the record regarding the ditch and trail. Jeffrey Riggenbach, Williams Ranch, stated that he signed on the letter (Exhibit 5). He said that he was against the water feature. He said the vertical trail needed help and asked if the money could be used for that trail. Fred Soyka, Centennial, said that there was a very large electrical transformer that sits right on the Williams Ranch/Centennial property line. He said there was supposed to be a gate for the emergency access so that only the fire department could access. Bendon stated that it was not required but the owners of Lot #1 said that he would put up a gate. Soyka said that the open space improvements should not be attached to the emergency access improvements. He noted that the open space parcel was originally sage and asked if it could be re-planted with sage. Hunt stated that the Centennial owners were not present at this meeting who had been previously concerned about the trail easements. He said that if the vertical trail was impractical, then the trail should not be installed but still retain the easement for the future. Hunt asked Engineering for their opinion on the trail completion. Chuck Roth, City Engineering Department, stated that was probably a Parks Department comment because it had to do with trails. Bendon responded that from discussions with John Krueger, Trails Coordinator, there could be a trail but it would be very difficult and expensive to develop with the cross-slope. Brandt utilized maps and photos to illustrate the vertical trail implementation difficulties. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2~ 1999 Roth asked what the commission envisioned as a sidewalk for Williams Ranch. He said the original proposal called for standard curb and gutter but the plat did not specify concrete. He said that the city had been working in this area doing improvements but the Engineering Department only implements what the boards' set-up and the Pedestrian Bikeway Plan was the main reference. Bendon stated the vertical trail was a difficult trail to build and maintain with the challenging grade. He said that when you come down the vertical trail it just stops at Centennial property, even through it was used as a footpath there was no right for about 30 feet. Buettow asked if at any time the boards of Centennial and Williams Ranch could work together on an agreement for this trail connection. Soyka responded that probably would not happen because there were other issues with the developer that were not resolved regarding the Centennial Parking Lot. Soyka stated that they were just approached about the trail easement and told Mr. Brandt that they were not paid in full by the developer for damages to the parking lot, which was used as a construction staging area. He said use of that trail would just encourage more people to use the parking lot, which was something that they did not encourage. Tygre noted the items of concern that could be agreed upon were ~ the water/ditch feature could be stricken, no one wanted a dry ditch. © Soil erosion was not in the city jurisdiction, a notice would be sent to the county stating the concern. ® The sidewalks were not traditional urban sidewalks, possibly crushed gravel. ® The SilverLode trail or vertical trail would not be developed but the easement would be retained. Tygre said there seemed to be a need for input from Centennial regarding any future agreement and some how repairing the breech that has occurred between Centennial and the developer. Tygre said that during the original approval process there was a great deal of concern about the trails and easements and not putting additional impacts on Centennial from this development. Mooney agreed that the mitigation was an important part of the approval process because of the access to this subdivision. The commission agreed that it was the developer's responsibility for trail mitigation, easement protection and monetary repairs owed to Centennial. Ohlson stated that from the commissioners concerns there should be a practical cross-trail for the future with confirmation of the easements. She said that there could be an agreement reached for practical access for a continued public hearing. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing for the Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment to December 14, 1999. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 6-0. 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2~ 1999 Brandt requested that the commission go forward to City Council with a recommendation as soon as possible. Erickson asked if there was urgency. The commissioners and staff agreed to work out the details prior to any recommendations to City Council. Mary Ellen Schamrey, Williams Ranch Lot 14, stated that she did use the horizontal trail and others utilized the trail also. She stated appreciation for the commissioners' direction and said that the developer was a disappointment. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to extend the meeting fifteen minutes. Roger Hunt second. APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: REFERRAL TO CITY COUNCIL ADU FAR BONUSES Jasmine Tygre, Vice-Chairperson, opened the public hearing for the ADU FAR bonuses. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the notice was sufficient for the commission to proceed. Chris Bendon, Staff, stated that this was an incentive to encourage occupancy ofADUs. Tygre said that ADU program was not working; she said that mandatory occupancy for an ADU was an oxymoron. Bendon said that the county had a successful program. Roger Haneman asked where in the county was that happening. Bendon said that the county atmosphere was different than the city because the people lived in their homes and rented the ADUs to help with their mortgages. Commissioner ideas for making ADUs work: Cash-in-lieu or mandatory ADU; Do away with the exemption philosophy, Mandatory GMQS; Mitigate for development on or off-site or cash-in-lieu; Elimination of fees for projects providing deed-restricted ADUs; Housing Authority subsidized ADUs for private homeowners (cash-in-reverse) on mandatory occupancy, becomes part of housing pool (encourages privately built AUDs). Discussion: A monetary incentive may not have an effect on some people. Exemption from city taxes may or may not work as an incentive. 20% of ADUs that were occupied were not in spec houses. There should not be additional FAR available and possibly a FAR reduction for not mandatory deed-restricted occupancy ADUs. There needed to be a restructuring of the entire ADU program. Adjourn 7:25 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 9