Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20011106ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -November 6, 2001 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEP~EST ..................................................... 2 629 WEST SMUGGLER- LANDMARK DESIGNATION ................................... 2 MAROON CREEK CLUB PUD AMENDMENT - CLUBSIDE DRIVE SECURITY GATE ...... ~ ............................................................................................. 2 LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 26.520, ADU ' ELIMiNATE MANDATORY OCCUPANCY FAR BONUS ................ ~ ....................................... 3 LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 26.520, ADU - AMENDING EXISITNG MANDATORY OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTIONS ............ : ...... 5 LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 26.435.040, STREAM MARGIN MAP and AMENDMENT TO REVIEW AUTHORITY ........................ 7 LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS TO SEC ]'ION 26.480, SUBDIVISION - WITHOUT GMQS .................................................................................................... 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -November 6, 2001 Jasmine Tygre, Chairperson, opened the regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in the Sister Cities meeting room at 4:35 p.m. Bob Blaich, Pon Erickson, Roger Haneman, Eric Cohen, Bert Myrin, Ruth ICmger and Jasmine Tygre were present. Steven Buettow was excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; Kathryn Koch, City Clerk. MINUTES MOTION: Ron Erickson movid to approve the minutes from 10/16/01; 01/16/01; 12/05/00; 11/07/00. Roger Itaneman corrected the grade on the minutes of 01/16/01. Bob Blaich seconded. APPROVED 7-0 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Bob Blaich and Ron Erickson stated that they were members of the Maroon Creek Club but were not owners of any property at the Maroon Creek Club. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (10/16/01): 629 WEST SMUGGLER - LANDMARK DESIGNATION MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to continue the public hearing until 12/4/01. Ron Erickson seconded. APPROVED 7-0 PUBLIC HEARING: MAROON CREEK CLUB PUD AMENDMENT - CLUBSIDE DRIVE SECURITY GATE Jasmine Tygre opened the public'hearing for the Maroon Creek Clubside Drive Security Gate. David Hoefer said that the notice had been provided. James Lindt stated that this proposal was for a PUD amendment to allow for a security gate at the entrance to Clubside Drive by Maroon Creek Construction, which severs 8 homes. Stafffelt that the proposal directly contradicted the PUD standards; the friendly level would be taken away by the placement of gates. Bill Itzla, Maroon Creek Construction, stated that this proposal should be viewed as one home on totally private property and was not maintained by the city, Itzla stated the gate was a very expensive gate with a remote or keypad and an unlocked pedestrian gate. Itzla recognized that there were 2 homes that were part of the PUD with gates already installed; he noted another property with a gate was Little Cloud. Itzla stated that these Clubside homeowners wanted the privacy of not having people from the Club park in front of their homes. Itzla stated that the emergency service said that the gate access was adequate and that they would provide the FCC signal/wavelength, which had been adopted in several states and 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -November 6, 2001 ADU Code Amendment dealt with existing units with mandatory occupancy (deed-restrictions); what to do with the already approved ADUs, which will be the next public hearing. Bendon explained the incentive of FAR was not very successful because it created a difficult enforcement; P&Z suggested deleting this from thc code 2 years ago. The ADUs that were detached were less likely to be used as an extra bedroom and were more likely to be used as intended. There were changes in the FAR and the concept was brought up of one additional square foot of additional FAR added to the main dwelling for every square foot of the ADU that was built above grade as an incentive; this ADU would be sold to a qualified resident. Bcndon said that the amendments were noted in the resolutions with color. Bert Myrin asked if the for sale unit would be detached and above grade. Bendon replied that the incentive for the for sale ADU would be the additional FAR and the community benefii for employee housing with in-fill. Roger Haneman asked how the lot splits would occur. Bendon replied that it could be condominized or used as a lot split. Myrin said that it could be designed for year round occupancy. No public comments. Ruth Kruger asked if this was an exercise in futility or would this program be used; she asked if this was another option for employee housing to be built. Bendon replied that he did not to want characterize this as an exercise in futility, someone might use this program and it would be a different way for an incentive program to be characterized. Bendon stated that this would be an actual for sale unit associated with rights without an enforcement issue. Eric Cohen said that the accessory unit was exempt from FAR and the free-market incentive was the additional square footage. Bendon said that the current system for occupancy did not allow control of who would be placed in the ADU and with a condOminium there would be more reliance placed on the units. Ron Erickson said that the off site unit buy downs should be accomplished in groups with prior homeowner approval. Erickson said that if there were parts of the resolution that needed refinement from the housing guidelines but on the whole was moving in the right direction for the ADU goals of this commission. Alan Richman suggested that the condominium association make it clear if they want deed-restricted units. Erickson stated that this should be a cautious undertaking with a clarification from the Housing Authority in the guidelines. Tygre stated that she agreed with Erickson on a successful buy down transaction with more 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -November 6~ 2001 adopted as code with several fire departments. Itzla explained the design of the gate and asked for the rights of the homeowners to put up a gate for security and protection of the children. lasmine Tygre stated that P&Z was required to look at the PUD amendments with specific criteria for an amendment to be approved. Ron Erickson asked the percentage of owner occupancy. Itzla responded that one was occupied full time and the rest were on an average of 6 months a year. Roger Haneman asked how many of the properties mentioned by the applicant were located in the city of Aspen and what approvals were needed. James Lindt replied that there were some single-family house that were gated but he did not know of any multiple homes that were gated; Little Cloud was located in the county. Lindt said that ifa single family home met all code requirements then the gate just needed approval from emergency services to be installed. Itzla said that Little Cloud was in the county but accessed an Aspen Road; there were the 2 off of Highway 82 that were part of the Maroon Creek PUD. James Lindt replied that Maroon Drive was in the county. ltzla stated that he understood the original amendment shied away from having a gated community but these people were not asking for the closure of any public roads or access; this was private property from Stage Road. Ron Erickson explained that he lived at the end of a public Street that dead-ended where many cars came up and turned around on their property but did not feel the need to put up a gate. Erickson said that there were adequate internal alternatives in the Clubside parking with the Maroon Creek Club that could be worked out. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved approve P&Z Resolution #40 series of 2001, approving the proposed amendment to the Maroon Creek Club Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the purpose of allowing for a security gate to be constructed at the entrance of Clubside Drive. Bert Myrin seconded. Roll call vote: Blaich, no; Cohen, no; Itaneman, no; Erickson, no; Myrin, no; Kruger, no; Tygre, no. DENIED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING: LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 26.520~ ADU - ELIMINATE MANDATORY OCCUPANCY FAR BONUS Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Code Amendments. David Hoefer stated that the notice was prOvided. Chris Bendon asked to introduce both Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Amendments but keep the discussions separate. Bendon stated that the basic difference was that the elimination of the mandatory occupancy FAR bonus was initiated by the city as a result of a work session between City Council, P&Z and the Housing Board. Bendon said that the private 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -November 6, 2001 ADU Code Amendment dealt with existing units with mandatory occupancy (deed-restrictions); what to do with the already approved ADUs, which will be the next public hearing. Bendon explained the incentive of FAR was not very successful because it created a difficult enforcement; P&Z suggested deleting this from the code 2 years ago. The ADUs that were detached were less likely to be used as an extra bedroom and were more likely to be used as intended. There were changes in the FAR and the concept was brought up of one additional square foot of additional FAR added to the main dwelling for every square foot of the ADU that was built above grade as an incentive; this ADU would be sold to a qualified resident. Bendon said that the amendments were noted in the resolutions with color. Bert Myrin asked if the for sale unit would be detached and above grade. Bendon replied that the incentive for the for sale ADU would be the additional FAR and the community benefit for employee housing with in-fill. Roger Haneman asked how the lot splits would occur. Bendon replied that it could be condominized or used as a lot split Myrin said that it could be designed for year round occupancy. No public comments. Ruth Kruger asked if this was an exercise in futility or would this program be used; she asked if this was another option for employee housing to be built. Bcndon replied that he did not to want characterize this as an exercise in futility, someone m~ght use this program and it would be a different way for an incentive program to be characterized. Bendon stated that this would be an actual for sale unit associated with rights without an enforcement issue. Eric Cohen said that the accessory unit was exempt from FAR and the free-market incentive was the additional square footage. Bendon said that the current system for occupancy did not allow control o£who would be placed in the ADU and with a condominium there would be more reliance placed on the units. Ron Erickson said that the off site unit buy downs should be accomplished in groups with prior homeowner approval. Erickson said that if there were parts of the resolution that needed refinement from the housing guidelines but on the whole was moving in the fight direction for the ADU goals of this commission. Alan Richman suggested that the condominium association make it clear if they want deed-restricted units. Erickson stated that this should be a cautious undertaking with a clarification from the Housing Authority in the guidelines. Tygre stated that she agreed with Erickson on a successful buy down transaction with more 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -November 6, 2001 information documented from thc Housing Authority. Tygre stated that long time locals were more likely to house employees. Tygre stated that she was appalled by the mandatory occupancy on an ethical basis and was happy that this code amendment came forward. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve PZ Resolution//01-41 recommending approval of the City-initiated amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Program eliminating the mandatory occupancy provision, amending the Floor Area incentives available for the ADU's and allowing off-site affordable housing provision to exempt single-family and duplex development from growth management. Bert Myrin seconded. Roll call vote: Kruger, yes; Myrin, yes; Erickson, yes; Cohen, yes; Blaich, yes; Haneman, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 7-0. Ron Erickson recommended that the Housing Authority include in the guidelines language for clarification for buy downs of existing free-market units, including prior approval from the existing condominium associations or a certificate of no negative effects. Erickson stated that this recommendation was to go to Housing and City Council. Haneman said that he felt that this should was the responsibility of the homeowners' association and not at the P&Z level. Erickson said that he stated that the associations could be more proactive than reactive in the by-laws. Cohen said that this would put a roadblock for the sales of units. Bendon replied that Jasmine was on the right track because it keeps the unit affordable. Blaich stated that he was positive on this recommendation to Housing. The commission was in favor of this recommendation. Bendon stated that there were a series of recommendations to the housing guidelines that will be generated from the In-fill Committee. PUBLIC HEARING: LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 26.520, ADU - AMENDING EXISITNG MANDATORY OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTIONS Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the private sector code amendment. David Hoefer stated that the proof of notice was provided. Chris Bendon stated that Kenneth and Linda Lay were the applicants represented by Alan Richman and Nick McGrath. Bendon said this code amendment dealt with the existing ADUs and enforcement of mandatory deed-restricted ADUs. Bendon stated that currently there was no language in the code for the option ofunrestricting the ADU and retain the main residence's square footage. Bendon said that there were many lists of deed- restricted units (128-134 existing ADUs). There were 11 ADUs under 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -November C 2001 construction, 1 was in the permitting process and 2 in the land use approval process; 2 were mandatory occupancy. Bendon said that there were very few mandatory occupancy units. Bendon said that one thought was to move the mandatory deed-restriction from one ADU to another ADU or pay a cash-in-lieu difference from the current Housing Authority.' This cash-in-lieu would be a system where the market value of the square footage would be calculated and that amount given to the city. There was a need in this process for an exemption of non-conforming structures because a FAR exemption was received and built out once the deed restriction was lifted. Bendon noted that they were looking for in-fill ADUs. Bendon noted that there were 2 resolutions, versions A and B, which were identical except for the process. The cash-in-lieu would be the responsibility of the Housing Authority and it was not really necessary to come back to P&Z. Alan Richman stated that it was a code amendment that would apply to 2 or 3 units; this application originally came to P&Z in 1998 by the Branding Group and it was built in 1999. Richman stated that the Branding Group agreed to the mandatory occupancy in exchange for the FAR bonus. Richman stated the applicantS, Mr. & Mrs. Lay, purchased the property after it was built in November 1999. He said that they bought this house without knowledge of the ADU deed- restriction, which was not in the recorded deed. Richman stated the applicants understood the FAR bonus and they have been trying to figure out how to give back at least equal value to the community for what they received. Richman said that they looked at a structural answer to the problem by removing the floor of the ADU, which would add 300 square feet of additional FAR and cash-in4ieu could be paid for mitigation. .Richrnan said that the benefit to community was this proposal; he mentioned that the way the language was written it was either the P&Z or Housing that would approve the cash-in-lieu. Richman stated that the off-site tmit proposal could be done; an example was the Auger project with the ADU off-site. The amendment would require the unit to be comparable in square footage. Ron Erickson asked if the cash-in-lieu payment was based on what was given up or what the floor area actually was: Richman replied that it was based on the actual appraised value of the floor area that was created. The commission discussed the process of the code amendment with the approving body being P&Z or Housing. The commission agreed upon Version B of the resolution for adoption. Ron Erickson stated that he was disappointed that this ADU would be taken away because it was the most beautiful ADU ever built. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -November 6, 2001 MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve P&Z Resolution #01-42 recommending approval of the privately -initiated amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program creating a process by which mandatory occupancy ADU deed restrictions may be lifted while maintaining bonus square footage on the property as discussed in Option B. Ron Erickson seconded. Roll call vote: Kruger, yes; Erickson, yes; Haneman, yes; Cohen, yes; Blaich, yes; Myrin, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 7-0 PUBLIC HEARING: LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 26.435.040, STREAM MARGIN MAP and AMENDMENT TO REVIEW AUTHORITY Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. David Hoefer stated that the notice was provided. James Lindt stated that this hearing was to consider a code amendment to the Stream Margin Review Section with 3 objectives. The first objective was to amend the authority to an administrative review by the Community Development Director. Stafffelt the review standards were objective and non-discretionary; the Roaring Fork River has been mapped in 5 sections, which should alleviate the top of slope disputes. The 100-year floodplain was also delineated on the maps as well as the high water lines and would be adopted as the official stream margin. The third objective was to reorganize the standards without substantial changes. Bank stabilization was a new addition. Lindt stated that if an applicant did not agree with the Director's decision, then the applicant would come before P&Z. The city engineer could require bank stabilization and the director's sign-off. Erickson asked if the map had been opened for public scrutiny other than this hearing. Lindt replied that Sopris Engineering and GIS along with engineering developed the map. Erickson voiced concern for the top of slope being disputed. David Hoefer noted that this would go onto City Council for public hearing. No public comments. MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to approve P&Z Resolution #43, series 2001, recommending that City Council approve the Code Amendments that will reorganize the Stream Margin Review Section, give the Community Development Director decision-making authority on Roaring Fork River Stream Margin Review Applications and the adoption of the Stream Margin Map as the official determination of top of slope and the high water line for properties on the Roaring Fork River. Ron Erickson seconded. Roll call vote: Kruger;yes; Myrin, yes.; Blaich, yes; Cohen, yes; Haneman, yes; Erickson, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 7-0. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -November 6, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING: LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 26.480~ SUBDIVISION- WITHOUT GMQS Jasmine Tygre opened the public heating and David Hoefer stated the notice was received. Chris Bendon explained this code amendment originally came in froTM the Villas of Aspen, which the process would allow subdivision of land prior to going through Growth Management. Bendon stated that there were several options from the work session of a range of the process. Typically there would be a subdivision packaged with the rezoning, Growth Management and PUD. There were 3 options (~) the selected option, which would allow a property zoned AH/PUD to go through a subdivision process prior to any Growth Management Allotments; (~) would allow a conceptual PUD to go through a subdivision process prior to any Growth Management Allotments ® no change the process at all. Bendon stated that there were larger pieces of land with clear development potential that would have significant value with this code amendment. Bendon said that the changes were actually minimal with sections that described prohibited subdivisions; language was included for exemption. Joyce Ohlson stated that there was more of a distinct line between subdivision and PUD; looking for a more conceptual development at first. Bendon explained that the first conceptual would provide enough information to make a decision. David Hoe£er stated that it did not guarantee development rights because there would still have to have an application made to the city. No public comments. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve P&Z Resolution #01-44 recommending approval of the Subdivision amendments creating a process to subdivide land for affordable housing prior to Growth Management approval. Eric Cohen seconded. Roll Call vote: Haneman, yes; Erickson, yes; Kruger, yes; Myrin, no; Cohen, yes; Blaich, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-1. Meeting adjourned at 6:55 pm. ~ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 8