Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19871208 fl - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING , ZONING DECEMBER 8.1987 vice Chairman Roger Hunt called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were David White, Roger Hunt, Ramona Markalunas and Michael Herron. Jim Colombo was excused. Welton Anderson, Jasmine Tygre and Mari Peyton arrived shortly after roll call. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Ramona: The hauling of snow to the MAA parking lot. The parking lot belongs to the Institute. There is great objection to it in the west end as far as the owners are concerned. Plus one of the parking lots is being used as a construction yard. Work starts there at 6:30 in the morning. We have semi trucks and trailers parked in there. I don't think there has been any permission granted from the owner of the lot or the agent of the owner of the lot. I don't think construction lots are permitted in the west end. I just wonder if the Building Department or somebody can't do something about this. Alan: I am wonde ring why the owne r hasn't done someth ing about it himself. I can ask the Building Department about this. Roger: I was just wondering what the status is of the Texaco Development. Alan: There is an application on hand to amend that. That is not the steps- Roger: Your are right. Alan: We don't have anything on that. We are expecting an application. Right now we have got an enforcement action in on that. We expect an application but have not received it. We have received an application on the courtyard of Texaco which is out of compliance. Welton: How is it out of compliance? Alan: Materials mostly. And they want to reduce some of the benches. Nothing dramatic. STAFF COMMENTS Alan: On the 22nd you will be rescoring 700 South Galena/Summit Place. PZMI2.8.87 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6. 1987 Roger: When I indicate that a motion is based on the conditions of a Planning Office memo, I think it would be better if that motion included the conditions of the Planning Office in the minutes. Roger then made a motion to approve the minutes of October 6, 1987 with corrections. Ramona Seconded the motion with all in favor. SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN PARK SPA/POD AMENDMENT Steve Burstein: I would like first to present to you the drawing that the applicant submitted. It shows pretty clearly what they are proposing to do. This is the Gibson entry into the mobile home park. And at the present time on the plat there are 37 spaces that are designated as guest and long range parking. They would like instead move 7 spaces up a little bit abutting the dumpster enclosure. Rather than provide 37 spaces in this configuration they are proposing to provide 7 spaces. I would like to point out that there are some other guest parking spaces throughout the park. The referral comments that came in were positive. The Engineer- ing Department felt that because the on-site parking for each of the mobile home spaces, there are at least 2 or 3 spaces. I verified that. They feel that the parking should be adequate. The Police Department also took a look at the situation and reported that they haven't perceived great problems with vehicles being parked in haphazard way or other problems with long term parking. Environmental Health recommended paving and there is an EPA water sampling well which also has to be protected. The Planning Office supports the requested amendment. There is on-site parking in the area with the lack of any apparent parking problem at this time. The Homeowners Association survey showed that there is a very good majority that favors this approach and the positive trade off of parking for open space of that strip would then be usable open space and would be a common element area for the rest of the park. We thought that it was reasonable to make that plat amendment at this time. The Fire Marshal had not yet had a chance to look at this and he recommended that there be a 5 ft opening area and that it be delineated with some pipes. What that does is it requires them to move 2 spaces down. The space is 67 by 5 ft. I 2 PZMI2.8.87 wrote up a revision to the recommendation just to show the 5 ft. We are recommending approval subject to those conditions. Brooke Peterson: On behalf of the people in the park I think that the conditions that Steve has asked for are acceptable and we have no problem with them except for one. I have not had the opportunity to discuss with the City Attorney's Office or with the title company--if there is a vehicle by which we might accomplish this without in fact filing an amended plat. The reason for that is that that plat may, because of the conveyance of all the individual lots, require the signature of all the homeowners and all of their lenders which would be a logistical nightmare. The Homeowners Association does not own everything on that plat anymore. When we did the first amendment, we did own it and we were contemplating and discussing the issue of parking but the timing was such that the parking issue could not be resolved prior to our absolute necessity to get all the individual lots conveyed out because of the fact that we had to payoff the 2 million dollar loan. Michael: Isn't this a condominium? Brooke: No. It is a subdivision with a homeowner's association retaining ownership of the common area. However all of the owners of the deeds in the park have rights in that association as do all of their lenders. I am not objecting to filing the amended plat if that is the most expeditious way of doing it. If I have to get the signature of every lender who loaned money to all of those people to buy those lots and all the signatures of all the owners then we have got a problem. Welton: Is that a legal matter or is that something that is covered in the by-laws of the joint ownership agreement declaration. Brooke: It is a 2/3rds situation to amend the plat but what you are dealing with is more to amend the covenants. Then it is a situation that I am just not sure of and I would just like the Board to recognize if there is a possibility of accomplishing this without filing an amended plat, I would like that not to be a requirement. If it is the only way to do it, then fine, we will do it. But if you could put some language in your recommendation that we can file an amended plat meeting the standards unless the 3 PZMI2.8.87 City Attorney's Office determines there is another method to accomplish this. That is all I am looking for--some leeway. Roger: I am a little worried about different ways of amending plats. There is a reason for amending plats and that is to get it on record and whatever the necessary legal activities are concerned here and if we have a plat that is not so amended. Then what does the City have of record? Brooke: Roger, I didn't say I was going to file anything of record. All I want is leeway not to have to file an amended plat if there is some other way to do it. We are going to put it of record. It is a question of not having to do a third one of those documents. Roge r: Yea, but pa r t of the records are in our Engineering Department and things like that and what is a legitimate plat and what is not such a legitimate plat? And I don't want to get into that gray area. Enough goes through the holes in this City Hall already that we don't need another method of a leak. Michael: If we approve it, why can't we approve it subject to a restriction that the City Attorney is going to have to approve the method. He would have a tremendous problem to go out to each individual lot owner and ask them to sign it. Roger: That is true. method of ownership. But part of that is their choice in their Why should the problem be on the City? Brooke: I am not trying to put it on the City's back. All I am trying to do is have the leeway to do it if there is a way to accomplish it without having to do an amended plat. I am not trying to get around anything or get away from anything. But it is a logistical nightmare if I have to get all those signatures. Roger: When we looked at this whole thing, we felt that 37 spaces were necessary. Maybe conditions have changed but what about the future? My concern is that the impacts of this development should be handled primarily on property and if those 37 spaces are needed in the future, I would like to see that handled on property as opposed to being displaced off property. Why shoUld not the City be able to require the homeowners to increase the parking as originally agreed to? Brooke: We did the original plat in 1982. When the Association purchased the property. We had not moved the trailers to reconfigure the deal with the street situation. Since that period of time the most substantial change condition in the park has been that there has been a tremendous increase in owner 4 PZMI2.8.87 occupied units as opposed to rental units. There is a provision in our protective covenants that requires all of the owners to park all of the vehicles that belong to people that are occupants of any improvements on their lots either on the lot or on the common area next to the lot which is why the streets were widened. So we are dealing fundamentally with the issue of guest parking and it has become apparent at this point in time that we have the mechanism within the protective covenants to control the situation if it becomes a problem. Secondly, the Association is not giving up ownership of this common space. If it becomes necessary to utilize it for open space, fine. But right now what we are faced with is a require- ment to pave that land by the City. They are saying "We want that land paved and we want those parking spaces put in". Now we think it is a better use of the property to keep it as open space and not pave it. Roger: OK, I won't disagree with you at this time but the problem I see is, yes, the homeowners can take care of what is happening in this park. But let's say there is someone here who has more than the number of vehicles he could put on his proper- ty. Well, his alternative is basically going on the City streets external to the park. David: Look at this closer. What it is, Roger, is that there is a big parking space that they are not using. They want to make it simply green space. Roger: I have a problem with that. David: There is enough extra storage space through here. If you have ever been through the park you would see. Roger: I have been through the park. David: There are many, many more than they understand why we have to go on about this. problem. It is an easy problem to solve in five need. I don't It is not a big minutes. Brooke: I don't think the City is going to know any more than the Association does. And I think the Association of the people in the park are going to know if there is a problem and they are the ones who are going to be obligated to come forward to maybe add 10 more. Roger: OK, but the Association isn't going to know is occurring on the streets accessory to the park. Association care about the streets accessory to the if the impact Nor does the park. ''-...... 5 PZMI2.8.87 Brooke: That statement I will disagree with you on. The Association certainly cares what its neighborhood looks like. The Association spent a tremendous amount of money cleaning up this area. Roger: And I will grant that. Brooke: Then I think it is unfair to them to say that they don't care what the neighborhood looks like. Roger: Well, I have to look at it as any developer. David: I think you are one of six people. Jasmine: I think Roger's concern about the fact that perhaps in the future there might be a need as yet unforseen to the streets being used for parking spaces because of this open space and I am just wondering whether we could, as a way of protecting that, insure that through the Engineering Department that those changes be designated as no parking space. If they already are then there is no way that they could ever become--because that is a City enforcement thing like any other no parking area in the City. So then those streets could not, in fact, take the overflow. So then I think that the City is safe regardless of the fact of Roger's concern that any future potential overflow would go onto the streets. So, therefore, it is a mute point. Fred: What I would suggest is that you go through the amended plat process subject to determining whether or not the title company is going to require individual signatures of property owners and the lenders or be willing to accept on behalf of the Association signature from the President of the Association. If that is what is necessary, then it would accomplish it in one easy stroke. In talking with Alan, we are going to require an amended plat. But how we could accomplish it in terms of the language I think is subject to a lot of flexibility. Brooke: All I am looking for is the flexibility. MOTION Planning Office recommendations attached. Dav id: saying etc., I I will make a motion to that effect. On n instead of "An amended plat shall be recorded meeting the standard would refer that to the City Attorneys. Fred: Why don't you just make a motion amending--if the Commiss- ion determines that they want to adopt the amended plat subject to the recommendations of the Planning Department. I would just 6 PZMI2.8.87 include in your motion that it also be subject to consultation between the Attorney's Office and Brooke Peterson regarding the requirements for signatures on the plat. Wel ton: Just add on to the motion "An amended plat shall be recorded meeting the standards of Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney" . Mari seconded the motion. Roger: I will support this if #4 is also amended to read "In the event that the City of Aspen or the Mobile Homeowner's Assoc- iation requires that parking spaces for guests or long term parking are needed, the latter shall initiate an amendment to the SPA plan creating additional spaces". David: I think what he is trying to say is that the spaces that they are taking out can be brought back. To me what he is saying is that they should do another SPA creating additional spaces. Roger: If it is necessary to have additional spaces, yea. David: Which would mean that they would have to go through the whole SPA procedure. I think what your intent is is that if these 30 spaces of the 37 are taken away and some more needed they can take them right back from where the 30 are instead of going through the whole SPA. I don't think that is what the mobile home park wants and I don't think P&Z wants it. I would amend it to say that they go back to the same 30. The 30 that they are taking away are the same ones that they bring back, not going through a whole SPA to create additional parking spaces. Michael: What he is asking you to do is make it the City's decision, not the home owners. Brooke: That is what I object to. I have a problem with the City saying to us that we have to go through and amend our plat. We don't perceive that there is a problem. Roger: Here is our problem. Brooke: Roger, how many things do you want the City to enforce? This is a group of people. This is not a typical developer si tuation. This is a group of people who I ive in this park. I am not here representing somebody from out of town or even in town that is going to sell these things and move away. These are the people who live there. I think there is some credence that ought to be given. They are the ones who pay attention to what 7 PZMI2.8.87 is going on up there. Not the City Engineer's Department--not anything else. The only reason that we are in here is because the people in the park want this amendment. And because someone determined that they need to put asphalt on top of what has fundamentally been green space for the last 10 years. Welton: There is a motion on the floor and a second. Is there any further discussion? All voted in favor of the motion with the exception of Roger. VESTED RIGHTS ORDINANCE Alan Richman: About 8 week weeks ago we were before the Commiss- ion--myself and Gideon Kaufman--dealing with a request by the ute Avenue people to amend a portion of the code regarding the expiration of allotments. As we were working through that we put you on notice that the Governor had signed the Vested Rights Law and that our work on that expiration needed to take into consideration that new Vested Rights Law. And we came back to you with some amendments that dealt with the provisions of that law but really did not implement the law in its entirety. In fact that amendment was adopted by City Council by Ordinance at their last meeting so that aspect is done. But Paul, at that same hearing on November 23rd brought forward the ordinances in your packet. The Council granted it at first reading subject to your seeing it between first reading and second reading so that they can grant final approval. The reason for the time concern is that the Vested Rights Law goes into effect as of the first of the year and if the City doesn't adopt local legislation with respect to the law, then we are subject to State legislation. So we wanted to have local legislation in effect by the first of the year. This proposal before you does some very important things in addition to what we did in terms of growth management. We made it clear in growth management allotment would not expire until 3 years after the final approval of that allotment. What this regulation says, it deals with site specific development plans which our prev ious regulation did. It def ines vested rights and it uses the language of the State statute very clearly to do so. But what it does it incorporates the provisions of the State legislation regarding notice of hear ing. And those will have significant impacts on the way that we, as a group, do business around here. 8 PZMI2.8.87 Essentially we have to do everything by public hearing from now on. All final approvals granted by the Planning & Zoning Commission, that is anything that you are recommending by final approval has to be done at a public hearing. Furthermore any final approval granted by the P&Z can no longer be done by motion. It has to be done by resolution. That obviously adds paper work plus the time and some cost. But that is what the State Legislature has imposed on us by requiring that when approval is granted it is not simply something that the next day the City can say "Well we change our mind, we would like to reconsider". Once an approval is granted, that approval is in place for years. It requires publication in the newspaper that this vested property right has been granted. Paul has chosen to use the vehicle of the Resolution for City P&Z and for the HPC and the ordinance for City Council. That will put the Clerk's Office on notice that within 7 days of the day of adoption of that vested property right the we must go ahead and publish. If we don't publish that the vested property right has been put in place then that 3 year time clock doesn't start running. The State Legislature has been very clear with us that we have to put the community on notice that we have approved a property right that is going to be in a legal property right. So things are going to happen in more of a legalistic framework where we take actions on a final approval basis. That means that special review applications, 8040 Greenlines, stream margin reviews, utility and trash reductions and condition use. In as many cases a possible when we have straight forward application, we are going to bring the resolutions at the time we bring the memorandum. The County has been working in a way that is very similar to this. The County does everything by resolution. Nothing is done by motion. If the one you just did was a final action and it were in the County, you would make that motion and then 2 weeks later we would return with a resolution that clarifies what you said. We will try as much as we can to bring those at the same time so that you can approve by resolution and not have to delay an applicant for 2 weeks and not have to cause your agendas to elongate because of resolutions. As far as the public hearing notice goes, the legislature did give us a break that notice only has be in the paper. It does not have to be the property owners of any particular distance. That is the costly part of public hearing notice. Fred: Within 14 days following the resolution it must be published in the paper of local circulation. ,",,, 9 PZMI2.8.87 "- Alan: So those are the maj or things that this ordinance does. They have a lot of effect on us in terms of the way that we have to do business. Michael: On page 2 of the Ordinance i tsel fit tal ks about Planning and Zoning and historical. Alan: I mentioned that to Fred. I think we will probably just eliminate that as a function of P&Z and say "Shall be by written resolution." That is an error in the ordinance. Paul and I have discussed that if someone is not interested in hav ing a property right vest--they are not conce rned about the technical rights and not worried about the City adopting legis- lation 6 months later, they can waive these procedures and not go through public hearing and not require the resolution to be adopted. We will in our preapplication meetings now make applicants aware of this opportunity. Fred: It is really a double edged sword. It is unquestionably a developer's lobby that promulgated this legislation. But it has been coming up before the legislature for the last 10 or 15 years. And at the last legislature where it was passed they sort of turned the tables on the developers by putting in language that allows the local governing body to determine at what point they want to have the right vest. Alan: Clearly it eliminates some of the feeling of reliance at the conceptual level. We have picked the latest stage feel ing that a property right should not vest until final approvals are granted. Fred: To follow up on that one point, if you do grant approval and there is a subsequent discovery of a natural hazard which had been previously undiscovered, that discovery in and of itself may constitute grounds for withdrawing the approval because of it. So there is a safety catch in there too that allows you to back out. Alan: The other part of the double edge sword is that while this does vest a right for 3 years, on 3 years and I day that right expi res. So that is the other side of this thing. We have been working at the code provision process at developing some expir- ation provisions. They have all been eliminated from this draft now and they will be superceded by this language. There is really no need for any other expiration provisions. Welton then opened the public hearing. 10 PZMI2.8.87 There were no public comments. Welton closed the public hearing. Fred: We went to a Municipal Attorney's seminar on this subject. Other town that have tried to adopt local vesting rights ordin- ances had stated the waiver provision were exercised far more frequently than they had ever imagined. And once the word is out that an applicant could avoid a lot of this bureaucratic hassle that is going to accompany this kind of legislation, they are going to elect not to. If they choose the waiver what we may include in the waiver is a release. The release being is that I hereby elect to waive the vested right process adopted by ordinance and release the City from any and all obligations. What we need to do is draft within the waiver of release that does not create a longer period or a greater ambiguity that already exist. It should be of record. It becomes really an educational tool. Upon an applicant picking up a packet that they become aware that this is a benefit to them but it can also be a burden. And they need to weigh the choice and elect which way to go. Roger: This vested right is only during the development period of the project? In other words it has no effect once the project has been developed. Fred: Yes. Once it is built out, vested right evaporates. They have already exercised the right. Fred: For instance in the building permit there is a UBC regulation that is in effect right now as to how long that stays. So if they were looking for a building permit on an 8040 or stream margin review we would just have an appropriate line that by waiver, etc. There would be enough blanks inserted there that you could put the appropriate language in and the numbers and dates. Alan: It could be in the application packet. In addition to the cover sheet that we now have that is part of the application packet the requirement that the owner provide an authorization to have a representative act on his behalf which is something that the Attorney's Office has added, we will require this. MOTION Roger: I move to pass the recommended ordinance on to Council 11 PZMI2.8.87 with our recommendation of approval and suggested amendment on page 2. (Attached in records) Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. CODE SIMPLIFICATION - ARTICLES S , 6 Welton opened the public hearing. Discussion then followed regarding Articles 5 & 6. Welton then continued the public hearing to December IS, 1987. Meeting was adjourned at 7:00 12 Deputy Clerk