Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19880705 ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 5. 1988 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30 pm. Answering roll call were Jasmine Tygre, Jim Colombo, Peyton, David White, Welton Anderson and Michael Herron. Hunt and Ramona Markalunas were late. Mari Roge r COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Welton asked Commission that the last 2 items on the agenda be reversed as he was stepping down from Lee stream Margin Review because of conflict of interest. STAFF COMMENTS l.. Torn Baker: 2 meetings ago Michael specifically asked for an update on the RFTA bus purchases. Bruce: The RFTA Board has decided to pursue the acquisition of 2 separate fleets. We will be acquiring 5 vehicles similar in nature to the Snowrnass Village vans for utilization on the City routes during the Fall and Spring. And we will be acquiring real busses for use on the City routes for and during the winter and summer when our capacity requirements are higher. However those busses will be smaller than any we have in the pool right now. We anticipate delivery this winter. Mari: Are any of the NEOs going to be taken out of service any time soon? Bruce: No. We utilize the NEOs on the valley routes and we need them. Those are the only services those NEOs are used on. Mar i: I have noticed a lot of long idling. Are you working on that? Bruce: We have put out a couple of memos to the drivers and to the supervisors and they are working on this. There are 5 Snowmass Village van conversion busses and the capacity on those is roughly 18, standing 24. The 5 smaller busses we are trying to get seating capacity of 28 or 29, standing capacity in the upper 30 or lower 40s because we have a need for those capacities occasionally. ,r~ The total fleet right now is 43 and it will be expanding to 48. If the flexes are not sold for revenue then the fleet will be expanding to 53. '. "-- PZM7.5.88 Welton: You have got more busses than anybody in the valley. Bruce: We also anticipate bringing on Aspen Highlands for their skier shuttle services. MINUTES OF JUNE 7. 1988 Jasmine moved to approve these minutes. The motion died for lack of a second as not enough members were present who had attended the 7th meeting to vote on the motion. RESOLUTION 17. 1988 BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE REZONING MOTION Jasmine: I move to approve the resolution recommending denial of the request for rezoning of the Bell Mountain Lodge property, Resolution #7, 1988. Mari seconded the motion. Michael: I prepared the minor ity report on this. Jim Colombo, Ramona and I were of a mind to prepare a resolution approving it. I want to pass out copies to everybody. Basically it is the same format as the resolution proposed by the Planning Department with the exception of denying this application, it approves the application. We spent a lot of time going over this. I think that this is the classic example of spot zoning where we are taking one piece of property in the middle of 98 different things, a lot of which are office use and we are saying this has to be a lodge. If thi s was in a district where everything was a lodge and this was one lodge that was looking at change then maybe the citations that Joe Edwards set forth would be applicable, I don't think the area is applicable to this situation. I basically feel that this is a neighborhood with a little bit of everything in it and rezoning it to Office which was the zoning that it was before it became LP, it is not doing harm to anybody and as a matter of fact may be an advantage because it is certainly a lesser impact on the neighborhood than maintaining it as a lodge. We are talking about putting up 2 units there as opposed to the 27 that are there now. Wel ton: This resolution doesn't say that it cannot be anything r other than LP. It says that 0 and C-l are not at this time 2 PZM7.5.88 deemed to be appropriate and that we discussed the possibility of several other options for zoning for that parcel or restrictions on the zoning for that parcel so there was never any claim on the part of the majority who voted for the motion that it couldn't be anything other than a lodge--only that there were serious problems with the 2 proposals that were on the table and we were more than willing to talk about other proposals. Sunny: The apparent intention of the majority of the P&Z is that the appropriate use of this corner is a lodge and it should remain a lodge regardless of proposals which have been submitted to date. With that in mind findings have been made that would help the Planning Office are obviously designed to find that 0- Office and Cl are not consistent and that L-3 should remain and L-P should remain. Given that intention I think there would be no point in us continuing to debate these issues. We obviously don't agree with your findings and we will simply take this reso at this time and continue our arguments with City Council who will make the final decision. ---- Jasmine: I think the point that you made, Welton, in terms of the fact that it was not necessarily our intent that although it would be nice to have it a lodge, that that was the only thing we felt that was appropriate on that site. And I think that is an important part of the record. I feel that should be included in some fashion. I am not sure that that point in our deliberation carne across in the resolution itself. Maybe that can be conveyed to City Council by somebody on the Planning staff. Welton: DO you want to design another "whereas" stating that whereas the Commission doesn't feel that L-P is the only zoning, that the proposals brought forth by the applicants were not considered appropriate. Jasmine: I think that the Commission has a preference for L-3 zoning. But it is not feasible and that there might be other zone categories that would be appropriate whereas the ones that were submitted were not in the judgement of the Commission. Mari: I don't agree with including that. I don't think it is up to us to speculate on what else might be welcome. We are only supposed to make a review on what has been requested. Welton: I think it is important to have it in the record because the applicant is going to make a point at Council that perhaps we are spot zoning and what Mickey just said--spot zoning and not " allowing it to be anything but L-P. That was not my intention in 3 PZM7.5.88 the hours of deliberation that it only be locked into L-P forever. Michael: All of the conversations that we had--at least I got the impression from everybody who was against the rezoning--was based upon the fact that you wanted to have it be a lodge and nothing else. You like the lodge. You thought small lodges were good in the neighborhood. I seems to me now you are picking up another point to backtrack and justify the decision. Welton: If you want to go back and look at the record of proceedings, on at least 4 occasions I said 0 with restrictions to certain office uses but no high-end residential uses or N-C or a lot of other possibilities were out there. We were voting on 2 or nothing. And to say that I didn't say that in the past and it wasn't discussed in the past is not accurate. Michael: Can we say it is going to be 0 with a restriction that it can only be Office Zone? Are we allowed to create our own zone like that? Welton: The applicant is able to corne in with any request they want. We can make suggestions. - Jasmine: I think that a lot of the discussion that may have been a matter of emphasis I think that I certainly would prefer to see it be a lodge. But that that was not the only appropriate change. One of the things we did discuss during the previous meetings was the appropriateness of our suggesting what type of zoning we thought would be appropriate and we made the decision that that was not a good thing for us to do but that did corne up. And that was part of the discussion so I think that we were considering these other things and we thought it would be much cleaner to look at it specifically on the basis of the proposals that the applicant had made as opposed to what it is now. And I think that is why it carne about the way it did. Welton: There is a motion on the floor and a second. Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Jim Colombo and Michael Herron. MOTION Jim: I would like to make a motion to approve the minority resolution. Michael seconded the motion. " 4 PZM7.5.88 Jasmine: I don't see how we can approve both resolutions. Jim: But it will be on record as being voted on. Jasmine: But I don't think it would be appropriate to do it in the form of a resolution. Ramona: I think it would be appropr iate just to hand in a minority opinion the way we have always done. Cindy: The way it has been done in the past a minority opinion in the form of an opinion statement was passed on to the Council. Michael: Then I withdraw my second. Jim: I withdraw my motion. CBS SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING -- Welton opened the public hearing. Cindy made presentation as attached in Planning Office memo dated July 5, 1988 and also with the use of video. The Eng ineer ing Department recommended that the alley between Main Street and Hopkins be paved. They made that as a recommendation in their referral comments. I went ahead and made it a condition of approval in my comments. However, in further discussions with Jay, he doesn't know that we can actually require them to pave the alley because it is not a new subdivision with a new alley. Therefor, in my conditions of approval #5 we are not going to make that a condition of approval. They are using the FAR that is available on the site. Everything they have proposed is legitimate with regard to the code and therefore the office really did not have a lot to add. We went through the criteria with regard to the Land Use Plan and with regard to the neighborhood and it suits the neighborhood with mixed and multi-structures. I would like to add into condition #3 that there is some concern over whether or not the sewer line to the property needs to be repaired. That would not only benefit the applicant but would benefit the entire neighborhood that is on the main line. The " ' appl i cants are only requi red unde r code really to put in these 5 ( '\ PZM7.5.88 service lines that are required. But the Aspen Consolidated Land District feels that because there are some breaks on the main line the applicant should be responsible for helping repair those. So I put an addition to B which says "In addition the applicant and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District shall corne to an agreement with regard to the applicant's fair share of the improvement to the main sewer line. This shall be accomplished prior to the City Council review for final plat". Sunny: I think the memo Cindy prepared is self explanatory. I would explain why we are proposing to move the lot lines. This is a separate parcel currently and we could simply build a duplex on that site. But because it is 7 lots instead of 6 we would wind up with 1 lot of 9,000 sqft and if built out to allowable FAR would have a fairly substantial structure. So an attempt has been made to spread out the lot size between the lots so that from a visual perspective the structures are more uniform. With respect to the alley the applicants most likely will pave the alley. There are benefits to them for doing so. Our only concern was it not be made a mandatory condition because there is not pr ecedence for it in simila r type pr oj ects. We want it removed as a mandatory condition. '- The sewer: In preparing the application I obtained a letter from Heiko Kuhn that service is adequate to provide for the project and that the lines and treatment plant are OK. Subsequent to that date the San District's new engineering firm TV'd the lines in the alley and down the street. They found a couple of areas where there are problems with the main. It is cracked from use in the alley. And as such the Planning Office and the Sanitation District have recommended as a condition of approval that we be responsible for fixing that break. I talked to the Sanitation District Engineer. They are looking for somebody to pay for the line so the San District doesn't have to pay for it. They are very candid about it. Our only concern is that our payment be some type of pro-rata share since it benef i ts a number of other proj ects. PI us I que s t ion the fairness of requiring the applicant to do it if the applicant is being taxed to pay for San District type improvements. Why am I turning around again and paying for the line itself. We will continue to discuss the matter with the San District prior to final plat. Jasmine: I get confused with units vs. bedrooms. And the replacement units vs. new units and how this effects GMP. " 6 PZM7.5.88 Cindy: They are units and not bedrooms. An habitable unit on the site, we don't count the number of bedrooms in the unit. If you had a I-bedroom unit house on the corner here you could potentially replace it with a 3-bedroom. It is just FAR. Sunny: The argument being that the I-bedroom house could be expanded in its current location with whatever is allowed under zoning. Cindy: The place where I think bedrooms corne into play is when we are looking at credit or the cost of cash-in-lieu in GMP. Jasmine: But I think that it also has an ef fect on Growth Management. If you are replacing 6 I-bedroom units with 6 3- bedroom units, obviously they are not exactly the same thing and they are all implications in terms of density. This procedure does not address this. Sunny: We have sufficient information to verify 12 separate units on this property. And they are being replaced with 6. I didn't count all the bedrooms. Some of them are multiple bedrooms. - Jasmine: It is not even so much in regard to this application. But I see other applications like this in the future and I think that when we get into situations like this we are somehow losing control of GMP. More often than not when something like this comes up we are, in fact, getting greater density which is not accounted for in GMP and should be. David: What we are seeing is what we would call more permanent resident properties being bought and developed for speculation to high-end non-residential townhouses, condominiums--whatever. It seems that they can go without going through GMP. And what this is is development. It is not building residential homes for the permanent community. It is total str ict development which is supposed to go through GMP. And somewhere along the line, this is where we have a glitch in the code and wherever we have a glitch in the code is where all the development goes. You can take a look back and see where they are but every time we have one, that is where it all funnels into quick. And then we have to figure out some way to close it up. I' Cindy: The only way we could close it up in this regard is at condominiumization. The time these individuals want to corne and condominiumize these units there is an affordable housing impact fee that is paid. That is how we get the affordable housing aspect of the replacement units. That is only if they want to condominiumize. 7 PZM7.5.88 Sunny: Growth Management only does one issue. It regulates the r ate of new growth in terms of the numbe r of units and the impacts that corne on line. If you want to use growth management to also regulate loss to so-called high end residential, that is a separate issue altogether. The interesting thing about this is the density will be less in terms of number of units. David: But the issue with growth management was growth. Now, all those people that have been separated from living which are all the local people in almost every single one of those houses there, they were all locals. They all have to find someplace else to live. So there is growth because they have to find someplace else to live. And the re are these new houses that aren't available to anybody in the community because nobody can afford them. They are all going to be over a million dollar condos or townhouses. Already there has been a tremendous amount of displacement in the last year. And by the time we get on it and change it, it will be allover because all the properties in the east end will be bought out and they will be ready for development and none of this is going through GMP. And it just seems to me that the whole concept behind GMP was to be able to balance growth in some -- way and what this is is its a loophole for speculative development. That is different than someone corning in and building houses for the permanent community. It is a whole different issue. Sunny: You are going to have a heck of a time in the future trying to regulate who lives in what housing. The cost of the housing is driven by the process and by the desire of the individual permanent resident who is living there to maximize what he can get for selling his property. He is not going to sell it for less. The only way you can force that, and you can't even do it then, is to restrict the cost at which that housing sells for. And then you are not guaranteed a permanent local resident. I don't see how you are going to get at the real problem which bothers most of us here including myself. The community is changing. We can slow the rate at which it changes. We can govern what gets built in the zone districts but how you can keep it from being bought by the individual who has the money to buy it and whether he wants to live here or not, I really don't know how you address that. We can address displacement here and the fact that the developer has to do something beyond the condominium fee but that regulation itself will drive the cost of housing up which will, 8 , PZM7.5.88 in turn, drive up the expectation of the resident who is trying to sell his land at the moment. Mari: I can tell you how they deal with it in Austria. They have a speculation tax. If you build a place for your own use, you live in it for 5 years then sell it, that is fine. If you sell it less than 5 years later there is a sliding scale tax on the property. So nobody builds anything they don't intend to live in. .".... Jasmine: My concern is the fact that it seems a lot of development occurs outside the GMP process and that we establish all these regulations to maintain growth in various segments of the market and in a supposedly orderly fashion. And yet a good deal occurs outside of GMP. And because of this bedroom thing I don't think our allocations tend to be correct in going with just a unit count. I think that this particular application raises questions that go beyond this particular application. This is why I was questioning also when you go through regular subdivision, the purpose of subdivision comes in and there are certain criteria that have to do with the subdivision process itself which don't occur when you have an exception from subdivision. And all the concerns that we have been bringing up are things that might have corne up under a full scale subdivision rev iew. I am not sure what the cr iter ia are or what makes you decide on what application is appropr ia te to be excepted from subdivision. Perhaps this is an application that should have gone through subdivision. Sunny: Subdivision deals solely with the platting of land. These are already platted lots. Basically all we are doing is moving the line. So it doesn't get into displacement. It doesn't get into bedrooms vs. units. It is primarily a consumer protection device. It talks about adequacy of water and sewer and where the line goes. Does it meet a certain size requirement, etc. Cindy: What happens in this case is that it is a typical re- subdivision of lots. There are a lot of issues but I think as much as we want to bring up some of these issues from a planning perspective the proposal really does meet all the criteria that the code allows at this time. Welton: Were any of those houses on the register? Sunny: No. They have been so extensively modified over the years that they were not felt to be of significance. They were ., not of the category that required review for demolition. 9 PZM7.5.88 Cindy: They were not rated and I am sure Roxanne, if there was some significance, would have noted that. Welton: It just seems the fabric of Aspen is disappearing. There is not going to be any semblance of the old mining town any more. I don't know what we can do about it. Would there be any effort made to relocate any of the structures rather than just bulldoze them? Sunny: The issue about the shed which has his tor ic interest has just corne up. To the extent that someone would be interested in it, I am sure Sharon would be willing to discuss it with them. I know someone at one point was interested in the 3-story log tri- plex. I am sure we would be willing to discuss that as well. The biggest problem is that there is no place to put it and because of the regulations, there are very few places in town you can relocate one of these things to. Welton then opened the public hearing and asked for public comment. '- Jack Walls: I live in the neighborhood. The buildings that are being proposed there even after subdivision, the square footage in those buildings, does that equal exactly what the buildings are there now? Sunny: We don't have a square footage takeoff of the structures there. I don't have a square footage number for all of the different floors on all the different buildings that are there. It is not an issue of review. All we have to do is comply with the allowable FAR for the zone district which would be .75 per site. The buildings have not been completely designed at this point and so we listed what that FAR would be at .75 to 1. So that is a maximum for each of those units. Any design of those units would have to be consistent with that building permit. Jack: Well, I will tell you what. I am really getting disgusted in regard to the crap that is being built around where I live. I have got 2 duplexes next to me over there and there is another one going in next to it and it looks like ____. Not only that but down the street with the Lego TOy buildings on those duplexes that were built right across from Jack Crandle's building--the whole complexion of this town is changing drastically. The commercial buildings that have been built downtown this last year have ripped the fabric of a victorian town. There is no point in even having a Historical Commission anymore because there is nothing left. Preservation I would like 10 PZM7.5.88 to know what that looks like before somebody says "Oh yes, we will approve it for 3 more duplexes to go on". Duplexes is a way to get around the Growth Management plan. And to be quite frank I am not really fond of the Growth Management Plan because the Growth Management Plan is responsible for screwing this whole town up. The thing is we are looking at a situation right now--you made the remark in regard when they are going to condominiumize these things, then we will get to it. That will be too late because then they will already be built. Those will be condominiumized and you better get at the problem now because otherwise it is too late--after they are built. You are not going to have duplexes that will be rented out. They are going to be sold. \- sun~y: I don't necessarily disagree with all of what you are saYlng. I am concerned somewhat about the changes in the town as well. The quality of the architecture is a personal thing among everybody. What does bother me is the development community is like any other business in this town. They expect to be given a set of rules that say "Here is what you can and can't do". Those rules should be based on sound planning, a concern for the communi ty, etc. The development community simply compl ies with those regulations. Basically they are looking for a set of guidelines that they can go out and try to make a living. If you don't like the product that comes out of that, you change the guidelines. The development community goes back, readjusts itself to the current regulations and goes back out and tries to make a living again. What concerns me is when you have a set of regulations like this for subdivision it complies with the letter of the regulations, it provides additional information in an attempt to try and explain what is going on in this neighborhood and at the same time it is seen as endemic of a growing problem. Fix the problem. Don't take it out on this particular applicant. If there is a concern about the size of .75--1 have seen nothing other than the comments of P&Z about the fact that .75 in the 0- Office zone for residential is too much. This p&Z turned down a recommendation by the Planning Office that the FAR should go to a sl iding scale. Had it been a sl id ing scale, we would have submitted an application based on the allowable FAR. You really can't ding the applicant for going out, buying the land and saying "Here is what I can and can I t do" and then develop an application that is consistent with it. Now if we were in here asking for an FAR bonus--more units than we are entitled to--we think we have 12 units. We are in the process of verifying it. They are building 6. Granted, there is 11 PZM7.5.88 .'-< a change in the character of the neighborhood. The City went out and identified all historic structures in town. They said "These are the ones we want to preserve. They are necessary for the fabric of this town. We are not going to try and preserve these that are below this given ranking". These are not on that ranking. Now you corne back and say "Why are you tearing them down?" If you think everything from 2 on up ought to be pr eserved, say so. The development community will go out and look for those opportunities where it can comply with the rules. The problem is the rules float every time an application comes in. I work with the development community on a day-to-day basis. It has gotten to the point that when they corne in and say "What can I do?" We say "This is what the rules say, but prepare yourself for anything." I will continue to process applications and the development community will continue to corne in but we try to comply with what is there. And we try to do it within the intent and also the spirit of the regulations. And when regulations don't get the job done, I am the first to suggest that you sit down and talk about how to change them. But I really have a hard time sitting here and getting beat up for having done what we are supposed to do. '- Ramona: The Planning & Zoning does a lot of dreaming about being an architectural review board. We don't have an architectural review board in Aspen. I think all of the people who live in Aspen have to live with that because there is nothing we can do about that. We can tell them how big, how much setback they have to have and a number of other things, but we really can't tell them how they are going to look. We are at the architect's whim and that is where it is, ladies and gentlemen. We don't have anything to say about it. Sunny: The subdivision process changes it to a 2-step process and it does not change the submission requirements beyond those which are included here. It does not require architecture as a condition of approval. Jack: I agree with you in regard to a set amount of rules that you have to work with and you have worked with them. The problem is that the rules change so often and it is so thrown up in the air together with the fact that there has not been any planning or what would normally be planning for this community that has a master plan that would follow it. Growth management is not planning. When you say that the town has done adequate planning, this is not true. " 12 PZM7.5.88 Sunny: I am not saying it is not adequate planning. I wouldn't begin to say that. Jack: This duplex routine that we are seeing around town is just a means by which to get away from going through growth management. Sunny: If this was a mUlti-family structure, it still would not have to go through growth management. Jack: What I am saying though is that these people, based on the design of that building, had nothing to say in regard to it. And in growth management, they do. Sunny: Then the only thing you can do is remove the ability to tear down and re-construct existing structures. And if you do that, then yes, it would be subject to growth management. '-' Jack: Because what you are doing, you are just building up the land here in regard to those buildings. And if you had an opportunity of designing a complex of buildings that would do the same thing, but yet have open space and give and take in regard to the land so that you have a little variation in regard to it rather than just having bing, bing, bing like little blocks--to me it makes much more sense but these duplex routines are nothing but just getting around growth management. There was no further public comment and Welton closed the public hearing. Michael: I am the alternate now so I can't make a motion. I certainly agree with what Jack says and I agree with what Welton has said and David's concerns and Jasmine's concerns. There are a lot of concerns that have been raised, although there are a lot of people here who like some of the things that other people don't like. And as Ramona said it is not our function to sit here and pick which one is the better design. As a question of absolute fairness, Sunny hit the nail on the head. These people carne in. They have lived up to the letter of the law and I think we would be legally suspect if we don't sit back and approve what they have done. I don't see how we can corne by having the City Council adopt a set of regulations that we have proposed to them, have somebody corne in who has spent the kind of money they have spent to get here and then sit here and do nothing about it. We may not like it but I don't think we have any choice. I think it would be wrong if somebody doesn't make a motion and if this doesn't get approved. / 13 PZM7.5.88 ,- Jasmine: Very reluctantly I say I would have to agree with Mickey. We can't not go by our own rules. It is also very obvious to everybody on the Commission that the existing rules are inadequate. Any motion that I would make would also include some indication that this is a problem that is going to be corning up again and we are going to have to have some kind of way of changing the rules very quickly before we get more applications of this sort. Welton: I was going to propose after passing this that we direct the Planning Office to start the wheels rolling for doing the sliding scale zoning in the other zone. I think the groundwork is already there. Ramona: What we need is an architectural situation that better fits the community than what we have seen so far. '- Welton: This benefits an apparent marketing nitch that it was very successful with the first one and I think the market-- Ramona: But there are 38 or 43 of them now and it makes you wonder how far the market is going to go. Welton: Even before it gets saturated and end up sitting empty. David: I have to agree with Mickey. You mentioned the demolition process and maybe in part of what Welton is talking about is to put something in the demolition as well. I hate to see the changes that are going on and I want to get at something quick so we can slow it down and at least look at it. It seems to me that we should in some way, if there is a project being built, be able to look at the architecture. And it just bothers me that we get a small thing that this is the way it is going to be and then you hear about Li ttle Cl iff's, or the Popcorn Wagon going to do something that they do and they have to go through unbelievable hoops and spend tremendous amounts of money when all they are trying to do is take their business that has been around for 10, 20 and 30 years and move it to another location. These have been an essential local business. I think somewhere along the line, the balance that we are trying to do is all out whack. Roger: I was going to abstain but I will be happy not to vote if you wish so Mickey can vote on this because I wasn't here for the complete deliberation. Welton then allowed another public comment. 14 ~ PZM7.5.88 "- ?: It just seems to me that what we need to think about is the employee housing aspect of this. There is nothing to stop them from tearing down 12 employee housing units and replacing them. But I think that seems to be the problem that has got us all upset here and maybe that is what we need to look at next is some way to replace employee housing. Welton: We have been looking at that for 15 years and we can't corne up with a good solution. Sunny: The City Council just passed a new regulation pertaining to this specific issue by which this applicant will have to pay a fairly substantial amount of money but which will not be sufficient to replace this housing. But that is the rule that is in effect. If there was a different solution they would have had to comply with that solution. , '- Welton: This is a subdivision. synonymous with condominiuization. Sunny: There was a reasoning behind that. The new code was currently in the process of being adopted. There was some question as to how the condominiumization regulations were to be promulgated and the applicant was not sure when or how they were going to condominiumize it so we elected to separate the 2 applications. A subdivision used to be MOTION Jim: I make a motion to approve preliminary subdivision for Lots 10 through 16 on Block 28 with the requirements as set forth in memo from Planning Office 1 through 5. Delete number 5 and modify 3 to add "In addition the applicant and Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District shall corne to an agreement with regard to the applicant's fair share of improvements to the main sewer line". This shall be accomplished prior to the City Council review for final plat. Jasmine seconded the motion. Mari: I am wondering if we why are we even hearing it? thing? Jim: In the code it says approvals by sign-offs are based on X criteria. This exceeds that criteria as far as size and type of development. have no choice but to approve this, Why is it not a sign-off type of " 15 PZM7.5.88 Welton: I think it is mandatory that a lot line adjustment or actually the creation of a new subdivision from an old subdivision by statute has to go to P&Z. Sunny: In this particular case the standards happen to be fairly clear and they designed it in such a way that it obviously complied. There might have been an issue here that was debatable in terms of whether or not we were in compliance with the criteria of the code. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Roger abstained. MOTION Jasmine: I would like to move that we request that the Planning Office put as a priority item on their agenda the matter raised to address the probable flood of applications that we are going to get along this nature. Welton: It is not the get that scares me. process. flood of applications that we are going to It is the flood that moves around the David: Most of them have gone around. ...,...... Jasmine: Ways that we might address this one would have to do with demolition of any structures--not necessarily historic ones and tied in with the demolition that any structure that is on a lot where a structure has been demolished that there might be some way of establishing a restriction on the increase of size. In other words if you are going to demolish a structure and rebuild if it is more than an X percent increase in size it is going to have to go through the process. I think also in regard to demolition or expansion that you do have to go on a uni t by un it count that relates more to the density on the parcel, not just size where you have like a 3- bedroom unit replacing a I-bedroom unit. I think that we have to be able to measure the effect on GMP allocations when these things occur where they actually have to go through the GMP process or whether there is another way. They have to be counted in the overall growth. I do think that we FAR in all zones. zones generally. have to take another look at the sliding scale And the question of residential in o-Office Mari: In this particular subdivision would these units be " subtracted from the GMP quota? 16 PZM7.5.88 Cindy: Right. subtracted. When new units are constructed they are Mari: But we can have minus 5 units to allocate and still have to allocate. Cindy: Right. Michael: It seems to me we are getting into a lot of subjective areas that could possibly cause the same kind of problems we have got now. I think Jack hit the nail on the head when he said that the growth management is probably the cause of all our problems. Maybe the solution to all of our problems that all these townhouses are going to sit here and not be able to get sold until they have sold to locals who could afford them because they can't give them away. Maybe the solution to what we are talking about really is putting residential units in the 0 zone. And maybe the way to do a quick fix to it is to consider eliminating that as a conditional use. That might resolve the problem. The o-zone would be nice if it had offices. The Bell Mountain Lodge would be wonderful if that side was just straight offices on it. We need offices in this ',,- town. David: If there is going to be a development that comes through, we should see some kind of architectural something. Roger: Maybe we should focus on open space and separation of buildings and things like that. Mari: plan. There should be something about repetition of identical LEE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Cindy made presentation. (Attached in records) Welton asked the applicant if they had any problem with the conditions. Sunny Vann: No. I would like a little clarification of the language of one of them, though. You said "Written confirmation from a landscape company that the caisson foundation is replaced so that they don't damage the trees". We had some landscape related issues on the first application and 17 PZM7.5.88 we simply retained a local landscape architect who gave us their professional opinion. If we could also do that in this case-- Cindy: A landscape architect would be fine. We just need some sort of ver ification from someone who is knowledgeable in this area. Sunny: We would propose to show where the actual foundations are going to be and then have a letter from them stating that they will be OK. This deck is structurally unsound. Therefore we have got to replace the deck. The new deck will have less structural supports on the slope than the current deck so it will be smaller. Also there was a deck here at the time of this approval for the addition. And that deck was approved subject to it being structurally secured. It was pretty shabby too--or being removed. The applicant chose to remove it because it was just not worth repairing. He has now corne back and decided he wants it back again. He wants to put a new one in and we will comply with the conditions attached to this review as well as those for the previous review. .,,- Ramona: Where is the high water line? Sunny: It is not shown on here. We are going to have to put it on. It is below the 100 year floodway and floodplain line. We will go out and locate it per survey and make sure it doesn't encroach. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the Stream Margin PUD Review of the Lee parcel with the conditions 1 through 3 a, band d being identical to Planning Office memo dated July 5, 1988. Condition 3 c being modified to read instead of landscape company to read landscape architect. <attached in records) Ramona seconded the motion with all in favor. VILLA OF ASPEN TOWNHOUSES Pun AMENDMENT Let the record reflect that Welton stepped down from this hearing as he is the applicant's representative. Let the record reflect that Michael stepped down from this hearing for personal reasons. 18 PZM7.5.88 .- Torn Baker: Made presentation as per attached. We recommend approval with conditions: What we would like to do is re-word the conditions to include variation of the side yard that is going to be required to put the retaining wall in which is permitted under PUD and PUD amendments. A variation of the side yard. Mari: From what to what? Torn: The applicant wasn't specific but it would be at least the width of the retaining wall. Welton: The retaining wall will be built right on the property line. There is presently about 25 to 30 ft between the property line and the edge of 8th Street that has been maintained by the association for 17 years. ,- Mari: Is that what a perceived side yard is? It is public property that is maintained for private. Welton: There is no side yard at all because the asphalt paving goes right to the property line and the berm and landscaping is built in the public right-of-way. Mari: But it is maintained by the Villas. Welton: It is maintained by the Association. The retaining wall is 8 inches thick and it will have a footing under grade of probably 2 ft. Torn: What we would recommend is that the Villas Condominium Association produce a more detailed drawing of the berming and retaining wall for the Engineering Department with the carport so that the Engineering Department can sign off that even though it is pretty clear to us that 8th Street is not going to be needed to be widened to such a significant degree in the future that it would preclude that we still like them to sign off on it. Other conditions would be that any landscape material that would be destroyed dur ing the construction would be replaced and that wording be submitted on the final plat. Welton: Actually I just concentrated not so much on the architecture as much as the conditions. The carports are something that are on the Villa of Aspen Owners wish list and probably won't be built any time soon. probably not for the next 5 to 10 years. The thinking was that rather than go through this 19 PZM7.5.88 process again, try to do everything we always wanted to do at one time, get it approved at one time and have it on record as approved at one time so we wouldn't be corning back with changes from one year to the next. The second condition that the applicant provide the Engineering Department with construction drawings of the carport, retaining wall and berm so the Engineering Department can determine that no impacts to the r-o-w. That is fine. We had no intention of doing any construction documents for that in the perceivable future. As long as we don't have to provide drawings now. We do provide drawings for sign off, we will provide drawings when it is appropriate. ,- Torn: So the approval would not include carports. Welton: How could we do that so that it would be conditional approval that when a building permit is applied for for the carports that the Engineering Department has the OK to verify. Torn: We could conditionally approve the carports based upon the sign-off by the Engineering Department at some future point in time before they build the carport but not hold up whatever architectural modifications that certain owners wanted to make to the structures themselves. Welton: Where the decks currently exist are enclosed, there are some areas of the complex where it is appropriate to replace that deck area that is enclosed with additional deck area not to exceed the area that is enclosed. There is no impact on open space. There is no impact on FAR. And the decks are an amenity. We are not proposing to enclose any decks. we are allowing for the individual owners to corne in and do it on their own and to have approvals in place to do that. That is the ultimate build- out. If it never happens that way, it is probably likely the case. This is only living room deck. There is no new decking for bedrooms--only the first floor deck. Mari: When we do amendments to PUDs which are going to be executed by individuals over a long time is there any expiration date on how long these amended approvals are good for? Torn: Once the final plat is approved, it is really the Planning Office's desire to see it done this way even though we might get caught up in some of the theoretical build-out impacts. At least this guy doesn't corne in this month, that guy corne in the next month and then we lose the architectural theme over the years. So there are some benefits. /.----.,. 20 - I' --e.,., - '- PZM7.5.88 Mar i: I do think it makes more sense to have it done all at once because you can visualize the maximum build-out that way. Torn: We are trying to set a policy to corne through as an association to amend the entire PUD. Michael: I am a neighbor of the project and I called Torn when I read it and asked them why there was no public notice. Torn explained to me that this was an application under the old code but that the new code would require notice. I am convinced that if notice was given out that there would be more people than Herb Klein and mysel f here obj ecting. I don't have a problem with what they are looking to do with the decks or the units or anything like that. I do have a problem with what they are looking to do along 8th Street by virtue of the building of the carports. I think the parking lot is elevated from the street so I think if you put a carport up there with a sloping roof--as you drive by on 8th Street all you are going to see is a solid wall. I live over here and right now this is a terrific project because you look through it. There are trees, a stream and a parking lot. There are units but you can see the trees through it. You can see the open spaces through it. You can see the mountains through it. By putting carports in there you are going to effectively block that view and all you are going to see here is a solid wall. All of that wonderful illusion they have created with the open space, is going to be lost. Herb Klein: I want to echo Mickey's thought on this thing. I certainly think that anything that they want to do to improve the buildings, that looks fine. The Commissioner's heard a lot recently about enclosing and internalizing open space. My perception of the Villas when I moved over there and built a house, people would say there is a lot of density there. There is a lot of congestion and all of that. And I would say "Well, corne over and really take a look at it and especially this time of year, you can see it. It is almost like living across from a park because you have this wide area of the right-of-way which is maintained by the Villas and it is beautifully landscaped. Then you have got this large space where the parking lot is. You don't really see the cars that substantially because of the berm and the trees. Then you have got the buildings kind of in the background. You have got these bands of greenery on either side of the parking lot. You have got the berm and it is landscaped and the stream and the open parking lot which is really not offensive at all and then some more green space and then the buildings. 21 '""......-' PZM7.5.88 To me this would represent a compound look that even though there is a gap you are not really going to be seeing through it. You have got a roof there. It is going to have pillars. There will be a vehicle inside and it will look like what everybody complained about with the hotel about internalizing the open space creating a wall effect around it. It doesn't sound like it is a big issue. It sounds like it would be nice to include it on their long-range plan if somebody wants to do it. I think from the neighborhood feel it would change the feeling about it dramatically. Roger: A major concern I have here is what is the increase in floor area in the unit? What is the increase in floor area on the whole? What are we getting ourselves into? This has been my problem with the piece-meal approach. There comes a time when piece-meal becomes too much of an addition. It is nice to give a guy another bedroom but if you allow everyone a new bedroom in ~ the~, you have problems. And it looks to me as though there ~ld be problems here. FAR: (As attached) Roger: Well, that part doesn't look terribly bad however when this was originally approved it was a well-approved enforced well below the 1 to 1 allowed and the question is how much closer are we going to allow it to go approaching the 1 to 1. Welton: It is still 30,000 sqft under the 1 to 1. Roger: No, it was not approved for 1 to 1. This was approved as it is. And it wasn't easily approved at that. That is number 1 concern that we have to look at. Number 2 in any event until the highway 82 alignment is defined, I disagree totally with anything that would affect the impact on these units by building closer to that alignment. It is going to effect how much the State Highway Commission is going to have to pay these units. Anything approaching that direction at this time until we get the alignment settled, I can't go for it. Jasmine: I am glad you brought up the original PUD because that was before my time. I agree with the approach of showing us what the maximum build-out could be in a unit rather than piece-meal approach. But this was a PUD and I would assume that either the FAR requirements were different then or there was a lessening FAR in exchange for increased density. Roger: It was pretty dense and it was negotiated. There was a lodge on one parcel and basically it was a negotiated density. I ~, know the applicant wanted more and the applicant ended up with 22 PZM7.5.88 less. It was negotiated because no one wanted that density in his back yard. Ramona: I don't believe that there was a floor area ratio at that time. I was on City Council when this was approved. This was one of the first projects to have a landscaping bond attached to it because everyone wanted to make sure that they would put in the landscaping that they showed in the schematic. And they did. Welton: As far as density is concerned, there is no increase in the number of bedrooms. There is no increase in number of rooms. Jasmine: Aren't some of those enclosed decks now serving as bedrooms. Welton: The decks are 4 ft deep off the bedrooms and all they will do is allow for a slightly larger bedroom. Most of the bedrooms now are 9 ft by 10 ft. ".,~... Jim: These were constructed under the current code. The way those are enclosed, they will be countable FAR. So it not as though these are things that additional FAR. In the current code they would already be counted as FAR. Jasmine: Is it proposed that only the decks on ground level would be expanded or enclosed? Welton: The association has hired a contractor to go through the entire complex and do plan A which cuts into the roof to allow more light into the bedrooms and lower the railing a little bit and it fills in with generally a place where tires, bicycles, etc. can be kept--close that in on the face so that it is more protected outdoor storage. There is really no net increase in square footage. Jasmine: But there is no additional deck floorage on the second levels. Welton: No. But so many owners--about 1/3 to 1/2 have been pleading for years about--we have this possibility, lets get together and do it. I have been working on this for a year and a half now to corne up with a set of unified standards that would allow people to do the A version, a B, or if they want to do some structural changes a C. (attached in records) C is a total enclosure of the deck, B is a partial enclosure of the deck. " We are talking 4 ft by 20 ft, the current existing balconies upstairs on both sides potentially which is not big enough for a bedroom. 23 ,>,"-'''- PZM7.5.88 -- Jasmine: So that would be enclosed with no additional deck. Welton: No additional deck upstairs. Downstairs there would be the maximum potential of 7 ft of deck above the 20 ft of unit width of new living room space and you can't put another bedroom in your prime view direction of the living room. Jasmine: So then you would extend out here and then the possibility of another deck. Welton: It would be a possibility and that will be done on a case by case basis if adjoining neighbors don't mind and if it doesn't get too close to another building and if it doesn't disturb any vegetation and if the Board signs off on it, then yes, you can replace that deck area. It is real difficult working with 36 different owners but the owners in this block were the main instigators for this whole capability of expanding and I think they are going to take their chances with the highway alignment. '''- Jasmine: It is not a question of their taking their chances. It is not their choice. It doesn't matter whether they think it is going to be good or bad or whatever it is. The fact of the matter is that if we allow this expansion to go on, it is going to have definite financial consequences to the City. I think we would be remiss in not making that a part of our deliberations. Fred: From a practical point of view you have the duty to look after the City's planning interest. Whether or not that includes trying to second-guess the State with respect to encroachment in paving issues it becomes an inverse combination in that what you are doing is you are speculating that there is a problem so you are creating a problem by thinking that there might be a subsequent issue there. Roger: They don't have it. what we want to approve. Let's start out with that. It is Wel ton: Roger, the fact is that any of the options on that block of units would improve the situation if the highway was there. Because right now a single pane glass and it is 2x4 walls and it is not terribly sound proof. When you corne in with thermopane glass and good solid 1980's construction on good solid foundations, it will make those--save them from being totally unlivable units. At least provide, in some degree of barrier and amenity, what the highway would end up destroying. " 24 PZM7.5.88 Fred: If you were to pass this application as presented with the exception of whatever that end is and somebody was to corne back and say "Your action is arbitrary and capricious with respect to that anticipated potential problem." That would create the legal issue on that site. I am saying that when you distinguish the project based on the analysis that you have done, you may be creating the wrong kind of record. Roger: Then the converse of that is that we, at this time, should not entertain expansion of any of it. Fred: What you have to do is analyze the project and see whether or not you can act in a reasonable way and whether you can give an approval reasonably. '-- Roger: But there is not an encroachment license involved here. You would not create something that would, planning-wise, create an encroachment problem in the future if you can foresee that at this point. It is our duty to foresee that type of thing. Now if the alignment is finally settled on Hallam Street, then fine, I don't have a problem with that over there. But until that time I think we are remiss in not addressing it. My problem is they are corning in with an expansion that is an economic benefit to them. It is an existing problem until we identify the corridor. Mari: It seems to me the simple thing is to waive the additional value. MOTION Jim: I make a motion to approve the PUD amendment for the Villas of Aspen as presented with the changes so that the carports are not part of the approval and that units that are impacted by proximity to the potential highway corridor waive any type of beneficial rights because of the fact that they are making an exascerbation of a potential problem. Roger: I would state that the City Attorney has to corne up with the proper language. Jim: And with the other recommendations as the Planning Office has set forth (attached in records) with the exception of the carports. Jasmine: So in other words the first and third circles as amended and the second circle deleted. Roger: And waiving the additional value of the units-- 25 PZM7.5.88 '- Jim: I said that. Attorney." Mari seconded the motion. I said "And leaving the wording to the Welton: On the 3rd condition--we would like to change that from "pr ior to the issuance of a building permi t"--have that be "At some later point." And that is purely logistical because Alpine Surveys who did the original plat would have to do the updated plat and they are running 6-day weeks. We are looking at getting started on construction considerably before that. Torn: The Building Department would never let a building permit out without the plat. <"..-' Fred: There is some question as to whether or not the Homeowner's Association can, in and of itself, request an amendment to a required plat. And without having reviewed their condo declarations--do you guys know what your decks say with respect to amendments of the plat? Who allows you to sign off? Welton: 80% of the owners and 100% of the mortgage holders. Fred: I would also include then a condition of this approval that you have in front of you information showing that there has been an approval by the homeowner's association so that in effect they are authorized to take the action they have requested. Jim: I amend my motion to include that. Mari amended her second of the motion. Jim: There seems to be a problem with the Building Department-- not with us. Torn: Recently I have not seen anything done without a final plat. Wel ton: No. I don't mean a survey. I mean the plat that is filed in the Courthouse which is going to be essentially identical to this drawing without the landscaping showing which I wanted to do myself because I could do it quicker. But we are looking at a month to 2 months for Alpine Surveys to do it and that is going to throw us out of the construction season. Jim: Why don't we say "Upon issuance of CO" and then it becomes your problem with the Building Department. , 26 PZM7.5.88 Jasmine: I think that when we have procedures that involve Building Department and things like that that we really do not have the right to monkey around with them. We have to abide with the rules. Jim: It is the Building Department's jurisdiction. Jasmine: No. This is the standard procedure. Jim: We don't tell the Building Department what to do. Let's leave it up to them. As far as we are concerned, the Planning Department sign off before final CO. Welton: To cover yourselves, just leave out the whole issue of a building permit and say the "A plat shall be recorded within 3 months or 2 months of the date of this approval." Leave the building permit out of it altogether. We will schedule our building permit however we can with the Building Department and that leaves you a date certain for filing of the plat and give us some negotiating room with the Building Department. '- Cindy: I think that is a bad choice to get into. I think that there should always be a final plat. Always prior of the issuance of a building permit we take care of all the paper work. I understand your crunch but I think that that is the proper way of handling it. Welton: But if you take the building permit out of the loop and corne up with a date certain and you know it going to have to be filed within-- Jim: We will not be able to perceive what the Building Department is going to do. Either they will say you have to have the final plat before we will issue a building permit or they will say you can't. We really have nothing to do with that process. Jasmine: Except that I think that final plat should be recorded. Jim: what we are saying is it has to be recorded but it doesn't matter when. Welton: We know it has to. Department. That leaves it up to the Building Torn: We could take the language of building permit out of the recommendation but that doesn't change the reality of it. I,r--,,- 27 I..- " . PZM7.5.88 Welton: I know it doesn't change the reality but it leaves the reality up to us to see if we can have any flexibility in their process. It gives us the flexibility to--it is not hinging on the Building Department. Jim: I don't see it as an unresolvable situation for Welton and the Planning Department to talk to Jim Wilson. It is not an etched-in-stone situation. Torn: I don't want to give anybody the impression that we can give somebody preferred treatment in terms of the time of speeding up the process because once we do that then the flood gates are open and everyone pressures us about that. Wel ton: To the extent that this is speeding anything up this application was made the 25th of April. It has been in the works for over a year and a half and there have been virtually no changes to the concept of it. Jasmine: I know, but that is not the point. David: Anybody who has to deal with the Building Department has got a tough problem. If the Planning Department is going to have a problem with it and kick things out, then we are causing a problem. Mar i: I think we ought to stick to the Planning Office recommendations. Roger: It really doesn't make too much difference to me whether we make it a date certain or as worded here because I expect the Planning Department to do what the Planning Department does when they get it or the Building Department do what they do when they get it. And so it really makes no difference to me. Jasmine: I feel that these recommendations by the planning Department is really the most appropriate. Cindy: You can word it any way you want but that problem shouldn't corne back to us. Jasmine: We owe it to the Building Department and the Planning Department to not put them in an uncomfortable situation. Ramona: I agree. Jim: The motion still stands in place. language as listed. I will include the 28 '- ,,;C'Ilto. '-' . PZM7.5.88 All voted in favor of the motion. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 6:45pm. J'n~n'~C~-Cj"k 29