Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19890516 A-'<V RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 16. 1989 Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Graeme Means, Jim Colombo, Roger Hunt and Welton Anderson. Jasmine Tygre, Mari Peyton, Michael Herron and Bruce Kerr were excused. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Roger Hunt: I am requesting that the Planning Office go into the Capp's issue. When I first heard about it I felt that everything was covered under a subdivision already. But there is more involved in that. I would like the Planning Office to bring us up to date as to what is happening there. Welton: I would like to find out from the city Attorney if there is any way of lessening the burden of notifying every human being wi thin 300ft for public hearing. I had a client who went and notified everybody within 300ft for her HPC meeting only to find out 2 days after the 284 letters were sent out to all the condominium owners and everybody within 300ft that she had to do a second complete mailing because of a P&Z public hearing. That was 500 plus letters. The same people twice that she has had to notify. I have another client who is within 300ft of the prospector. Each one of those 18 units has 15 owners and that was 400 letters that had to be individually addressed, stamped and stuffed. It is just really ridiculous to make somebody do that. Alan: It is a locally enacted ordinance. It is not that we are following some state ordinance. The Commission can initiate a code amendment if it so chooses to amend that section of the code. It has been the practice in the past--this issue came up during code re-write. It has been the Council's practice in the past to want this level of notification. Perhaps sending some kind of comment to Council and seeing if we can get this issue brought up would make sense. We were going to bring it up in the code correction process and we ran out of time. Jim: It was just 3 years ago that the policy was that we would just notify associations. Then they were responsible for notifying their own people. It really is a burden. I just had one that we had to send over 400. Alan: That was amended by a code amendment. PZM5.16.89 Graeme: I am totally in agreement with you. could take some burden. The association Welton: I would like to have the Planning Office investigate any mechanism possible whereby--particularly for a small and insignificant thing that requires a public hearing--some of the burden requiring all the property owners wi thin 300ft can I t be lessened somehow. Alan: Tell you what I am going to do to make this happen; We have got a meeting scheduled on June 8 with City Council to discuss code amendment priorities. They are concerned that with us having just completed a whole round of code amendments--have we done all the things that they thought were important some time ago. I will make absolutely sure that this gets on the list to be discussed at that meeting. If they buy it we will just go and do it. Welton: to do it stupid. I have had clients who are not wealthy and were willing themselves. It just makes them think that the city is Roger: In your case it cost the client $250.00 just for postage. Welton: Not to mention time and materials. STAFF COMMENTS Tom: The capp's thing sort of slipped through on the Rio Grande. They had to be rezoned and go through subdivision so we could have started that probably a month ago and we didn't. That apparently upsets the people. There is also an implication that this should have been done in the SPA process. As you all know that Capp's parcel is evolving through the SPA process and there was no way we could have gone through subdivision and rezoning and understood what parcel was being dealt with until--it was really after final SPA was adopted by Council that we settled on the exact relocation of Capp's. So there was a little misrepresentation on just how that should have been handled. The bottom line is I should have started it about a month ago and I couldn't. So we scheduled it for June 20th in front of P&Z. Alan: The City Attorney tells me that their attorney was on notice about this issue about 2 months ago. So nobody should have been surprised. The week of July 4th is a regular P&Z meeting. Tuesday is July 4th. I would ask the Commission's permission to make the meeting that Wednesday. To make it the next Tuesday is truly a 2 PZM5.l6.89 .'.". difficulty for us because the next Monday is a council meeting and we would be lost. MOTION Roger: I move that the first Tuesday in July meeting be moved to the first Wednesday which is July 5, 1989. Graeme seconded the motion with all in favor except Welton. Alan: The HPC would like to try to schedule a work session with the P&Z to discuss a series of things. Alan then introduced Leslie Lamont, a new member of the Planning Department. MINUTES MAY 2. 1989 Roger made a motion to adopt minutes of May 2, 1989. Jim seconded the motion with all in favor. SUMMARY OF P&Z FINDINGS FROM MEETINGS ON 4/18 AND 4/25/89 ASPEN MEADOWS CONCEPTUAL SPA Graeme: It is my feeling that some other alternative should be looked at besides large single family houses. There are a lot of other uses that could be put to. I think that unless we make it known that there are some other ones that should be looked at, they won't. Alan: There was no discussion or direction to that effect at the last meeting. Graeme: I clearly said in the meeting that I didn't think that that was, in terms of the city's point of view, the best use of that land. Welton: I think that there are better uses for that land also, other than 6,000sqft spec homes. Jim: You are not going to get any kind of return. People who are developers are not going to build a school down there. Let's get realistic. Graeme: You are sort of buying their #5 on their goals and that is that somebody get a fair return on the piece of property. In my position sitting here I don't feel that it is my job to guarantee them a certain return. I don't think it is the 3 PZM5.l6.89 government'S job to sit here and guarantee piece of property. That is not our job. after the city of Aspen and its interests. a certain return on a Our job is to look Roger: On this one we are betwixt and between because where we don't have legislation in place in the form of zoning code for the property--I can agree with you within the legislative or adopted code we don't have to guarantee anyone anything as long as they comply with the code. But here this is outside of the code and we have had law suits on this property before or at least threats of it. Welton: We had law suits. We got sued. Roger: The point is to get a program that works for everyone on this piece of property. Graeme: Another thing in #8. In the second paragraph "The applicants agree that most of the housing--and I assume that that means affordable housing--would be located off-site and would be built, etc. Not provided by cash-in-lieu". There did seem to be some discussion on the panel here that maybe the alternative should be looked at that some of the affordable housing should be on-site. That seemed pretty clear to me that we were going to direct and I think they heard that and understood that. Alan: I thought the second sentence was the qualifier to that. That the applicants were going to specify the number. The code is real specific and I didn't get into this at that point in the meeting. But the code is real specific. Accessory dwelling units don't give them any housing credits. So if they put one in every single unit they would score the same housing obligation as if they didn't do that. So that, to me, is not putting affordable housing on the property. It is putting caretakers on the property. I don't think anybody was saying build affordable housing on the property. They sure weren't proposing to do so. Graeme: There was discussion about the fact that it might be better for the property to have some people who lived there all year around and generate that kind of maintenance down there. Alan: They won't be looking at that. No. Graeme: Maybe if the applicants agreed that some, instead of most or something like that. Alan: I can look at saying in the positive too--that some will be built on site. I think they need to come back and make a 4 PZM5.l6.89 specific solution. You are going to get them again on June 13th and if that is what you feel, that's what will come out of the June 13th meeting. Graeme: Do you agree with Roger who is saying that he doesn't feel that we should be telling people what to do with their property and yet-- Alan: I think that is what zoning is all about. And because there isn't any, therefore, we have to. We are stuck with having to plan the property for them because we haven't done our planning in advance. Roger: And that also assumes that we have to allow a plan that makes them have their heads above the water. Alan: That is not a given. That can be a conclusion. Jim: We are talking about a project that is going to (tapping of pen here which came through on the tape like gun shots) Graeme: But we are closing our minds if we tell them that that is the only alternative. Jim: Not even closing the door. The non-profits are what we are closing. Graeme: I disagree. MOUNTAIN RESCUE CABIN REZONING/GMOS EXEMPTION PUBLIC HEARING Graeme stepped down on this because of possible conflict of interest. Welton opened the public hearing. Alan: This is for rezoning for Lot M, Block 24 which is the location of the Rossetter cabin. It is partly zoned 0 Office. The reason that we are suggesting it be rezoned is that the property right now is on 3,000sqft a minimum lot size in the zone district is 6,000sqft which means this is a non-conforming lot of record. The non-conforming regulations of the code would only permit a single family house on the property. This obviously is no longer used as a single family house. The Public zone, therefore, is the natural zone for this kind of use. It is intended to deal with public oriented property that may have difficulty meeting one or another of the area and bulk requirements. 5 PZM5.l6.89 We came up with this along with the applicant. It is a real solution to the problem of how to permit an expansion of what is presently a non-conforming use. We would support the rezoning of the property. It is certainly in compliance with the standards. We do have compatibility with the surrounding zone districts in that the property being located on Main street is surrounded by a variety of entities not just single family houses. The HPC reviewed the project on May 10 and was able to grant conceptual approval with no significant conditions at that point in time. I would certainly find this use to be in the public interest and not in conflict with any sections of the code. It is a basic support service for this mountain community and we should certainly be doing what we can to encourage its location and its existence. If you concur that Public Zoning is the appropriate zoning for this property the Public Zone requires it dimensional requirements be set by adoption of a PUD plan. We are recommending to you that because of the relative simplicity of this application that we avail ourselves of the new consolidated PUD process that was adopted by Council 3 weeks ago at your recommendation. That allows you to complete the conceptual review in one single step and then Council can do final review in one single step. So essentially there is one visit to P&Z and one visit to Council. We hope that you will concur with that opinion. The dimensional requirements are very similar--very compatible to the surrounding Office zone district. In some cases they are even more stringent. And so they certainly fit within those of the Office zone. The only 2 which don't are the minimum lot area and the rear yard which in the Office Zone is normally 15ft. But because of the storage needs of this particular use I don't see any problem at all. parking also needs to be set by the Commission and essentially the parking plan is the garage. There is also a parking space designated out front for the use and parking in the area has not been a congested situation. The last thing that we would note for you is that, this being an essential community facility, it needs to be processed as a GMQS exemption. There is no question that the project complies with 6 PZM5.l6.89 the standards--those being that it is an essential public purpose. It is in response to growth and not a growth generator. It is a non-profit venture and the impacts, if there are any, are certainly negligible. We are recommending approval of all their requested reviews and we have identified 5 conditions for you in the memorandum. (attached in records) since the city is the property owner, we didn't want to burden Mountain Rescue with the sidewalk requirement. Jim: First of all are we as a rule requiring the Office District now to put new sidewalks in front? Alan: No. As a general thing we are created along Main street corridor. been trying to work together on what design. Jim: What is the vehicle for us requiring them? looking for sidewalks to be Engineering and HPC have is going to be a compatible Alan: Development approval. kicking it in. The rezoning really isn't what is Welton: Jane Ellen, does the applicant have any problems with any of the conditions? Jane Ellen: No. Roger: The Engineering wanted an improvement survey. responsibility is that? Whose Alan: I would ask for that to be provided by the time of the building permit. Welton asked if there was any comment from the public. There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing MOTION Roger: I move to recommend to city council that the Mountain Rescue site be rezoned Public and that the GMQS exemption be granted to it and that its dimensional and parking requirements be established as outlined on page 3 of Planning Office memo dated May 11, 1989 conditioned on the following: conditions 1 through 5 being the same as Planning Office memo dated May 11, 1989 and the addition to condition #6 that a reproduced full improvement survey be provided prior to building permit. This is 7 PZM5.l6.89 to be done following the new consolidated process of the PUD procedure. Jim seconded the motion with all in favor. BLOCK 19 REZONING PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. cindy Houben: Made presentation as attached in records. Welton asked for public comment. the hearing. There was none and he closed MOTION Welton: I would entertain a motion that P&Z recommend to Council the rezoning of Lots K,L,M and N of Block 19 which is now R-15 to R-6. Roger: So move. Jim Colombo seconded the motion with all in favor. COTTONWOOD PARK AKA 700 EAST MAIN GMOS. PUD AMENDMENT AND STREAM MARGIN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING Welton opened the public hearing. Cindy: The land owners. 30, 1989. applicant did not get out notification to adjacent We need to reschedule this to a date certain of May Alan: This was properly published in the newspaper. Welton asked for public comment. the public hearing. There was none and he closed MOTION Roger: I move to table action on the Cottonwood Park or 700 East Main Street GMQS, PUD Amendment and Stream Margin Review because of insufficient public notice to date certain of May 30, 1989. Jim seconded the motion with all in favor. 8 PZM5.l6.89 VOLK LOT SPLIT CONCEPTUAL PUD GMOS EXEMPTION AND STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Welton opened the public hearing. Alan: Proper notification was not made for this hearing. Both this and Cottonwood were properly noticed in the newspaper. The applicants are asking and we would join in this request that we continue these hearings to a date certain of May 30, 1989. Welton asked for public. There was none and he closed the public hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to table action on the Volk Lot Split Conceptual PUD, GMQS Exemption and Stream Margin Review because of insufficient public notice to date certain of May 30, 1989. Jim seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 5:25pm. 9