Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19910507 1\ I(tI r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7. 1991 vice Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Bruce Kerr, Roger Hunt, and Jasmine Tygre. Mari Peyton was excused. Jasmine: Since Welton has stepped down we have to elect a new Chairman and Vice Chairman. Our regular election for Chairpersons is the second meeting in June. Under the rules which govern this Commission I will remain vice Chairlady until then. I will entertain nominations for a secondary Vice Chairman. Roger: I will nominate Mari Peyton. Richard seconded the nomination. Jasmine: I would like to nominate Richard. Roger seconded the nomination. Roger: I also suggest that when it comes to election time that we probably should appoint a Second Vice Chairman. A survey was made of all of the members at this time. No one is going to be present for a meeting on the 21st of May. ~ Ballot totals revealed Mari as winner of the ballot. Jasmine: Since she is going to be gone the entire month of June I suggest we let Richard be Vice chairperson. MOTION Roger: I move to appoint Richard second Vice Chairperson until the election in June. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. MOTION Roger: I make a motion to adopt resolution concerning Welton. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. MINUTES MARCH 19. 1991 Richard: I move to approve minutes of March 19, 1991. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. L ASPEN VILLAS PUD AMENDMENT FOR TRASH/MAIL ENCLOSURE ". PZM5.7.91 Jasmine opened the public hearing and asked for public comment. There was no pUblic comment. MOTION Roger: I move to table this hearing at the applicant's request to date certain of June 4, 1991. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. MESSIAH LUTHERAN CHURCH COND. USE AMENDMENT GMOS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING Jasmine opened the public hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. Sara: First of all why is the Lutheran Church a conditional use? Kim: Churches are conditional uses in most residential zone districts. Sara: In the resolution the Council asked that the Pitkin County Bank be the applicant. I understand in the process why it should be the applicant. What is the advantage to that and why aren't they here? Sunny Vann: It is here represented by me. Council actually approved our housing mitigation plan. That housing mitigation plan consisted of us providing a variety of financial incentives to permit construction of this residence. That has been approved by the City Council. But since it would be an amendment to a previously conditional use the church would have to come back and obtain approval to add this unit on the property. Sara: It was stated in here that the applicant was the Messiah Lutheran Church. So I am confused. Sunny: The applicant is the owner of the property. represented by Pitkin County Bank and I am the Pitkin representative. And is being County Bank's Sara: Kim, how does the Housing Authority count employees mitigated in either rentals or By the number of bedrooms or by the number of people employed within a ? Kim: They look it by the size of the unit. Sunny: Our requirement is 4.7 employees a 3 bedroom unit we are given credit for housing 3 people. So our remaining requirement 2 I'" PZM5.7.91 is 1.7 which we are proposing cash-in-lieu and City Council has accepted that. Bruce: Is this property currently exempt from taxation? sunny: I am not sure what the tax status of it is. It probably enJoys tax exempt status. Chris Tokus is here from the church. He might be able to answer that. Bruce: The question is is there also a provision in the code where you can get the minister's home exempt from taxation. as well. The question arises what happens if this home ends up not being used. sunny: The intent is to provide it to the minister. It is possible that a situation would arise in which the church would not require it for their minister. The terms of the deed restriction would require them to rent it or sell it to a qualified employee under the affordable housing guidelines. I suspect they would not choose to sell it because they would want to keep it for a subsequent minister who might need housing but it is required to be occupied. So if the minister did not require the facility it would be rented to someone else--a qualified employe of Pitkin County. Bruce: I would be concerned that at some point in time it would not be used as a minister's home and it is not on the tax rolls. Richard: Are city owned rental units on the tax rolls? Sunny: I suspect the property tax is figured into the rental. Kim: Staff has received 2 public comments on this since the notice has gone out. One was a telephone call and the other was a letter. Both are in opposition to this proposal. One was based on impact of the viewplain going up a second story. When we went out to the site we paid particular attention to the impact of the viewplain. And there is one property where impact would be a factor from the yard area but not particularly from the home itself. In actuality the way the roof rises currently they could be looking at the way you--the roof right now pretty much blocks out most of the view of the mountains. The letter states that they feel that enough is enough and wish not to have any more traffic going down the street to the site. sunny: We would request that P&Z recommend to Council that we be allowed to deed restrict this to category 3. It is still in the moderate income guidelines but it allows us to base the rent on the original 1,200sqft. I think it would insure consistency with the intent of the proposal. 3 ~ PZM5.7.9l If we were to alter condition #1 as category #3 this would be consistent with the application as submitted. We tried to set it up based on the existing compensation package and the l,200sqft limitation which used to be for both 2 and 3. Now that applies to category #3 and it is a lower standard for category #2. While we don't mind absorbing the loss because we want to provide as large a unit as possible to accommodate the minister and his family we don't want to lose any more than we originally anticipated. By staying with category #2 it forces us to absorb more of the cost of the unit. On the second condition it needs some minor clarification. We had asked as part of our application that so long as it was always rented to the minister that the asset the income guidelines of the employee deed restriction could be weighed if necessary. There might be a situation in which a minister whose wife was employed in another business and because of their combined income could not qualify under the guidelines. There is precedent in this request and the Housing Authority has recommended that we be allowed to do such. But the way Kim has phrased it I believe the last line the category #2 guidelines may be exceeded. The only guidelines in category #2 we are aSking to be delayed will be the asset in income guidelines. We will rent it for the prices that were provided in the guidelines. We just want to be able to weigh the asset limitations and the income limitations. Condition #3 is not a problem as worded. Condition #4 requires that we test the well. We would like to have the condition reflect that should the church elect or should it be necessary to tap onto the City'S water system, that won't be a problem. If there is a problem with the well and we come back in to tap on I don't want a big problem at a later date to be forced to stay on the well. Kim: From what I gathered from the Water Dept was that they prefer only development be tapped on. However, because of the existing condition there that there won't be that requirement. Sunny: As long as the staff does not object to our tapping onto the City water supply-- Kim: Not at all. Sunny: #5 I would like to have eliminated. The parking lot is about 2j3rds full most of the time. On special occasions there is 4 PZM5.7.9l some overflow of the parking lot. But generally is not a serious problem with the neighborhood. #6--the only concern I have with that mumble Kim: It is standard language that we are trying to use. Sunny: On condition #5 if the commission is unwilling to eliminate #5, I discussed it with Kim and I would like to see you word the condition that the applicant and the Planning Office will reach some kind of agreement. I am not sure how we would mark it. We don't want to put ties throughout the parking lot because of snow removal in the winter. Jasmine asked for comment from the public. Tom Dunn: I live directly north of the church. I believe the phone call that Kim was referring to was from me. And not so much view but the problem is shade. That church right now is the highest building in the whole block and both sides of Mountain View are limited to land lj2 stories. And that has been set by West Mill Subdivision which my house is not a part of but the church is part of. And that church right now is higher than anything in the block. And you add 7 and lj2ft to that it is going to be very high. As far as the effect on my house the north side there the sun is limited right now and if you go another 7 and lj2ft it is going to be dark. We also understood that one time when the church was a conditional use that there was a deed restriction to the original size and from what I understand from the previous owner of my house that size was exceeded and was added onto and rebuilt and what is to keep us from going down the road 5 years from now and saying "Hey we want to build a parking lot and start allover again and build even bigger than it was to begin with?" So that is a consideration. The other main consideration is the fact that mumble add on to add on the additional apartment and that it would be for the parson only of the church. Now the letter states that it could be employee housing. What is to keep the parson from deciding that he doesn't need that church or someone comes in that doesn't want it, now all of a sudden we have got a crash pad. We have got 3 bedrooms. We have 3 more cars. We have got lO people. We all have the best intentions but we all know what the situation is in Aspen as far as housing. There are some things that go on. That is a real consideration. Of course the water is the other one. There are 3 houses and the church that use that well. And it is marginal as it is right now. 5 PZM5.7.9l We add another family onto that and it is real tough. And everybody else says the same thing. The parking lot--I am sympathetic with the church's needs. Again the parking lot is a real mess because it is just a real problem with the dust all the time. I think we would probably have more neighbors here except that at this time of the year many are out of town. Nicholas J. Gubser: We have lived adjacent to the church for about l5 years. The parking--I would not recommend the railroad ties. It is a very __?___ street. And a large number of tourists in the summer __?___ all year round come to __?___ Drive thinking they are going to go someplace and so they have to make a U turn. It so happens that they use the church parking lot for that. And the railroad ties would block that ability to get out of the dead end street. The water question--having been with the well for l5 years when I was aware that the parsonage might be built I talked to Tom Bush to ask about what their plans were because if another family with children goes on this well, the well will have to be re-engineered involving extreme cost. The water is good. I have test results recently. The church does have legal rights to the well. There is no question about that. But in order to make adequate water pressure for that many households the well would have to be re-engineered. John confirmed to me at the time that Augie Reno had applied to the city for a tap and that they had budgeted for a tap. And if that goes forward then the water problem is solved. But if that does not go forward then the water question must be addressed. The third question I have relates to the deed restriction question. There is not enough clarity for me to quite understand. Having a Grandfather who was a minister I am aware of the potential for good management as well as bad management in a church situation particularly with the change in personal over a long period of time. And let's say lO years from now you get a situation with ministers who are not going to live there. Well, you have got property. What is going to happen to it? And I understand about the restriction for employees but if you rent it to one qualified employee who would then turn it into a hospice for indigents--is that a potential? If so I think that should be addressed. My main concern is--sure renting out is just fine. I have no problem with that. But I would like to see some sort of managerial input made such that it wouldn't get out of control and have to be addressed in some legal fashion. Some sort of preventive 6 PZM5.7.9l maintenance so to speak by saying this is for the parsonage only or for a single nuclear family. Margot Gubser: I also live next door to the church. Just as a small correction for Tom here actually 4 residences are on the well because we own a half duplex. The other half of our duplex is also on the well plus 2 single family houses. Just to emphasize the water question which I think is the one I am most concerned about. We have lived there for about l7 years and we do not run the dishwasher and the washing machine at the same time. We do not take a shower at the same time if either one of those machines is running. If someone is in the shower and someone runs the water in the kitchen sink the water pressure in the shower is noticeably reduced. You mUltiply that by 4 residences and as I have said we don't call each other and find out who is running water when, the well handles the 4 residences plus the church. An additional family on that well would be a hardship and obviously if the church were to tap into it for the use of that well for that family and put the additional strain on the well I don't feel as though the engineering of the well should be at our expense when it is the church that is incurring that additional cost. On the parking--I very much admired the way in which the congregation has built up over these last 3 years. There are a lot more cars there now than there used to be. It has never really presented a problem for us. But I am not sure that 2j3rds full is really accurate. Most times now it is 4j5ths to bUlging. And our driveway actually goes through their parking lot so that quite often if we are driving out our driveway on Sunday there will be cars parked in the driving lane because the parking lot is overflowing. So I feel as if if the church succeeds in continuing to expand this parking does present a problem--the dustiness and not only figuring out how to line up the cars but hopefully arrange for parking somewhere. It may be something the church will have to look at. I am quite concerned about the occupancy of the unit. I feel that if the parson and his family are not the occupants it will be difficult to determine what limitations will be put on who is a legitimate tenant. Christopher ? from Messiah Lutheran Church: We order our people to go 25 miles an hour. We are trying to get everyone to park in the lot. Now the deed restriction--the one thing I would tell you is we have been there since 1956. So that is 35 years. 7 PZM5.7.9l The height issue. I feel bad about that. But this is what employee housing is all about. Rather than making these huge housing complex like at the hospital or centennial I think people would rather see it amongst our housing population. And this is a perfect example ____mumble. Architect: We made a basic view study of the area. The aspect of views with the view in the area close to the living room area, there really is not much of a significant impact where the addition would go. Right now the impact is already there with the church. So an addition of 7ft to that area will not hinder the view. Towards the back yard area it actually would increase this view because of taking this portion of the roof line off which would become the open deck area. So it would increase his view of the Aspen Mountain area. The aspect of shade on his property that probably has shading at the moment anyway. The church itself is set back on the lot and the his residence is set toward the front. (using drawings) This being the north area you are going to get a sun angle coming around here. You would probably get more shading back in this area in the winter time but as for shading the front of his house, his is going to get the westerly, south, southwesterly sun most of the time. Not less than what he has at the present time. Sunny: As far as the concern about additional buildout of the property, the Planning Office has determined that the FAR is that of a duplex and this proposal will bring the project to the maximum allowed for it. So unless the city were to change it's FAR requirements which would apply to all the properties in the area, there could be no further expansion on this particular site. The future occupancy--I can understand the concern. It is not one to be anticipated. We believe the church will occupy the unit. But it is certainly possible that circumstances would dictate someone else. Generally speaking the Housing Authority has certain guidelines with respect to occupancy. But my experience is that you can't have multiple individuals in a 3-bedroom unit. Given the concerns of the neighborhood I think the church would like to keep as much flexibility as possible but I think they might be willing to impose additional restriction as part of the deed restriction that is to be imposed on the site that would limit it to a family. Chris: I would see no problem with this. sunny: Chris can speak for the church and if that is acceptable I think we can solve that concern so that it doesn't turn into a dormitory type housing. 8 PZM5.7.9l The well: We have concerns about the well itself. We want to make sure that adequate water pressure and water is available to serve the parsonage and that we don't diminish the supply for the church. We are happy to see a condition that requires us to review this with the Environmental Health Dept. If it is deemed to be inadequate in either terms of quantity or supply we will commit to tapping the City line. We reserve the ability to look at it. Originally we were concerned about the tap fee additional cost. There are costs associated with connecting up with the system itself. Annual operating costs plus the physical cost of extending the line. Jasmine: I think this is something for the 2 of you to discuss. We need to move along on this. There were no further public comments and Jasmine closed the public portion of this hearing. I would like a straw poll vote on whether the modifications that Sunny has requested are generally OK or not. Richard: First on condition #l between categorizing it as 2 or 3 is the square footage rental price the same? Sunny: Category 2 is 83 cents a square foot. Category 3 is $l.03 a square foot. They have been separated as a result of creating 2 categories. By going 3 instead of 2 you have lOO additional square feet and 20 cents more per square foot to charge. Richard: On condition 4 assuming that an affordable housing unit and tap fee were to be waived would it be waived for the church as well if the church just decided at this point to tap into the City line? Sunny: My understanding is that there probably would be a tap fee. Richard: But not an additional tap fee for the housing unit. Sunny: The housing unit is exempt from it. Roger: I have recommended change for condition for #4. Prior to issuance of a building permit the well shall be tested for quality and capacity and approved by the Environmental Health Dept. Whatever the results of that are it leaves it up to the applicant and Environmental Health and the city to come up with a solution. Incurred in that is if there is insufficient capacity or quality then you will have to go to the City water. 9 PZM5.7.9l As far as the housing I agree with the residents that the nature of this is such that we certainly wouldn't want 6 cars and that would be the potential if that housing became individuals. As a condition should it not be rented to a minister or official of the church and family that it is rented to a like family unit. sunny: That is fine. Kim: This would be a new condition between 3 and 4. The deed restriction shall require that if the unit is not occupied by the church's pastor, it shall be occupied by an equivalent family unit. Richard: I question the legality of that kind of deed restriction. I don't disagree with the intention. I don't think we can legally make that. Sunny: We can voluntarily restrict the unit because of the unique circumstances. It is a conditional use. Bruce: We need to make it clear that we are not amending the Housing Authority guidelines. Jasmine: It is very important not to set a precedent because then everybody is going to say "Our neighborhood is all families and we don't want unrelated individuals living in our deed restricted units". We have to be very specific about the wording of this. The reason why must be stated. Sunny: It is going to reflect back to the church. That it is an employee dwelling unit to be provided in connection with the church in a single family neighborhood. Jasmine: And that that is the anticipated use. Sunny: And has some unique requirements that are being addressed by this deed restriction. Roger: I want it to relate to the equivalent family unit of a pastor and his family occupying it. Kim: We can restrict it further by saying a blood related family. Bruce: I am not sure the applicant wants to buy into that. I don't know what the requirements are for your minister. But I can imagine a situation somewhere along the line where their minister is a single person and you may also have the need for a youth minister or also a single person. And ideally you might want to 10 r- PZM5.7.9l house both of those persons in that unit and they are not related. Sunny: I am suggesting this the church--it's personnel. utilizing it. language only if it isn't occupied by This is in the event the church isn't Roger: Parking: My feeling is that it really should be unmarked but dust controled. Jasmine: Why don't you do suggested wording for #5 and we will see whether everything goes along with it. Roger: It would be basically deleting that and indicate that the parking area--appropriate dust control activity shall be taken with the parking area. Sunny: How about we submit a dust control with Environmental Health. Roger: That is fine. Jasmine: Also there should be something preventing people from parking in the Gubser's driveway. Gubser: We can drive out but they do park within the easement. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the amendment to the conditional use of the Messiah Lutheran church for additional housing unit and recommend GMQs exemption for the affordable housing unit. This to be conditioned on #l being the same a Planning Office memo dated May 7, 1991 with the change that the category is changed to 3. Condition #2 will be changed to read "Occupancy priority shall be given to the church's minister if necessary for specific use by the Messiah Lutheran Church's minister and family. The category 3 asset income guidelines may be exceeded." Condition #3 is the same as Planning Office memo dated May 7, 1991. Condition #4 shall be changed to read "Prior to the issuance of a building permit the water well shall be tested for quality and capacity and approved by the Environmental Health Dept." Condition #5 will be deleted and in it's place the applicant shall submit a dust control program to the Environmental Health Dept. Condition #6 shall be changed to read "All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning & Zoning commission and city Council shall be 11 PZM5.7.9l adhered to and considered conditions of approval unless otherwise amended by other conditions." Kim: An addition to condition #3: Deed restriction shall require that if the unit is not occupied by the church's employees, it shall be occupied by a family, related or blood or marriage. Roger, clarification on #4 regarding the well. How about if we add another sentence that says "If insufficient capacity or quality is determined the applicant shall tap onto city water service". I don't want to necessarily be as specific that if it doesn't qualify they have to go on the City. They have to find a solution. So I will delete that portion from my motion. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. SOUARE FOOTAGE CODE AMENDMENT Jasmine opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. After discussion: Jasmine asked for public comment. There was none and she closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Jasmine: I will entertain a motion to recommend to Council approval of the text amendment for Section 5-504. Roger: I so move. Sara: Using the phrase "Net leasable commercial and office". Roger: I amend my motion. Bruce seconded the motion with all in favor. CHRISTIANIA LODGE GMOS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Jasmine asked the applicant if they had any problem with the conditions. There were no problems. l2 PZM5.7.9l MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the GMQS exemption for the provision of a 1 bedroom employee unit at the Christiania Lodge with the one condition being the same as on Planning Office memo dated May 7, 1991. (attached in record) Sara second the motion with all in favor. Jasmine adjourned the meeting. Time was 6:l5pm. l3