Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19791106 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~ ORM ~O C. r. H OECKfL B. B. II l. CJ. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 1979 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on November 6, 1979, at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Olof Hedstrom, Welton Anderson, Lee Pardee, Parry Harvey, Nancy McDonnell and Roger Hunt. Also, present were Karen Smith and Richard Grice of the planning Office, Dan McArthur of the Engineering Department and City Attorney Ron Stock. Commissionmember Comments Chairman Hedstrom announced the departure of Sheryl Simmen. Roger Hunt moved to commend Miss Simmen and Welton Anderson seconded the motion. All in favor. Harvey had three meetings with the Lodge Association and Karen Smith. The Lodge Association commented on the non- conforming statis of certain lodges in town, which or in zones where they don't belong and the other being the issue of condominiumization. Figures that have been noted show 50% of the lodge pillows are conforming and 50% are non-conforming. This makes it difficult for financing and they would like to see this changed either through a conservation zoning or conditional use or some- thing else to be worked on. Basically, their feelings are when the zoning was done, the lodges should be mass- ed at the base of the mountain and taken out of the zones where they are non-conforming uses and the charac- ter and ambiance of Aspen is to a large extent due to the fact that there are neighborhood lodges that are not at the base of the mountain and are not big time and are small personalized operations. The issues of condomin- ization show them a means to finance the upgrading and improvements of the individual lodges. They don't want time sharing as a means of raising money because, they don't agree with the principals of the way that works. Basically you get into the problems with the second and third owners, but, at the same time they see an avenue for refinancing provided for them if they need X number dollars to completely rebuild and reconstruct. They can sell a certain number of rooms and raise a portion or all of the needed capital, also, removing the non-con- forming statis will allow them to get more conventional financing. They are concerned with what happens with money buying up the small lodges and transferring the density to the base of the mountain. Turning these small ledges into the employee housing, which has been what the city has wanted and we could loose all of these small intimate lodges in return for just large hotel convention center type operations. We are trying to draft some form of amendment or resolution, which will remove the non-conforming use either through conditional use or conservation or shatever. Also, one very im- portant thing through these meetings are that our con- cern is in loosing a small percentage of lodge rooms that would be taken off the market and would not be short termed. At this time we are seeing whole lodges being removed from the market. For example, the Blue Spruce, and without condominiumization or being able to sell a few rooms, they can not upgrade, and can not get finan- cing and remove the non-conforming use, leaving then no alternative but to except these offers of cash from certain parties that are transferring the density right. Condominiumization is a way of financing these improve- ments and we are really losing 30 or so lodge units in- stead of 3% or so on. -2.- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM I' c.r.HOECKHB.B,IIl.C.J. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 1979 Pardee, asked will the committee come up with a recom- mendation to the Commission? Harvey, yes we are trying to get a consences on and draft something that will satisfy the problems of non-conforming use without creating a situation where anyone in R6 Zone who has a few lots could come in and request a conditional use for a lodge. Hunt, one of the problems with condominiumization is the total lodge operation. The ownership disintegrates and the lodge is no longer an operation with a building so if this committee can come up with a method a retaining the amenities of the lodges. There has been no mention of cooperatives. Harvey mentioned there are three basic considerations which would be condominiumization, possibly a coop, and possibly time sharing, which would be explored. Hunt felt another problem is an owner not holding a room for an entire season and getting it off the market. Anderson felt when we loose a whole lodge in respects to the TDR, we're loosing a lodge but gaining the rooms in the area that the city has said they should be and also employee housing in a residential area. Hunt questioned the possibility of making lodges that are now existing to conforming uses, to conditional uses no matter what zone they are in and realizing they are allowed that conditional use only because of the exist- ing non-conformity due to downzoning. Ron Stock explained to the Lodge Association that the only way to modify their problems is to modify the non- conforming use sections, so that it's not as bad as is or change the zoning, which they are at or change the zones which their at, non of those proposals know what their looking for and have all been rejected at this point. Karen Smith came up with a very good porposal and it is something that has been done in Phoenix and will be investigated further. There they found certain neighborhoods that did not fit in to their zoning code definitions. What they adopted was a conservaiton type district and we could do the same with the same overlay, that would allow for existing uses to continue as per- mitted uses, but where it didn't exist, you fall back to your original zoning. Carla Astor Rezoning Richard Grice of the Planning Office, stated, at the last meeting we were hung up on spot zoning. Gideon made some arguments which have been since presented to Ron Stock, that it was not spot zoning and the commis- sion wanted to know Ron's opinion regarding the Spot Zoning question. Ron Stock supports the project Carla Astor wants to do but felt the appropriate method of doing this was with a housing overlay zone, not spot zoning. The R6 zoning is very close to spot zoning. The planning ramifica- tions are not necessarily the legal ramification, not saying this is illegal because it's close to being spot zoning, what is being said, is that spot zoning is illegal because it has certain negative planning - 3- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM \1 C.F.HOECKE:lB.B.IIl.C.). Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 1979 impacts. This type of rezoning tends to have those same impacts. He recommended a denial, to approve it which is not illegal, but the approval of rezoning carries with it certain negative planned aspects. Hunt questioned if approved, one of the aspects of the potential of everyone in that area wanting do that exactly same thing and we not having sufficient cause to deny it in the future, could be part of the problem. Ron Stock stated it would and also creates a precedent in the community of jumping over zones. Anderson felt it also sets a precedent for a condition on rezoning that 50% of the units are deed restricted, which is not a bad precedent. Stock felt the Commission should know there are a few members of City Council at this point do not feel ~hat they have personally had input into the drafting of the Housing Overlay Zone and they are not certain this zone infact is the answer they want to solve the problem of employee housing within the community or even one of the answers. They may vote no, simply because of not having the ability to put input into it. Hunt understands this property is across from R6-PUD zone. Questions if approved on the bases that it essentially adjoins an R6 zone, can this be defended from every other application wanting to do the same thing in that area? Gideon wanted to point out that neighborhood is already built up and look at the precedent. It is a very small zone and is builtup except for across the street, which is an R15A zone, which is totally different. He felt that if this is the precendent of worry, there shouldn't be a worry that people are going to take free market units and voluntarily turn those free units into em- ployee units. Anderson felt there is very little difference between the housing overlay and this type of picking a speci- fic site and zoning it. He flet it wouldn't bother him to rezone this now, for it essentially is the same pro- cess. Hunt felt it wouldn't bother him either, provided the City Attorney could defend the precendent in the future. Ron Stock stated that if the next door neighbor asked for R6, they can not be required of them that 50% of their deed be restricted. In the rezoning chapter of the code, it sets up the procedure and sets up process and doesn't specifically have review criteria. What we are looking at is the valitity of the zones of the piece of property. We can not require that as a condi- tion. The only way that I can be able to enforce pro- tection from the next door neighbor going to R6 would be difficult to defend. Gideon questions when a rezoning application comes once a year, the second feature that since you have your own -4- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIlM \~ C. F. HOrCHL B. B. II L. C ..1. Regular Meeting Aspen planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 1979 criteria, you don't have to approve a R6 rezoning ap- plication do you? This property was all built when it was R6 and the zoning changed to R15, so there should not be a problem, plus a year from now we will either have the employee overlay district or we are not going to have it, which changes the concern of criteria. Harvey was curious whether there was any comments from any of the eighbors. Karen Smith stated, No. Just one about the donkey. Anderson questioned if the R15A minimum size lot is 20,000 sq. ft.? Stock stated they had looked at that cause at one point and thought R15A zoning would have been excepted and it would have been except it is 16,000 sq.ft. Anderson wanted to know if there would be anyway to redrawing the lot lines between these three lots to make two non-conforming lots and one lot of 20,000 sq.ft., so it could be calssed R15A. Stock commented that it would be a problem because she has only one parcel of property. There has never been approval by the city and there has never been a formal subdivision application for approval. If she would have obtained the subdivision of the property as she once wanted to do, into three seperate lots, she would have been able to accomplish with the R15A what shes asking for here. We thought at one time that would be our way out but it didn't happen. Anderson commented that the arguments that Gideon made last week showing the precedence in legal various parts of the country concerning spot zoning, as being some- thing entirely different from the adjacent properties was very well done and well thought out, compelling, persuasive and if infact at sometime in the not so distint future we do adopt a housing overlay district, then the whole question of other property owners in the neighborhood coming and saying you rezone this R6 and R15. We have a better vehicle with the housing over- lay for increasing the number of units and us this method. He moved to approve rezoning request for the Carla Astor property, from R15 to R6 as described in Exhibit A, in Gideon Kaufman's letter to Jim Reents, dated August 15, 1979, for the reason that this will result in conversion of 4 free market units into 3 free and 3 employee housing units and for the purpose of converting four free market units to 3 free and 3 deed restricted units, because of it's proximity to existing R6 zoning and to allow this specific piece of property to come up to the density of neighboring property in a highly developed area. Olof Hedstrom asked for any other additions to the mo- tion and a second to that motion. Harvey seconded the motion. Pardee commented that he felt there is a very clean precise way that we have on the adenda in the Housing - 5- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIlM ~~ C. F _ H OrCK EL B. 8. II l. C ,I. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 1979 Overlay and is the right way. Hunt was simpathetic to Lee's position and in a real quandary as far as voting, because he agrees with Lee completely but, would like to see this thing accom- plished and puts us in an untenable position for the future, but wants housing. Hedstrom asked all in favor. Parry Harvey, aye. Welton Anderson, aye. Nancy McDonnell, aye. Roger Hunt, aye. Olof Hedstrom, aye. Lee Pardee, nay. Motion approved. PUBLIC HEARING Castle Circle Zoning Perry Harvey stepped down due to potential conflict. Karen Smith asked to table on the bases of inability of the planning office to come up with a direct and clear cut recommendation to the commission. The plicant's attorney has agreed to allow this to be tabled until such time that a larger question of the Opal Marolt Property annexation and zoning is settled. Would like to open the Public Hearing and submit the memorandum prepared to the record and correct the size of the parcel to 36,000 sq. ft. instead of 40,000 sq. ft. therefore it would not be possible even under the R15Q zone distirct to do two duplexes. It would be however, possible to duplex the existing residence and severe off another parcel for a single family dwelling through a lot split. So considerations about additional density being allowed still stand although they are somewhat mitagated. We felt the R15A zone district would be appropriate given the result of a duplex where in one unit of that duplex was within the low moderate middle income price range. Seems to be well suited given the proximity to the hospital and thier employee needs, however I can not recommend for any increase in density on that parcel, knowing the topography and the lay of the land in the configura- tion of the parcel is. In our summary we had indicated it was difficult to recommend a clear cut zoning to you on the bases that the surrounding zoning is un- settled and the issue has to do with the Opal Marolt annexation, which comes before you on November 20, 1979 If that were settled and the surrounding zoning were compatable we would recommend the R15A under the con- dition the development were limited. On the 36,000 there would be allowed the same density as under R30 but under R15A there would still be two single family units allowed by lot split, cause you could do two parcels at 15,000 sq.ft. each. You couldn't do two duplexes because it would delete that, but could do one duplex and a lot split. Anderson moved to continue Public Hearing to next re- gular meeting, November 20, 1979. Hunt Seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion Approved. Hoguet Subdivision Exemption Richard Grice of the Planning Office introduced the proposed Hoguet Subdivision Exemption. Both units of the duplex are clearly not within the low and moderate income housing pool, as the upper unit has been unoc- cupied and never been rented and the lower unit has been rented to the Aspen Institute. Dan McArthur has some changes he would like to make. -,- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C. r. HO~TKfL B. B. II: L. <>1. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 1979 Dan McArthur felt since the memorandum was prepared on August 28, 1979, the owner came in and corrected the first five items, so those are okay at this point. Item number six, needs to be changed from meters to one meter. Item number seven, and the requirement of one bedroom should be one parking space per bedroom. Item number seven should be corrected prior to being placed on the next City Council Meeting Agenda. Anderson questioned if it was physically possible to apply off street parking. McArthur stated that at this time there is no sidewalk in that area and the people are presently parking on the dirt portion in front of the building. We could take two approaches with this problem, which is either go with code requirements which eliminates that totally and make them provide off street parking or we can be flexible in certain cases like this where we are saying, you can continue doing what you have been doing in the past, but in the future there is an approven district and we have sidewalks, curbs and gutters, you have to provide off street parking like we have done in the past. Anderson and Chairman Hedstrom felt the off street park- ing if not done before the sale of the property it should be included in the sale price and an understand- with the purchaser to have this done. McArthur stated that under a full subdivision we require them to be put in no matter what, curb, etc., but under exemptions, we have been taking the stand that because it is not a full subdivision we are putting it off to a future date. Shall we make them do the same require- ments as if they were going to subdivision. Hedstrom felt they might should reconsider this point and decide how this should be handled in the future. Hunt felt where we do not get a balancing benefit com- munity wise of employee housing shouldn't we put such a unit more in conformance with the code at the time of subdivision. McDonnell felt that it is a good idea that we have the sidewalks put in now since there are so many condominium- zations coming up, it would eliminate future delay. What would it take to impliment some type of program to go through a block at a time? Harvey stated the majority of the owners have to come in and agree to join a district and theoretically we can make them put it in, however many people agree but it never gets done. Chuck Brandt a representative of Robert Hoguet showed the map of the property including the improvements, which shows an overlap of the parking area where the sidewalk is that is built for the next door duplex. There is sufficient room and the client has no opposi- tion to the restriction should a sidewalk improvement be implimented. Hunt moved to recommend exemption of strict application -7- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C. r. HOECKfL a. B.1I L. (>). Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and zoning Commission November 6, 1979 of subdivision regulations for the Hoguet Duplex at 118 East Bleeker, provided that and conditioned upon the applicant installing a water meter prior to April 1, 1980 Parking on the right of way shall be vacated and parking provided by September 1, 1980, along with landscaping and foliage shall be maintained in the vacinity of the new site. Applicant agrees to enter a sidewalk improve- ment district should one be formed and property shall be so deed restricted, and provided the applicant agrees to the Aspen Municipal Code 20-22, 6 months minimum lease restriction. Anderson seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion approved. Beer/Zangger Subdivision Exemption Richard Grice introduced Jan Mulford, representing the Beers' and Zanggers' and the property located at 845 North Red Butte Drive as the subject of subdivision ex- emption. Rental history shows one of the units has been rented for 62~ per sq.ft. since May of 1977, which re- quires a judgment simply denial, feeling that the appli- cant appears to be within the low and moderate rate income housing pool and therefore recomnlends denial until the applicant submits an appropriate plan to mini- mize the adverse effects of the condominiumization of the low and moderate income housing pool. Jan Mulford stated the applicant's bought this property 10 years ago as half interest undivided as tenant's in common. At this point, they are trying to get it into the condominium format for financing purposes. Since the application was filed, Zangger has sold her unit to Ann Amobley. This is owner occupied and not on the rental market and felt it doesn't come within the low and moderate income housing pool, just because it is off your 58~ per sq.ft., the rent has been kept the same for 18 months. Hunt moved to recommend subdivision exemption of strict application of the Beer/Zangger duplex at 845 No. Red Butte Drive, provided that conditions are followed. 1. Items 1-7 of the Engineering Memo dated October 1, 1979 are complied with prior to Council consideration. 2. Applicant agrees to Aspen Municipal Code Section 20-22, and 6 months minimum lease requirement and is so deed restricted. Anderson seconded the motion. All in favor. Lee Pardee against. Motion approved. Rome Subdivision Exemption Richard Grice introduced condominiumization of duplex located in the Pitkin Mesa Subdivision. Rental history shows one unit has been owner occupied and the other rented on short term bases since last winter. Engi- neering department has four conditions it would like to be of approval. The planning office recommendation is denial until the applicant submits an exceptable propo- sal to mitigate adverse impacts. Due to lack of infor- mation this will have to be a judgment call. Robert Rome stated the front unit has been only long termed this summer at a rate of $550.00 per month and has 800 sq.ft., being 68~ per sq.ft. This unit is short termed the rest of the time and the other unit is (3- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKELB.B.IIl.C,). Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 1979 lived in by the owner and never been rented. Hunt moved to recommend exemption of strict application of the subdivision regulations of the Rome duplex at lot 4, block 1, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision, provided that conditions 1, 2, & 3 are the same as items 1, 2, & 3 of the Engineering Memo dated September 19, 1979 and item #1 be accomplished prior to consideration by the council and 4. 6 months minimum lease provision of Aspen Muni- cipal Code section 20-22 and the property so deed re- stricted. Pardee seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion approved. Joffee Subdivision Exemption Richard Grice introduced the Hoffee Subdivision exemp- tion of duplex located at 1065 Cemetary Lane, currently there is one unit in existence, the second unit never being constructed and the existing has been owner oc- cupied for the last 18 months, which eliminates the low, moderate or middle income housing requirments. The Engineering office request that the approval be given on 3 conditions found in the memo dated october 30, 1979 and the 4th condition added by Dan McArthur as agreeing to curb, gutter and sidewalk district when one is formed Hunt moved to recommend exemption of strict application of the subdivision regualtion of the Joffee property, which will become a duplex located at 1065 Cemetary Lane, with conditions 1 & 2 same as Engineering Memo dated october 30, 1979, and those shall be complied to consideration of the Council. Three shall be the same as item 3 on the same memo, condition 4 is applicant shall enter into a curb, gutter and sidewalk district when one is formed and the property be so deed restrict- ed. Fifth condition be applicant agrees to comply with Aspen Municipal Code, Section 20-22, and the 6 months lease requirement and the property be so deed restrict- ed. Pardee seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion approved. SCI Zone New Business. Chairman Hedstrom asked to consider the conditional use of the SCI Zone immediately and of the housing overlay ordinance for his personal convience. Harvey stated the way he understands it we want the Engineering and Planning departments to come with a re- commendation for curb, gutter and sidewalks on a sub- division exemption and come back to the commission. Pardee answered no, the planning office will sit down with City Council and ask, do you want us to inforce the exemptions the same as we treat subdivisions by requiring or should we not require it for subdivisions? Hedstrom stated this involves a change in the policy for what commissioners have sought for many years and we want direction. McArthur stated the other problem we have is curb, ~ gutter and sidewalk cuts in the downtown area. The code specifically says 1-10 ft curb cut for anthing ."....,._,,~.----,.............,'-,.,_. ,r -9- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR'" 50 C.F.HOECKfLB.B.IIL.CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 6, 1979 less than 60 foot frontage and 1-18 ft. for anything larger than 60 ft. Do we go by the Code, making 10 ft. or 18 ft., whatever the requirments are, or is this another one left open to common sense? Richard Grice felt it is not possible to come with a conclusive list but could come up with a policy that will work. Suggested that consideration of allowing uses in the SCI Zone, and add the following language to the conditional use list, will possibly solve the problem; uses other than permitted uses may be allowed provided they are accessory to permitted uses and pro- vide adequate safeguards offered to guarantee that ac- cessory statis. This is being misused in one case and this makes it not possible to add that flexibility to the code. Generally the flexibility could be allowed provided there are safeguards taken. Chairman Hedstrom called for a straw vote on instructing the Planning office to procede with Public Hearing on an amendment to the SCI Zone Code as follows: uses the addition to the following to the conditional lists, uses other than permitted uses maybe allowed provided they are accessory to permitted uses and provided with adequate safeguards are offered to guarantee the acces- sory statis. Motion seconded. All in favor. Motion approved. Richard Grice stated the planning office would schedule a Public Hearing and bring it back to the commission. Housing Overlay Ordinance The commission discussed the Housing Overlay Ordinance point by point and made amendments to the document al- ready presented. Karen Smith and Jim Reents penciled in the changes and marked in under review criteria and under the proce- dural aspects. Page 7, 24-8.7 D and E and B. Page 8, 24-10.10 B, Subsection 1, is eliminated due to Ron's changes, has made reference to necessity of compliing with the subdivision regulations when that is required by other sections of this code. Under B 6, we dropped of increased density, minimization of adverse enviro- mental and social impacts. Under B 9, 10 & 11, have been eliminated. Then page 11, subparagraph I, the project must meet 70% of the total number of bedrooms within the project only, not 70% of the total number of bedrooms and 70% of floor area. Chairman Hedstrom called for a special meeting for Tues- day, November 13, 1979 at 5:00 P.M. Pardee moved to adjourn. McDonnell seconded. All in favor. Motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 9:10 P.M. ~ YJ7~ Sandi Meredith, Deputy City Clerk II. ."...._..._---.-"..,_.~_._-.,....~..~...-~'"--,-