Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19791113 -l- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR'" I' C.F.HOECl{rLD.D.lltL.CO. Special Heeting Aspen Planning and Zoning commission November 13, 1979 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a Special Meeting on November 13, 1979, at 5:00 P.M. in the City council Chambers. Members present were Olof Hedstrom, Lee Pardee, Roger Hunt, Welton Anderson, Nancy McDonnell and Parry Harvey. Also, present were Karen Smith of the Planning Office and Jim Reents of the Housing Department. commissionmember Comments Chairman Hedstrom called the meeting to order. Housing Overlay Zoning Karen Smith of the planning Office introduced by saying all should have a copy of revised Housing Overlay Zone. There is one feature that needs explanation and that is the TDR Proposal is not included in this copy. It was taken out and a seperate ordinance is being written to decide if this need to be together or whether you need to be together or whether you needed to spend more time on one or the other. Ashley Anderson will give a des- cription of how the Transferrable Development Rights works both in methodology and what its intense purpose is for the background that has not been discussed. Also, she felt there is not a problem of interest but there is no clear understanding and wanted to do two seperate ordinances to be reviewed and each one make their own decision. Jim Reents of the housing department stated that the actual TDR concept is still included within the ordinance before the commission, but it is the transfer of the development right without the extra twist of changing from a lodge use to a residental use. Section A, Page 9, is a statement to what would be defined in the code and the dwelling unit thus allowed to be re- constructed as a dwelling unit do demolished and another appropriation zoned lodge. Theoretically that means you could take it and instead of tearing it down and rebuilding on that site, you deed restrict it and re- build it on another appropriately zoned lot. Ashley Anderson felt for some reason the TDR concept did some sort of wierd conitation and it really is just lack of information. There seems to be so much confu- sion and the decision should be made on whether the commission thinks it si a good idea not whether higher ups don't like it, not whether the city attorney likes it or gets around drafting the ordinance or there is misconnumications, so that premise I will attempt to explain. We are talking about Hans Cantrup's and he is the most likely candidate to use this concept and is converting various old lodges, only a couple on Main St., and the dispersed throughout the city, taking those and converting them into employee housing. We paid premium lodging prices for the ground and the lodge use. So all the TDR does is takes the lodge use away from that and gives us the ability to rebuild that lodge use on unit to unit bases in the lodge zone. After you take that theory, which is almost built into the code anyway, and applying the overlay for density turning 10 units of employee housing you build 13 lodge units on the 30%/70% split bases and you take your exterior FAR bonus and also apply it. What we are trying to do, is to give employee housing and build a beautiful first class master plan facility in the lodge zone. The only question left is what sort of density are we talking about in the lodge zone? What --'''''. ",_,,__,,~,'-'--'.' _.,.,.~~-",-,..,. -2- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'~ C. f. HOECK EL B. B. II L. C,l. Special Meeting Aspen planning and Zoning commission November 13, 1979 we propose is to leave that to special review. Parry Harvey questioned the bonus and the exterior FAR bonus, the bonus being the 1.3 to 1 that is there. Ashley Anderson answered with, we buy a 30 room lodge and take the lodge use away and we rebuild those 30 units in the lodge zone, we know apply the overlay and as a bonus we get 10 more units. Now there aren't on top of ultimate quota for the Growth Management Plan we get 10 more and apply to the split side to the 30 room lodge in the 0 Zone for example, will become employee housing and up here we take 30 units in the TDR concept and the 10 as a bonus and rebuild them as part of our facility. Now the 1.35 exterior bonus we see applying to the 0 Zone, we may have the ability to build more employee housing. In the lodge zone the density remains in special review. The 10 bonus is a third bonus and is called part of the TDR, but makes better sense is you call it the employee overlay per- formance. The TDR concept gets us the right to re- build the number on a 1 to 1 bases and applying the overlay gets us the right to build extra one/third. Lee Pardee pointed out that the purpose of this sub- section of reconstruction of a legal dwelling unit and deed restricting is in effect a transfer of density. Do we need an ordinance for transferring from a non- conforming zone to a conforming zone? Theoretically we have zoning ways this can be done, such as one that applies something in a zone and deed restrict it then reconstruct in a simular zone so that provides an in- tent of an ordinance and if you came in a took a non- conforming use and putting that use in a conforming area and it came before P & Z, and particularly pro- viding employee housing, we would be inclined to ap prove it. In the overlay you get the same density and everything applies. I don't feel we should be making a special ordinance. Ashley Anderson felt Harvey was referring to the first sentence of the TDR concept, which is in the last draft. If you like the concept and understand what is being said, why leave it like that? We are not writing a special ordinance for somebody special, your writing it for a concept. Pardee stated he thought it shouldn't say lodges but instead be a general ordinance and philosophy, the housing overlay should say, but if somebody has a unit rather than tearing it down and considering it demo- lished without having to go through Growth Management, another unit on a legal lot, you can deed restrict that and go ahead and build it. He felt for the publics general review of this, and they will review it, it doesn't look good for the administration to be writing an ordinance specifically for the use of one or a very small number of individuals. Historically according to Welton Anderson, Stacey Stanley came up with an idea to promote the long . -.... ~...'--,....~.~_. ~~,'"',~,--~ - 3- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HllECKHB.a.lll.C.J. Special Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 1979 standing concept of having the tourist facilities at the base of the mountain and at the same time coming up with a vehicle to provide employee housing simply. Stacey had the idea in the beginning and made the pre- sentation to the P & Z and he came up with the concepti Taking lodges with nonconforming zones and making those employee housing units and using that as a vehicle to add to the number of first rate quality tourist accom- modations in the zone that planning wise, we always thought they should be. It wasn't as complex back then as is now. Hedstrom felt it would be to everyone advantage to have a special ordinance as Lee pointed out, to have the wording in this ordinance on transference 24-11(2) (a) such that anyone sixplex, lodge could come in under this and accomplish these very simply explained trans- ference process that you are describing from lodge to lodge area, old lodge to employee housing. Gideon wanted to ask for the commission to keep in mind that we are working very hard to eliminate the nonconforming use statis of most of the lodges that exist right now and this is something that could be coming up in the very near future. Ashley Anderson felt the key is not necessarily con- forming and nonconforming, we are taking lodges that in our opinion don't really work as lodges unless they are rebuilt, which is to expensive, in that frame- work, and those we are taking out of the mix and put- ting at the mountain base. Karen Smith stated that it is true that the factor here is not the existence of the TDR ordinance, but whether a lodge is a viable one or economic, will want to take advantage of some ability to perhaps transfer to another district, or sell those rights. Using general terms could be the best used. Jim Reents felt by rewriting Section A with more gen- eral language so the concept would apply not only to a lodge use being transferred to appropriate zone but a commercial use being transferred to the appropriate commercial zone. Hedstrom felt the attitude about this concept possibly delaying an overlay should be recognized and if it were simplified and in general rather than a specific sep- erate ordinance improves the chances for everyone. Welton Anderson felt that this could develope into an incredibly complex situation because there's different densities and open spaces, different criteria, bulk criteria that apply to every single zone and when you start transfeering Z over to Y, etc, and all these different densities and open spaces back and forth, you are talking about different numbers of possible units in different places and could develope into an incre- dibly complex thing. Jim Reents thought that it had not been pointed out that through the mechanics of the whole overlay you have to do a special review to approve employee housing, anyway, and at that point you could evaluate the com- -'1-- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM'.' C. F. HOiTKfL D. B.1t l. C-l. Special Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 1979 plexities that you are talking about on a case by case bases and reject it in effect because it might be too awkward. Parry Harvey addressed the concern over the time tables of how this whole thing will work, secondly and right now is that the overlay is not needed. If we create a TDR and someone with the lodging units and sells those development rights on a one to one bases, why do they have to go through an overlay, the only thing is for is to get a density bonus. Pardee felt it amkes a lot of sense from the city's stand point to have TDR as part of the ordinance then we have the same review procedure and the meetings with the planning office, we have everything before it gets any bonuses or anything and that provides the safe- guards needed. Furthur discussion concerned the questions of differ- ences of small and large transferences and where housing needs to be and by keeping the Housing Overlay and TDR combined and simply stated so to protect all concerned and by using the review procedure as safeguards to properties in question. The commission felt that having Section 24.11(2) (a) as the TDR, and with such language as to satisfy the transfers to lodges and lodges to employee housing as well as the small person. Hedstrom felt the first question was, does the commis- sion want to reverse itself and feel that incorporating the TDR concept in general terms without specific language to reference to lodges in the ordinances is what we wish to work for through the planning office. The concensus of the commission is that the TDR should be included in the housing overlay ordinance whether than a seperate one if it is possible to do without getting delayed. Second question is rather we want a one to one bases and higher by special review or do we want to arrive at the figures that appear defi nenantly in the transfer of density? Examination of the HOusing Overlay Ordinance and TDR concept showed further amendments to be deleted and added and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion and to be make by the Planning Office and brought back for further discussions. All Approved. Anderson moved to adjourn. Harvey seconded. All in favor. Motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 P.M. ~ 'f/lv.~~L 1:~ Sandi Meredith, Deputy City Clerk