Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19791120 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FaRM <0 C. F. HOECKEL B. B. Il: L. ~<). Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 20, 1979 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on November 20, 1979, at 5:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Olof Hedstrom, Roger Hunt, Welton Anderson, Nancy McDonnell and Lee Pardee. Also present were Karen Smith and Sunny Vann and Jolene Vrchota of the planning Office, City Attorney Ron Stock, Lou Buetner and Dan McArthur of the Engineer- ing Office. Approval of Minutes Hunt moved to approve the minutes of September 15 and October 2, without any corrections, and September 26 with a correction on Page 5, paragraph 4, line 19, change the word number of am to service. Pardee seconded. All in favor, minutes approved. Commissionmember Comments Nancy McDonnell suggested concerning the Housing Over- lay that has been in our packets many times, wouldn't it be helpful to have a cover sheet to tell us the ex- act direction we're going at the meetings, what changes have been made and questions and comments made at pre- vious meetings. Karen Smith agreed to attempt to have such a sheet pre- pared but at this time will try to verbally address that at this meeting. Olof Hedstrom felt that this would be a good idea and most essential in understanding and assist in produc- tivity of this matter. Pardee had attended the work session with the City Council on the Overlay and would like to summarize what happened for the commission. At first there was real opposition to the idea of additional steps and legislation and the inital thought was what should be done to go back and look at Growbh Management, then agreed but that it would intail a two year process. They agreed that something should also be done at this time since the overlay seems to be a workable idea, it does incorporate the three specific related steps. I think now that they are more familiar and if we are close, it would be wise to work on a scheduled work session with Councilmembers. Public Hearing Castle Circle Zoning Karen Smith asked that the commission procede with this after the Opal Marolt Zoning hearing. In recalling the this was tabled at the last meeting pending the discus- sion on Opal Marolt and there was some confussion on which should be heard first. Opal Marolt Property Zoning Karen Smith introduced the application and showed the applicants are represented by Don Ensign, Bob Joyce and Carly Wood and any questions may be directed to them. The Public Hearing is to consider a recommenda- tion by the Planning and Zoning commission on zoning for a parcel of property known as the Opal Marolt pro- perty just west of Castle Creek bridge. The applica- tion is being made to annex the property to the City of Aspen and the question before the P & Z Commission is to recommend what zone for said property. Some recommendations made be wanted to the City Council in regards to any stipulations regarding the annexation. The property is approximately 35 acres, and does in- corporate some steep slopes falling into Castle Creek and across Castle Creek, it is boardered by R-15 zoning -2- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~GRM'~ C. F. HOECHl B. B. II L CJ. Reqular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 20, 1979 on the Eastern city side, by AF 1 zone on the Southeast portion, SPA at Water Plant, current zoning is AF 2 with conservation zoning and AF 2 zoning to the West. There are pockets of R30 subdivisions and R-15 subdivi- sions located cross the Golf Course Property to the North. The conceptual plan is a first idea of what could be on this property and in an attempt to propo- sal with substantial devotion to employee housing at the percentage of 70% employee housing and 30% free market units. The development plan incorporates 40 to 45 free market units covermng the Elks Building relo- cation site, City maintenance site and Opal Marolt's house, and employee housing to the south. The appli- cation originally requested SPA zoning, which is a zoning plan that is intended to accommodate many fea- tures of a site and a unique developmenb plan to the extent that no development is permitted until a deve- lopment plan is reviewed. The application was changed later to apply for an R-6 zone density catagory and the purpose of that was to accomodate the density that was proposed. Looking at it in the traditional zoning framework where the review criteria are such things as surrounding land use patterns, surrounding zoning pat- terns and any conditions that have changed since the original zoning took place. The current zoning is a AF-2 county, which is a 2 acre minimum lot size. We have looked at the property from the standpoint of what densities would result from the zoning requested and infact if you do a straight calculation under R-6 Zoning, using the greater density standards, you would need 4500 sq. ft. per unit and that could result in a density of up to 254 units. According to which zone is used will determine the density and the number of units that can be proposed. Under the R-15 A Zone catagory intended for those areas of the county which are being annexed to the city and intended not to ac- comodate increase in density by the fact that the city and the county R-15 Zones are slightly different. We have required the 50% of the units be deed restricted to low, moderate and middle income housing in order to acheive the higher density that the city zoning allows. An analysis of that site plan we beleive the density that is proposed might be better clustered and reduced to acheive a density that is more appropriate for the surrounding area. This property has been identified by the Open Space Advisory Board and the pitkin county Parks Association has a high priority for open space acquisi- tion. Karen referred to the memo from Planning Office under subsection 7, page 3, which identifies site as far away as Smuggler Mt. and Vista Property and the conclu- sion is the Marolt site is one of the best of all the possible sites and location for employee housing. In addition to the R-15 A we have recommended the pro- perty be designated with a manditory planned unit dev- elopment and perhaps an SPA Zone. The planned unit development catagory is recommended for reasons that it is the only catagory that allows this development to pursue a townhouse or clustered configuration and is specifically intended for sites which may have uni- gue characteristics and allows opprotunity to cluster the development in order to fit with the characteris- tics of the site. The proposal of the Elk's building being placed on the most obvious improper site and due -3- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fGR"'" C.F.HOECKELB.B.!\L.CJ. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 20, 1979 to the fact this site is one of the most sacred areas from the scenic entrances to Aspen would be denied. Karen noted for record the memorandum from the Planning Office prepared of the application which refers to the maps and drawings as part of the development plan a letter of the Board of County Commissioners generally recommending this concept and the R-15 A Zoning cata- gory with some additional detailed comments regarding the development. Also, we received a telephone call from the surrounding property owners being against the proposal and a letter from Sidney and Delores Wineburg stating their disapproval of the proposal. We beleive that this property has some clear pros and cons to this proposal and we have tried to weigh them very closely. Hunt commented that any proposed transportation link going through the property and the main street exten- tion cause impact to the Castle Creek bridge and the whole entrance to the city at this point and should be noted. Hedstrom opened the public hearing at this time. Ron Stock made a public comment on behalf of the ad- ministration and that is that they have on numerous occassions strongly supported the Elk's Club reloca- tion out to this site and have asked for letters to be written to the Elk's supporting this site for their property. Jim Brested of the Open Space Advisory Board stated they visited the property today and discussed the concerns but did not have enough time to formulate a recommendation on this property. The board felt that in view that there are so many influences and specific things that need to be addressed they could not make a recommendation. We are tremendously dis- turbed concerning this disruption of an open parcel such as this and with the nuniller of parking spaces needed and recreation areas needed cause us particu- lar concern. Ed Suzaki commented concerning the CSU 1974 Maps, showing that ~ the land in question as being in an area of high visual vulnerablity. The balance of construction is in a moderate visual vulnerablity. One other map shows most of the land catagorized as "protected lands", as lands with extreme hazards or fragile ecosystems exist. Some of the land is in non- occupancy land, which catagory means best suited for range, forestry and other uses not involving human occupancy and the balance is in a catagory called productive lands and best suited for agricultural usage. None of this property lies in the catagory called occupancy lands, which is lands suited for longterm human occupancies. He felt strongly that there is too much questions to density to allow this property to approve this proposal. Bob Joyce felt that the proposed development area is being clustered on the banks of the east end and would not be a visible problem and are interested in obtaining a zoning to accommodate the housing needed -4- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FCRM" C.F.HOECKe:LB_S.&L.CQ. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 20, 1979 for all concerned. The intentional design was with approximately 60% of the property not being visible form the road and clustering the development so to follow this criteria. Ed Suzaki felt the whole thrust of this development is to obtain employee housing and there are better areas for this purpose that would not increase traffic flow that Gould be hazardous and it would not be adjacent to green space and we should resist carrot of employee housing and not jump on this development for that one reason. Jim Brested agreed and felt the property should remain as open as possible. The city buys lots of open space property and would like to see it remain edge of urba- nization. Hedstrom requested a special meeting November 29, 1979 also, a site inspection November 28, 1979 at 12:00 noon at the site in question. All in favor. Motions approved. WHOP Rezoning Sunny Vann of the Planning Office wanted to make some points concerning the applicants request of anneXa- tion and rezoning of their property across from the Opal Marolt property, south of Hwy 82 on Castle Creek. The property is currently zoned R-15 in the County and a portion AF-l which is in the stream. The applicants are requesting R-15 in the City. If all the land were zoned R-15, then the allowable building square footage would be approximately 3,000 sq.ft. and all require- ments could be accomodated. The Planning Office use annexations of this type, in which there is no community benefit and the proposal is solely for economic bene- fit of the applicants to increase building area. If the City Council wishes to approve the annexation, the Planning Office would recommend the P & Z Commission do that and the zoning would be R-15A. The restric- tion of half the units to low, moderate and middle income, but couldn't build a duplex, if annexed. If the property is annexed the applicant would be required to go through the Stream Margin Review. Based on the information submitted to the Planning Office to date, causes us to be unable to determine the extent of the Flood Plains. Hedstrom opened the Public Hearing and there was no comment and then he closed the Public Hearing. He stated that annexation and zoning if annexed, and asked what are the required actions of this commission in respects to both of those steps? Sunny Vann stated that the applicant is requesting re- conwendation for zoning prior to approaching the City Council to receive approval of annexation to the city and rezoning of R-15 at the same time. Hedstrom asked if the commission wished to make any recommendations on the annexation to City Council? ... -5- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves F GRIol ~o C. F. HoraK [l B. B. II L. CJ. Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 20, 1979 Regular Meeting Lodge Preser- vation Ordinance Oliver Subdivision Exemption Patio Building Subdivision Exemption Nancy McDonnell asked that there is not enough land to build a duplex so they couldn't have a unit to deed restrict to low, moderate so we are looking at a pri- vate residence? Lee Pardee moved to assign R-15A zone to WHOP lot should it be annexed to the City of Aspen by the City Council. Withdrawn. Roger Hunt moved to recommend R-15A to WHOP lot as- summing it is annexed to City by the City Council and no recommendation concerning annexation and the rea- son for R-15A zoning is the consistence with the sur- rounding zoning and other annexations to the City when there is no benefit to the City. McDonnell seconded. All in favor. Motion approved. Olof Hedstrom asked to be excused due to pressing matters at 6:30 P.M. Welton Anderson as summed Vice Chairman position and continued the meeting. Karen Smith requested this item be skipped over and republish at such time that the association comes up with a firm recommendation. Richard Grice of the Planning Office introduced the application by Mike Oliver of request the exemption from subdivision with the condominiumization of a new duplex which is currently under construction and has no rental history. Engineering Office has recommended approval subject to three conditions; being the survey plat is to be revised, the requirement of utility and public extension pole easement for overhead utilities and the easements for the underground utilities and then requirement of the owner/applicant to agree to enter into a curb, gutter and sidewalk improvement district when formed for the area, as well as the six month lease restrictions suggested by the City Attor- ney. Roger Hunt moved to table action on the Oliver Subdi- vision Exemption until such time the questionable statis is clarified. Richard Grice introduced the application for condomi- niumization of existing commercial building that is currently used by commercial tenants and does contain two units which originally were for residential pur- poses and have not been occupied as such for the last eighteen months for residential purposes. The Engi- neering Office has recommended approval subject to two conditions. First the dedication of utility ease- ment and an application to City Council for a license to encroach with the steps of the building and subject to the creation of one off street parking space for each bedroom in the residential units. The City Att- orney has commented that Section 20-9, Subsection C, of the Municipal Code prohibits the subdivision of any use that contains nonconforming elements such as Nature Storehouse, which is the only nonconforming unit. Roger Hunt moved to recommend exemption of strict app- lication of subdivision regulations for Patio Building . -6- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~GRIol <, C. F. HOECKH B. 8. It L. C~. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 20, 1979 condominiumization conditioned on conditions 1 through 4 included verbatum in this motion from the Engineering Department memo dated 19 September, 1979, also condi- tion #5, if the dwelling units are ever used as dwell- ing units they will come under the PMH requirements for either sell price or rental pricing and would be so exempt from the requirement of parking spaces. Condi- tion #6 primarily in compliance with Section 20-9C, however it does include the nonconforming use of Nature Storehouse which is recommended to have that use allow- ed in perpetuity as a nonconforming use, however, if that operation ever vacates the premises that the non- conforming use allowance will be vacated immediately. Otherwise, there are no adverse effects to the city of community or no detriments to the public good. Lee Pardee seconded. All in favor. Motion approved. Kessler Subdivision Exemption Richard Grice introduced the application by Mr. Kessler requesting condominiumization of eight apartment units. There are two buildings with four units in each build- ing and the rental history shows 6 out of 8 units have been rented within the low, moderate and middle income guidelines within the last eighteen months. Two have the units have not and show one unit being occupied by the Kesslers and the other has been short termed. The applicant has offered to deed restrict one unit for a term of three years to insure mitigation of the impact on the housing pool. That is one building. The Engi- neering Department has recommended approval subject to three conditions. The first being revisions in the improvement survey, the second requires the applicant to enter into a sidewalk improvement district and the third requires off street parking situation to be de- signed according to the code. The City Attorney has recommended approval of the subdivision exemption, how- ever, he feels that 6 of the units are currently within the low, moderate and middle income housing pool and suggest that history and applicants purposal to mitigate the impacts we presented for review. The Housing Dir- ector simply recommends that the rural restriction on the four units, which is offered be extended to a five year period. Our recommendation is that six out of the eight units be deed restricted to the low, moderate and middle income housing guidelines for a five year per- iod and all units be deed restricted to six month mini- nal lease provisions and notice optional requirements as well as the Engineering Department recommendations. Ashley Anderson stated there are two buildings in this process and questions is there going to be displacment of employees? There is also a question to the allow- able parking spaces and there could be a trade off with the city getting six employee units without the required parking spaces per bedroom being a required condition. Roger Hunt moved to recommend exemption of strict app- lication of subdivision regulations for the Kessler property condominiumization conditioned under verbatum from Engineering Department memo dated 8 November 1979, -1- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FCRIol\O C.F.HOrCKElB.B.I>L.CJ. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 20, 1979 condition one and two of said memo. Condition three being that the owner/applicant provide the Engineering Department with a design of all off street parking though it is realized the parking is not in conformance with the parking code but there is adequate for the site and there is no other suitable area for expansion of the parking and is allowed only because of the uni- queness of this site. Condition four being that con- dition one be complied with prior to City Council con- sideration and five being five units shall comply with low, moderate guidelines for five years and six being property comply with six month minimun lease require- ments of the Aspen Municipal Code Section 20-22. Otherwise, there are no adverse impacts on land use or detriment to the public good. Nancy McDonnell seconded. McDonnell, aye. Anderson, aye. Hunt, aye. Pardee, nay. Motion approved. Trails Master Plan Jolene Vrchota commented on the revised version of the Trails Master Plan and the memorandum in the packet points out specific changes that have been made and the changes incorporating a method for citizen input on page 48, in the selection of trails to be budgeted by the County. The other major change would be the table on pages 28 and 29, which was changed to be a more descriptive tool that would be used by the staff and by citizens in this type of community in order to make budget recommendations. R. Hunt moved to adopt the Aspen Area General Plan- Aspen-Pitkin Trails Master Plan as an adoption to the 1966 Aspen Area General Plan: Further, the Master Plan shall in no way eliminate the possibility of under- taking an experimental moped program on the trails system when: 1. approved by the agency having jurisdiction (Board of commissioners of Pitkin County or Aspen City Council), and 2. permission is granted by the donors of ease- ments where private property is involved. McDonnell seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Housing Overlay Karen Smith reviewed the requests of the commissions concern about the TDR's would incorporate a time limit for there usage and assure that lodge units could not be built or transferred until completed construction and deed restriction of the employee units. Section 20-10.2A, the exceptance to expand the transferable development rights to delete the phrase,dwelling units and expand it to transfer of units. Further dicussion concerning the changes lead to the decision of sepe- rating the TDR's from the Housing Overlay Ordinance. Pardee moved to request the Planning Office and City Attorney seperate the TDR's and incorporate that into the housing overlay without conflicting interest. Roger Hunt seconded. All in favor. Motion approved. Anderson moved to extend the Public Hearing of the Housing Overlay District and the TDR's to 4:00 Thurs- day, November 29, 1979. -8- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves F ORM ~~ C. F, HOECK EL a. B. I:l L. C:). Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 20, 1979 Roger Hunt seconded. All in favor. Motion approved. Adoption of Resolution 79-20 Anderson moved to adopt Resolution 79-20, whereas the members of the commission are advised that Sheryl Simmen will be leaving the employment of the City of Aspen and no longer will be acting as secretary to the commission and whereas the members of the commission wish to acknowledge that Sheryl Simmen has provided outstanding cooperation and assistance to the members of the commission during her employment to the City. Whereas the commission wishes to commend Sheryl Simmen and do so as a matter of record now, therefore let it be resolved that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commis- sion does hereby commend Sheryl Simmen for her generous cooperation and outstanding services to the City of Aspen and during her tenure as the secretary to the Planning and Zoning Commission and let it be further resolved that this accomendation be incorporated into the minutes of this proceeding and thereby made a public record on this 20th day of November, 1979. Hunt seconded. All in favor. Motion approved. Anderson moved to adjourn. Hunt seconded. All in favor. Motion approved. c!J tLro Ii: '-1Ylv. 0 ~~A . Sandi Meredith, Deputy City Clerk