Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19791204 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves F OR"l ~~ c. r. H OfCKEL B. B. a. l. C .1. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 04, 1979 The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a Regular Meeting on December 04, 1979, at 5:00 P.N., in the City Council Chambers. Members present were acting chairman Welton Anderson, Roger Hunt, Lee Pardee, Parry Harvey, Joan Klair and Nancy McDonnell. Also present, were Karen Smith of the Planning Office and Bill Dunaway of the Aspen Times and interested parties of the lodge district and interested parties for the Opal Marolt Annexation. Approval of Minutes Hunt moved to approve the minutes of October 16, 1979 and October 23, 1979 as presented, McDonnell seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Commissionmember Comments Pardee felt the resolution considered at the last meeting concerning employee housing and restricted rental units and a way of enforcing a guideline for employee housing is one of the most important factors of all the boards decisions on any housing to be approved with an appointed person to be a Housing Authority Officer, again suggested. TDR Discussion Housing Overlay Public Hearing Karen Smith of the Planning Office commented that this is a continued Public Hearing and had included a earlier memo from Stacey Stanley and a cover memo from her giving background on the TDR's proposal. There is also a re- draft of the Housing Overlay and submit to record the memorandum the Planning Office dated March 30, 1979 with the PMH Housing Transferral Density Rights explanation attached to it. Welton Anderson opened the Public Hearing and asked for comments. Mary President of the Lodge Association, asked if each of the members could speak for about three minutes commenting on the TDR's and Housing Overlay. Joe Cooper of the Highlands Inn commented to the serious- ness of TDR's the were designed for Employee Housing and a new resort complex and my reasoning for not approving what has been proposed is that an artifical market is being created and can we afford to loose one lodge by unnatural means and the tradeout for employee housing could be solved without doing away with the small lodges. We feel that there is a waste of money to convert to employee housing and should be concentrated and not flung throughout the town. We of the lodge district and other interested parties are not here to complain but believe in principles and not taking lodges off the market and force them to loose or sell so to survive. We would like to have a work session with the commission to really come up with some solutions to benefit every- one involved. Jim Reents the Housing Director felt the air needed to be cleared concerning the fact that employee housing is actually has important and no different than anyone else who is renting or buying to live here as permanent re- sidents and should be handled as such instead of being seperated and classed as second class people. Gus Hallam commented concerning the deed restrictions imposed on the heirs and assigns of the Cantrup Corpora- tion pl~ces a heavy sentence to be placed on anyone and -2- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C. F. IWEC~H ~. B_ 110 L Cl. Regular Meeting Aspen Planninq and Zoninq Commission December 04. 1979 in our supposedly free country it seems that the TDR's present a inadequate usage with stiff and unfair regula- tions. There should be other property that could be used or traded so as not to have to use the existing lodges to be reconstructed and to a great expense that could do more harm than good. Erma Boltinghouse of the Horse Stone stated that she felt the small lodges that built this town are being closed due to the TDR's and employee housing is a problem but should not be allowed to force others out of business. The lodge industry as a whole will be hurt by a large concentrated resort complex and even if it helps the employee housing problem it will not be a benefit to the small lodge owners. Nancy McDonnell felt the concern and or fears of many of the small lodges is that they would be offered amazing amounts of money and be bought up and the lodging com- munity would loose the small individual lodge charm that made Aspen and we would have huge complexes and is that what Aspen wants? Ashley Anderson questioned why this issue alone is such a problem because the TDR concept and the Overlay con- cept is not to harm the lodge district and there could be applied an objective limit in the ordinance to take care of the concern such as 150 units maximum for anyone. There seems to be a real fear of employee housing and there has to be a way to keep what we have and have the needed employee housing as well. Michael Behrendt commented that this is a mixed issue and in fact is this producing a long lasting housing for our employees? The reason we of the lodging community are upset is that initially we down zoned the city in order to preserve the growth and in the process we down zoned these people and promised there would be no pro- blems and it turns out it is a problem. The TDR's cause pressure to move out and there is definite pressure on the nonconforming usage. There is also a question to where Aspen is headed due to all these changes and con- flicts. March Riley wanted to state that the people here are not objecting but questioning what is happening and where does the lodging community stand. Stacey Stanley, Ex-Mayor, commented on him being here for eight years and the TDR concept was started in 1973 and was a good concept then and is still a good concept for this town because it solves many of the problems building the economic base of the tourist industry and the need of our primary support of employees housing and it seems that every solution has a critical claus and brings us no closer to solving the problems. The TDR concept gives us and upgrading of emp~oyee housing and upgrading of the lodge district which is at the present and has been since 1972, a second rated tourist lodging district and we shouldn't allow this to continue for all concerned. It is also not balanced when we have employees working for the city and living in other cities getting involved with and spending their time with and their money in the other cities instead of in the city of Aspen where they FORM<' C,r.Ho,CKfLB.B.ltL.CJ. Regular Meeting -3- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning and Zoning COmmission December 04, 1979 work, which puts the city out of balance with expendi- tures. Welton Anderson compiled the number of units existing and proposed and showed that in the past ten years there have been 49 occupied units and with the proposed units would amount to 208 employee units. The needed employee units is close to 500 and even with the proposed units will still fall short for now and with the average in- crease yearly of 50 additional units leaves us with the frustration of trying to address the employee housing problem. Perhaps the Planning Office could prepare a mini master plan which tells how many lodges are in ,town, how many rooms in each of these lodges, how many of these lodges are owned by Hans Cantrup, and where we stand on lodges lost to convertion. Gideon Kaufman spoke on behalf of a number of lodge owners who certainly understand the existing problem of employee housing but want the best approach to the solution with- out the lose of small lodges and loosing the central re- servations, which would end the lodge business. It looks to us that the TDR's will have a serious impact on the main street lodges and all small lodges and the legisla- tion to preserve and maintain the continued existence of all present lodges is imperative. The idea that we are against employee housing is unfair because we are against the TDR's not employee housing. Welton Anderson closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Office to prepare of master plan and answer the afore questions and also how many TDR's can fit in the lodge district. Pardee felt instead of writing legislation for Cantrup that we should be working for what is good for the com- munity and evaluate and weigh the pros and cons. The only real Objection I hear is to ARI's, which could be addressed and the longterm implication of a TDR. Klar felt any program needs to be balanced and she is in favor of the TDR's with more fine tuning but that they would be to the communities advantage. McDonnell felt the employee housing is a right of way necessity and the TDR's would provide this and I do think the possiblities are frightening without limitations be- ing set on anyone project and should be balanced to help any such proposed plan. Welton Anderson recommended instead of taking action on the Draft Ordinance, we should base our decisions on the the information from the Planning Office we have asked for and suggest a work session and to have a spokesman for the lodging community. He then asked to table and continue the Ordinance of TDR's in lodge and hotel units providing a bonus in existing structures with the existing structures being reconstructed as dwelling units in com- pliance with current building codes and such being deed restricted within the provisions of Section 24-11.4(b3) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, until addi- tional information can be provided by the Planning Office as to number of lodges in town and how many are owned by -4- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM ~O C. F. HQECKE'l B. B. II: l. U. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 04, 1979 whom and what plans are for those lodges. Also, we need a special meeting covering these items on December 11, 1979 at 5:00 P.M. Roger Hunt so moved to accept the motion made by Welton and Klar seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Housing Overlay Public Hearing Karen Smith suggested and urged the commission to adopting the Housing Overlay which is close to approval. The major difference in the memo and redrafted ordinance with the revisions dated December 3, 1979, is that this ordinance does not include the TDR's and omits every- thing that has to do with a mixed project, we are only providing for the Housing Overlay to work in the districts of an all residential project. Roger Hunt commented to the review criteria in the ordi- nance be in effect the city retain the right in this process to disallow any future condominiumization of a rental unit, not necessarily all or part of them but all proposals be put under the review criteria under the limitations. Welton Anderson continued the Public Hearing and asked for comments from the public, no comments made, and then closed the Public Hearing and asked for comments from the commission. Bill Dunaway asked what was decided about page 8-2, last paragraph, deed restriction against condominiumization of rental units? Karen Smith answered that it has been deleted. Welton Anderson asked to a motion to recommend adoption of an ordinance authorizing the developement of bonified low, moderate and middle income housing within the Housing Overlay District provided for multifamily residential use with increased density and providing for the designation of such Housing Overlays Ordinance, with the deletion of the last phrase in Section 24-10.9 B(2) " and deed restriction against condominiumization of rental units". and the changes as outlined in memo dated December 3, 1979, from Karen Smith, Planning Director and to be reviewed by the City Attorney to insure language that might be con- strued to deal with TDR's in Section 24-10.2(a). Lee Pardee so moved, Joan Klar seconded. Hunt asked for a row call vote: Parry Harvey, aye. Roger Hunt, nay. Joan Klar, aye. Nancy McDonnell, aye. Lee Pardee, aye. Welton Anderson, aye. Opal Marolt Annexation and Rezoning Parry Harvey stepped down from his position on the com- mission due to a conflict of interest. Karen Smith wanted to submit to the record items dated December 3, 1979, memorandum which follows up on the commissions request to provide the pros and cons or ad- vantages and disadvantages of alternative employee housing sites and refined density calculations further, offering further comments and recommendations with spe- cific conditions for approval. Also, I have received a letter from Eleanor Belmar dated December 3, 1979, which I would like to submit for the record. Jim Reents wanted to say that annexation is an approval -5- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 1'00/"1'0 C.F.HOECKFlD.B.8-l.C,J, Regular Meeting Aspen planning and Zoning Commission December 04, 1979 by City Council with no requirement review by the Planning and Zoning Commission, what is reviewed by this commission is appropriate zoning. At the present time you could recommend an SPA Zone, which requires an adopted and approved plan or withhold the recommendation until after the annexation takes place, you can not review this ap- plication as it stands until the parcel is in the city because you have (the commission) has no jurisdication before the annexation takes place. Nancy McDonnell stated that she is against the zoning or annexation because she feels that we are being respon- sible in planning employee housing by taking this pro- posal and everything that is marked employee housing should be studied. This property is part of a well studied Greenway-Open Space Plan and I don't want to see that developed. Jim Reents commented that he spoke with Bob Joyce, Attor- ney for the applicant and he is willing to accept any agreement of maximum developement of (125), but prefers not having any limits. Welton Anderson asked for any comments from the commis- sion on the seven contingencies listed by the Planning Office at the end of their memorandum dated December 3, 1979? Klar is concerned with the number of units to how we would recommend. Smith commented that Bob Joyce com- mented to her that they would prefer not to have any maximum limitation at all but, would commit to not having appling for anymore than the 125, beyond that their con- cern is that until the developement starts they do not know how it will work but, feel they would be able to address our concerns with a higher number of units. On the other hand I feel that 100 units is defensible from calculating the density, based on the topographic fea- tures and based on an R-15A zoning. Anderson asked for comments from the public and Opened the Public Hearing. Jan Mulford questioned the fact that we have been con- cerned with urban containment in the past and by annex- ing lands for expansion to the West would loose our present balance of open space. Richard Cummins felt the value of space as open space is necessary and the Open Space Advisory Board holds this space as highly favorable open space and a balancing area for the West end. We do see the need for employee housing but need further examination to limits of building. Ed Suzuki commented that given a cho.se between SPA and RR, would recommend RR because you loose the open space with SPA zoning. Don Hanson wanted to say that the RR Zoning is a means dtsignation and is already zoned as suc~which gives the open space and would not allow the proposed developement plans so additional zoning after annexation would be necessary in order to have the needed developement. Anderson closed the Public Hearing and asked for other comments from the commission. -6- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR",.', C. r. HOEc~n B. B.lt l. C.l. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 04, 1979 Klar questioned Smith on zoning SPA, and was concerned with turning this into a caretaker unit. Smith, stated the any zoning designation is only as good as a Council vote to change it. Klar felt however, if we do SPA, and use the 7 points given the P & Z as guidelines, would be pursuant of long lines of thought and if we change our minds are we legally liable. Pardee thought not, but the problem with the Institute was with tremendous delays and changes in direction. If we deal diligently with the options and can't come to an agreement, then we say RR and he has no case, he came in from RR and is still RR and he made his best shot and I would like to give more guidelines to the applicant, but we have to protect the city's interest. Is there a problem with doing SPA? Smith, No. Klar felt that after the two day seminar and some of the things on the agenda, hoping that the extent of interest by so many groups in our community, will help. We know what our shortfall is now and with the predictable shortfall will be what in the years to come and what our growth rate should be and what our needs are going to be and with policy to be determined do we want the large projects or are we going to have the mix? I really don't want to create anymore red tape or postpone things, but we are getting in a real critical time and we should be looking at acquiring as many pieces of property as we can for a long range planning. The focus right now is on employee housing, who knows what it is going to be in five years. Hunt felt a problem exists of as soon as recommendation of zoning on the property is done there is no assurance that Opal Marolt will do as specified and possibly faced with some other developer, as much as he would like to see Opal Marolt do it. It has been the policy of the city, any property annexed does not in effect allow an increase in density by vurtue of its annexation, that means legitimately we should zone it RR and there is cer- tain presidence for that. Is it possible to say RR and then indicate for the purpuses of developement of pri- marily employee housing that we could except a maximum number of units? Smith, with the RR as an underlying zone district, I think that would limit the density. Hunt, but where the SPA proposes, we could come up with an absolute number of units. Smith, the RR comes up with an absolute number of 17 units. Hunt, I understand that, but because I basi- cally want to have it an RR floor. Pardee, if we don't agree with SPA instead of leaving it SPA like we have done with the INstitute, we could say sorry it is RR and that's it. SPA means, special planned area and if there has been an area that is to be special planned it is that. Hunt agreed, we should indicate it is SPA with an absolute maximum number of units. Pardee, I would say that, we are all with the same views and are the ones that are going to be lOOking at it. Hunt, well it better be SPA with conversion only to RR, after a period of time. Anderson suggested a straw motion on SPA-PUD, and asked Smith, would it be appropriate to designate it PUD-SPA? Smith felt there is a question that has to be decided, with the PUD gives you more review criteria and a longeR -7- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM'~ C. F. ~OEC~n 8. a. Il L. ~,). Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 04, 1979 process, SPA is the same process as the Housing Overlay without clarity perhaps. Anderson felt the SPA will allow to determine numbers for PUD. As a proposed motion on this motion to the effect that we move to adopt a SPA-PUD zoning designation for the property known as the Opal Marolt Property, should it be annexed into the City of Aspen based on a general favor- able reaction of this commission to the preliminary plans as presented to this commission in ruff and conceptual form without this approval being restricted to specific numbers and site design, all of which shall be determined during the SPA and PUD procedures. The approval shall contain the seven (7) conditions of the Planning Office memo, dated December 3, 1979. Pardee, I'm generally in favor, except with the seven con- ditions, I'm not sure, but don't violantly disagree. Hunt felt the problem with that motion, has no numbers with PUD. Smith, the motion does have numbers and was not sure that the sense was that they are wanted. Pardee, also it says R-15A and a lot of things. Smith, now the seven conditions do not say R-15A, one of the conditions says it. Anderson asked for a poll of each member as to how their feeling about this motion. Klar, I would be in favor of it if we could delete that with a ratio put in of some type of potential develope- ment to five them some guidelines. I think this would be okay and I would approve. Anderson asked how about saying it says with a maximum to be set during PUD procedure with at least with a 70%/30% maximum. Hunt stated that in paragraph 7, where it says rezoning would revert to RR, because we have nothing to revert to if we adopt this. One of the biggest problems with the Institute's SPA, was we gave them nothing to go by. Anderson asked to have anyone move to adopt a SPA- PUD zoning designation for the property known as the Opal Marolt Property, should it be annexed into the City of Aspen based on a generally favorable reaction of this com- mission, should the preliminary plan as presented to this commission in ruff and conceptual form without this ap- proval being restricted to specific numbers and specific site designs, which shall be determined during SPA and PUD processes. The approval shall be conditional on the seven (7) conditions of the PLanning Office memo dated December 3, 1979, with the fOllowing changes; subpara- graph 2, line 3, shall be changed from a maximum of 100 units as recommended (70% employee/30% free market), that shall be changed to, with a maximum to be determined during SPA process with no less than a 70%/30% mix of employee and free market units. Smith asked why don't you eliminate that paragraph, be- cause I said the 70% previously, in condition #1. YOu may want to leave the condition that you are urging for clustering and maximumizing of units. Anderson restated his motion with the elimination of and the striking of the last sentence in the paragraph 7, line 5, following the sentence after ()'s, two years from development plan approval or the zoning would revert to RR FORM 'I C.F.HOHKHH.B.&l.C,), -8- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves December 04, 1979 Regular Meeting Castle Circle Celia Marolt Property Zoning Printing Plant Code Amendment Condominiumization POlicy Dahlander Subdivi- sion Exemption Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission and to add to that condition, (a) that serious study and design work be formulated in regards to access to and from this property. Klar, aye. nay. so moved. Pardee, seconded. All in favor; Hunt, Klar, aye. Pardee, aye. Anderson, aye. McDonnell, Motion approved. Karen Smith stated that this application was presented a few weeks ago and was proposed for R-15A zoning and is a 30,000 sq.ft. parcel to the south of the Opal Marolt Pro- perty. The request is to be zoned R-15A but prefer to wait until the decision is made on the Opal Marolt Zoning, and R-15A would allow them to do a duplex with deed re- strictions and that would be a good employee housing. Anderson moved to table the Opal Marolt Zoning. motion approved. due to the pending resolution of Hunt seconded. All in favor, Richard Grice of the Planning Office introduced the "Printing Plant as Accessory Use" Code Amendment, amend- ing Section 24-3.2 by the addition of the following words to the conditional use column of the C-l zone: "Printing plant as accessory to permitted use". The Planning Office is of the opinion that the combination of uses proposed does meet the intention of the zone district, but, that the printing plant by itself would be an inappropriate use. We recommend that you approve the code amendment to amend the code to allow "printing plant as a acces- sory to permitted use" as a conditional use in the C-l zone district. Joan Klar moved to approve, Nancy McDonnell seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Nancy McDonnell moved to table the Housing Director's Condominiumization Policy Discussion to next meeting on December 11, 1979, Harvey seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Jim Reents stated there would be no housing recommenda- tions on any of the subdivision exemptions until this is discussed. Anderson moved to untable, McDonnell seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Jim Reents stated that the Planning Office has been coming to him for recommendations concerning a Condominiumiza- tion Policy, which would contain restrictions for condomi- niumization and price guidelines. We have no way to enforce provisions to insure price guidelines on any con- dominiumization and their restrictions to reserve low, moderate and middle income housing and is a serious pro- blem in this area. Anderson agreed that this is a problem and needs further discussion and moved to set up a work session with City Council for dicussion and decisions, Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Jay Hammond of the Engineering Office introduced the memo dated November 29, 1979 with recommendations of revising and resubmitting the improvement survey plat. subject to the correction of conditions stated in said FOO/MIO C.F.HOECKELB.B.!l: L. CD. -9- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves December 04, 1979 Regular Meeting Nostdahl- Marthinsson Subdivision Exemption FriSby Subdivision Exemption Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission memo but also state that these conditions do not have to be completed before going before City Council. Bert Dahlander commented that he had given a copy of the proposed plans. Jolene Vrchota of the Planning Office commented that this is a 15,000 sq. ft. lot in Pitkin Mesa which has an existing two structures, one as a single- family dwelling unit and the second as an accessory studio unit. There were two units added, one to the single- family house and one above the studio, which did not have the benefit of building permits and there is not allowed multi-family uses in the R-15 Zone except for duplexes. Therefore the applicant has connected the two structures and make it into a duplex. There is no problem with the subdivision beyond the conditions that have to be met on final improvement survey. The second question is to condominiumization and there is certain displacement to the employee that have longtermed and there will be only one unit instead of three units for rental. Anderson moved to approve the Dahlander Subdivision Ex- emption conditioned on review of the improved survey per Jay Hammond's memo dated November 29, 1979, also further conditioned on conditions included in Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code of City of Aspen, (a) notice and op- tion provisions to current tenants, Section 20-22a, re- strictions on each of the units with six (6) month mini- mum leases with no more than two short tenancies in a calendar year, Section 20-22b and the P & Z has deter- mined that a portion of the property falls within the moderate housing pool, the applicant shall deed restrict 50% of dwelling units to moderate housing pool according to Section 20-22d, for a period of five (5) years. Joan Klar moved to approve, Lee Pardee, seconded. All in favor, opposed - Klar, nay. Motion approved. Request for tabling until next meeting, from applicant. Request approved. Sunny Vann presented the application for FriSby Subdivi- sion Exemption, located on East Durant, which is a victorian residence with a one bedroom and studio apart- ment. The Victorian and one bedroom have been owner occupied for approximately ten years. The studio apart- ment has been rented for $300 per month. The comments and recommendations are included in my memorandum dated November 30, 1979. The Planning Office recommends appro- val subject to owner/applicant complying with the notice and option provision and six month minimum lease restric- tion of Seciton 20-22; the imposition of a five year rental restriction on the studio apartment, said restric- tion to be based upon the current rental rate with an annual cost of living update as established by the City's Housing Guideline Resolution; and the revision and resub- mission of the survey plat consistent with the recommenda- tions of the Engineering Department. Should City Council amend Ordinance #39 per the Housing Director's recommenda- tion, the studio apartment rental restriction should be rescinded. Gideon Kaufman wanted to state that this property does not FORIol!O C.F.HOECKELB.B.&l.GO. -10- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves December 04, 1979 Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Eubank Subdivision Exemption Molny Subdivision Exemption COme under the Ordinance #39 for low, moderate and middle income guidelines and this decision is not balanced with the present guidelines, so needs special consideration. Welton Anderson moved to adopt the Frisby Subdivision Exemption, approval SUbject to owner/applicant complying with the notice and option provision and six month lease restriction Section 20-22; imposition of a five year rental restriction on the studio apartment, said restric- tion to be based upon the current rental rate with an annual cost of living update as established by the City's Housing Guideline Resolution; and the revision and re- submission of the survey plat consistent with the recom- mendations of the Engineering Department as stated in the memo from the PLanning Office dated November 30, 1979. Delete the section saying: "the imposition of a five year rental restriction on the studio apartment,". McDonnell seconded. All in favor, opposed, Klar, nay. Motion approved. Sunny Vann introduced the Eubank Subdivision Exemption application, located at 1022 East Hyman Avenue, Lots R and S, Block 33, East and Lots 6 and 7, Block 5, River- side Addition. The applicant/owner has resided in one half of the duplex for the last five years. The other half has been rented at rates ranging from $.59 to $.69 per square foot for approximately four years. The com- ments and recommendations are included in my memorandum dated November 29, 1979, and Dan HcArthur, City Engineer, memorandum dated November 28, 1979, showing they recom- mend approval of an exception from full subdivision re- view and denial of the Eubank Subdivision Exemption and requirement of a final plat, due to the previous subdivi- sion exemption, including subject to each unit being re- stricted to the six month minimum lease provisions. Joan Klar moved to deny subdivision exemption for the Eubank property at l022 East Hyman Avenue, as stated. Anderson seconded, all in favor, motion approved. Joan Klar moved to approve e~cepti6n from conceptual and preliminary plat, of said properites, subject to each unit being restricted to the six month minimum lease provisions of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Sunny Vann introduced the application of Molny Subdivi- sion Exemption, located at 1020 East Hyman Avenue, Lots Rand S, Block 33, East Aspen Addition and Lots 6 and 7 Block 5, Riverside Addition. The applicant/owner has resided in one half of the duplex for the last five years. The other half has been rented at $.60 per square foot since October 1, 1978. The comments and recommendations are included in my memorandum dated November 29, 1979, and Dan McArthur, City Engineer's memorandum dated Nov- ember 28, 1979, showing they recommend approval of an exception from full subdivision review and denial of the Molny Subdivision Exemption and requirement of a final plat, due to the previous subdivision exemption, including SUbject to each unit being restricted to the six month minimum lease provisions. Joan Klar moved to deny subdivision exemption for the FORM 50 C.F.llOECKElO.B.I:lL.CO. -11- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Roosen Subdivision Exemption Pederson Subdivision Exemption Aspen Planning and Zoning commission December 04, 1979 Molny Subdivision Exemption at 1020 East Hyman Avenue, as stated. Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Joan Klar moved to approve exception from conceptual and preliminary plat, of said properties, SUbject to each unit being restricted to the six month minimum lease provisions of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Sunny Vann introduced the Roosen Subdivision Exemption application, located at 1225 West Alta Vista Drive, Lot 22, West Aspen Subdivision. The duplex currently rents for $1,440 per month per unit. The comments and recom- mendations are included in my memorandum dated November 29, 1979, and Jay Hammond, of the Engineering Office memorandum dated November 28, 1979, showing approval subject to the revision and resubmission of the owner/ applicant's improvement survey, and the owner/applicant agreeing to enter into a sidewalk, curb and gutter im- provement district in the event one is formed, also, complying with the notice and option provision and six month minimum lease restriction of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Joan Klar moved to approve the Roosen Subdivision Exemp- tion at 1225 West Alta Vista Drive, Lot 22, West Aspen Subdivision with the option provision and six month minimum lease restriction of Section 20-22 and a revi- sion and resubmission of the improvement survey and agreement to enter into a sidewalk, curb and gutter im- provement district in the event one is formed. Nancy MCDonnell, seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Welton Anderson asked for an election of President Proteem for this portion of the meeting due to the fact that he is representing the next exemption application. Pardee nominated Joan Klar, McDonnell seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Richard Grice of the Planning Office, introduced the application of the Pederson Subdivision Exemption, located at Lot l8, Block 103, Hallam Addition, 220 Lake Avenue. There is one dwelling unit in existence and the proposal is to condominiumize the existing dwelling unit and a second dwelling unit which is yet to be con- structed. The existing unit has been owner occupied for several years. The recommendations and comments are included in my memorandum dated November 29, 1979 and subject to the six conditions found in the Engineering Department's memorandum of November 28, 1979 and sub- ject to the six month minimum rental restriction of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Joan Klar moved to approve the Pederson Subdivision Exemption at Lot 18, Block 103, Hallam Addition, 220 Lake Avenue, subject to the six conditions found in the Engineering Department's memorandum of November 28, 1979 and SUbject to the six month minimum rental restric- tion of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen and subject to the installation of a new water meter prior to April 1, 1980 as stated in the Engineering -12- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM ~~ c. r. HO~CK EL e. B. It L. CO. Reqular Meetinq Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 04, 1979 memorandum. Pardee, seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Anderson moved to adjourn the meeting, Klar seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.H. <tJa m rJ: '!rkn.o rl/ti ::> Sandi Meredith, Deputy City Clerk Special Requests RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR'" ~O c. r. H OEC~ EL e. e, ft L. C.J. Regular Meeting Opal Marolt, Annexation and Rezoning Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 4, 1979 Closing of Public Hearing and Discussion of said pro- posal and Decisions made concerning such: Anderson closed the public hearing: Commissionmember Comments Klar questioned Smith on zoning SPA, and concerned with turning it into a caretaker unit. Smith, stated that any zoning designation is only as good as a Council vote to change it. Klar felt however, if we do SPA, and use the 7 points given the P & Z as guidlines, would be pursuant of long lines of thought and if we change our minds are we legally liable. Pardee thought not, but the problem with the Institute was with tremendous de- lays and changes in direction. If we deal diligently with the options and can't come to an agreement, then we say RR and he has no case, he came in from RR and is still RR and he fave his best shot and I would like to give more guidlines to the applicant, but we have to protect the city's interest. Is there a problem with doing SPA? Smith, No. Klar felt that after the two day seminar and some of the things on the agenda, hoping that the extent of interest by so many groups in our community, will help. We know what our shortfall is now and with the predictable shortfall will be what, in years to come and what our growth rate should be and what our needs are going to be and with policy to be determ~ned do we want the large projects or are we going to have the mix. She felt with this being such a prime piece of property, and someone like Opal Marolt as well as other local people that have put hteir time and energy into this community should be rewarded. I would like to be able to work with them, but I am hesitant at this point to do to much with that property because of a general picture in the immediate future, along with all these criteria, where we are going to be able to look at this and have more community involvement and with these programs that we are going to be developing, I really don't want to create anymore red tape or post- pone things, but we are getting in a real critical time and we should be looking at acquiring as many pieces of property as we can for a long range planning. The focus right now is on employee housing, who knows what it is going to be in 5 years. . Hunt felt a problem exist$of as soon as recommendation of zoning on the property is done there is no assurance that Opal Marolt will do as specified and possibly faced with some other developer, as much as he would like to see Opal Marolt do it. Now, getting back to the real problem at hand, it has been the policy of the city, any property annexed does not in effect allow an increase in density by vurtue of its annexation, that means legitimately we should zone it RR and there is certain presidence for that. What I have been trying to figure out, is a way of getting a designated development site in that area with appropriate zoning and is it possible to say RR and then indicate for the purposes of development of primarily employee housing that we could except a maximum number of units. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" LF.HOECKflB.B.B:l.C,l. Regular Meeting Aspen planning and Zoning Commission December 4, 1979 Smith, with the RR as an underlying zone district, I think that would limit the density. Hunt, but where the SPA preposses, we could come up with an absolute number of units. Smith, the RR comes up with an abso- lute number of 17 units. Hunt, I understand that, but because I basically want to have it an RR floor. Pardee, if we don't agree with SPA instead of leaving it SPA like we have done with the Institute, we could say sorry it is RR and that's it, everyone has given it their best shot and nothing happened and they didn't gain their density when they got their final zoning. SPA means, special planned area and if there has been an area that is to be special planned it is that. Hunt agreed, we should indicate it is SPA with an absolute maximum num- ber of units. Pardee, I would say that, we are all with the same views and are the ones that are going to look- ing at it and someone is not going to slip in with 180 units, but we may find some places that by clustering and because of trees and on thing or another get in 140 units of which still only 30 or 40 or so are free mar- ket. Hunt, well it better be SPA with conversion only to RR, after a period of time. Anderson suggested a straw motion on SPA-PUD, and asked Smith, would it be appropriate to designate it PUD-SPA. Smith felt there is a question that has to be decided, with the PUD gives you moxe review criteria and a long- er process, SPA is the same process as the Housing Overlay without clarity perhaps. Anderson, the SPA will allow to determine numbers for PUD. As a proposed motion on this motion to the effect that we move to adopt a SPA-PUD zoning designation for the property known as the Opal Marolt Property, should it be annexed into the City of Aspen based on a gen- eral favorable reaction of this commission to the pre- liminary plans as presented to this commission in ruff and conceptual form without this approval being restric- ted to specific numbers and site design, all of which shall be determined during the SPA and PUD procedures. The approval shall contain the seven (7) conditions of the Planning Office Memo, dated Dec. 3, 1979. Pardee, I'm generally in favor, except with the seven (7) conditions, I'm not sure, but don't vilantly disagree. Hunt, felt the problem with that motion, has no numbers with PUD. Smith, the motion does have numbers and was not sure that the sense was that they are wanted. Pardee, also it says R15A and a lot of things. Smith, now the seven (7) conditions do not say R15A, one of the conditions days it. Anderson, can I poll each member as to how their feeling about this motion. Klar, I would be in favor of it if we could delete that with a ratio put in of some type of potential develop- ment to give them some guidlines. I think this would be okay and I would approve. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~ORM" c.~. HO[C~H a. 9. II l. Cd. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 4, 1979 Anderson, how about saying, it says with a maximum to be set during PUD procedure with at least with a 70%/30% maximum. Hunt, paragraph 7, where it says rezoning would revert, Zoning should revert to RR, because we have nothing to revert to if we adopt this. Anderson, there is two years from the approval of the development plan, which is after all the bureaucracy that goes in here gives them 2 years to get financing and start construction. Hunt, One of the biggest problems with the Institute's SPA, was we gave them nothing to go by. Anderson, they have given us a plan and we are saying in this motion that we generally except this plan they have given us, generally, without tying ourselves down to it, but that we generally have excepted it, and I have made mention to numbers of units. Can I have any- one move to adopt a SPA-PUD zoning designation for the property known as the Opal Marolt Property, should it be annexed into the City of Aspen based on a generally favorable reaciton of this commission, should the pre- liminary plan as presented to this commission in ruff and conceptual form without this approval being restric- ted to specific numbers and specific site designs, which shall be determined during SPA and PUD processes. The approval shall be conditional on the seven (7) con- ditions of the Planning Office Memo, dated December 3, 1979, with the following changes: subparagraph 2, line 3, shall be changed from a maximum of 100 units as re- commended (70% employee/ 30% free market), that shall be changed to, with a maximum to be determined during SPA process with no less than a 70%/30% mix of employee and free market units. Smith, why don't you eliminate that paragraph, because I said the 70% previously, in condition #l. You may want to leave the condition that you are urging clustering and maximuizing of units. Anderson, eliminate and also strike the last sentence in that paragraph, it appears that this would be the appropriate density calculations of R15A, and in the last paragraph 7, line 5, following the sentence after () 's, two years from development plan approval or the zoning would revert to RR and to add to that condition, (a.) that serious study and design work be formulated in regards to access to and from this property. Klar, so moved. Pardee, seconded. All in favor; Hunt, aye. Klar, aye. Pardee, aye. Anderson, aye. McDonnell, nay. Motion approved.