Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19800205 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 51 C.F.HOECKna.B.&l.Cn. Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission February OS, 1980 Regular l1eeting The Aspen Plnaning and Zoning Commission held a special meeting on February OS, 1980, at 5:00 P.l1., in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Olof Hedstrom, Nancy McDonnell, Roger Hunt, Welton Anderson, Lee Pardee and Joan Klar. Also, present were Karen Smith and Sunny Vann of the Planning Office and Attor- ney Gideon Kaufman and Bill Dunaway of the Aspen Times. Approval of Minutes Commissionmember Comments Grindlay Subdivi- sion Exemption 1980 Residential G~W Public Hearing Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes of November 29, 1979 with corrections and table the minutes of November 06, 1979, November 13, 1979, November 20, 1979 and December 04, 1979, until further deliberation, Nancy McDonnell, seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Olof Hedstrom asked for thoughts from Nancy McDonnell on Perry Harvey and her activities on the Rio Grande Project. Nancy McDonnell commented that Council is going ahead on the issue and have advertized for applications for the Rio Grande Task Force, which is the name of the citizens com- mission, and we are waiting to see what position the City Council is taking the Planning Commission for the Rio Grande Property. Olof then asked Nancy if she would apply for a position on this task force, representing the P & Z and her- self and she agreed. Sunny Vann of the Planning Office introduced the Grindlay Subdivision Exemption that had been tabled previously, being a duplex located on Cemetery Lane, Lot 7, Filing 1, West Aspen Subdivision. The east side of the duplex has been renter occupied since 1976 and rents for $750 per month. The west side rents for $800 per month and both units fall within the City's middle income housing price guidelines. The Engineering Department recommends approval subject to three conditions as stated in their memorandum dated January 15, 1980. The City Attorney recommends ap- proval sUbject to the notice and option and six month min- imum lease restrictions of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code. The Housing Director stated, in all probability, that the applicant would withdraw her request and raise rents if required to deed restrict both units and not just the one she agreed to deed restrict. The Planning Office recommends approval subject to the owner/applicant comply- ing with the conditions stipulated in the Engineering De- partment's memorandum dated January 15, 1980 and the conditions as stated in his memorandum dated February 1, 1980. Roger Hunt moved to recommend exemption strict application of subdivision regulations as applied to the Grindlay Sub- division provided that conditions 1 through 3 be the same as conditions 1 through 3 of the Engineering memo dated January 15, 1980 and condition 4 being, one unit be six month lease restricted in accordance with Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code for a period of five years and includ- ing the notice and option. Joan Klar, seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Sunny Vann introduced the 1980 Residential Growth Manage- ment Plan Submissions. The three project profiles for the three applications is to be reviewed by this commis- sion and scored for point allocations. The total of 21 free market units and eight employee units are proposed. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKfLB.B.Itl.C.J. February 05, 1980 Regular Meeting GMP-Public Hearing Winnetka West Apartments GMP-Public Hearing Cooper/Hopkins Project Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Each applicant will make a brief presentation then a public hearing will be held for citizen comments the each Commis- sionmember will score the applications. The total number of points awarded by all members, divided by the number of members voting, will constitute the total points awarded to the project. Any project not receiving aminimum of 60% of the total points available under Sections A, Band C of the score sheet (45 points) will no longer be considered for a development allotment and the application will be considered denied. In view of the minimal points each applicant received in the area of employee housing and the general absence of outstanding project features, the Plan- ning Office chose not to recommend the award of bonus points to this year's applicants. Please further note that none of the projects received the minimum required 60% of the total points available. The Planning Office therefore, respectfully requests that the Commissionmembers concur in their scoring with our recommended point allocations thereby effectively denying this year's applicants' re- quests for development allotments. Olof Hedstrom and other members questioned the rules and requirements not applying to the applications before them and since they don't meet the requirements, why they are being considered. Sunny Vann answered that they were applications that are consistent in content and have the right to be scored and reviewed. Olof then opened the public hearing. Tom representing Mr. & Mrs. Leonard Koval of the Winnetka West Apartments located at 135 East Cooper, Block 70, Lots H & I of the original Aspen Townsite. They pro- pose to build six units, one unit is designated employee housing and three units as studios and two units as one bedroom apartments. These are located within easy walking distance of all town activities and a short distance from main transportation, buses, schools and all facilities are good. There are six parking spaces, one for each apart- ment or unit and storage spaces available according to the site plans. Joan Klar and other members questioned had there been a discussion to having more employee housing? Tom stated they had but after the application had been presented they could not change the plans. Olof Hedstrom questioned why after seeing they could not receive even the minimum points allowed then why would this be presented? Tom explained that they were under the understanding the required points were 35 and then increased to 45 points and has been a definite misunderstanding from misinformation and not enough time to change. Sunny Vann stated he had given the applicant all the correct informa- tion but, did not explain the building requirements. Olof Hedstrom commented that there has been an obvious misunder- standing and need to proceed to the other applicants and should reserve our comments to the end of the presentations. Barry Edwards and Greg Coal representing C.M. Clark and Alexander Kaspar introduced the proposal of 14 studio free market units and 3 studio and 4 one bedroom units as em- ployee units. They felt the misunderstanding all the ap- plicants had has been due to the wording of the Municipal Code Section 24-l0.4c, which has been misinterpretated as RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 C. F. HOECKf~ 8. 9. II L. C.). Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission February 05, 1980 Regular Meeting GMP-Public Hearing Valley Duplex GMP-Scoring Results is obvious by non of the applicants, after spending all the money and time on these projects, has even the mini- mum points to go through further consideration. Greg Coal explained that after going over the code and the stipula- tions considered in the profile, he fel~due to his under- standing of the code, they had a project that would pass the requirements. These units are located at 915 E. Cooper (free market units) and 1018 E. Hopkins (employee units). After some discussion and debate concerning the misinter- pretation or misunderstanding the commissionmembers felt there was need to table the applications but according to the code regulations, the applications would have to be presented and scored regardless of the mistakes made by whomever. Bill Dunaway of the Aspen Times stated that the same mis- understanding came up last year and an applicant felt the bonus was applicable for the 60% and it was settled at that time last year, that the 60% was of the first three. Ashley Anderson commented that they had a presentation that would pass all the requirements and had no problem following the code but due to not knowing until after the deadline and did not have enough time to present our application to HPC for approval so we did not have a chance. So if you table these applications then we will and others will have an opprotunity to resubmit our proposals. After some more deliberation on the misunderstanding and the regulations to be followed, Olof Hedstrom asked for a continuance of the hearing. The parties representing the Harold Valley Duplex propo- sal were not present and Sunny Vann of the Planning Office introduced the project profile. The Valley Duplex is lo- cated at Lot 2, Parry Subdivision, Sneaky Lane to be con- structed.as two free market units. There is no employee housing proposed. We find the project does not meet mini- mum code requirement and even if the project were to score maximum points under A and B, with no employee housing, they cannot meet minimum requirement. Olof Hedstrom thanked everyone for the information given and asked for all members to now use the score sheets in their packets and score each project accordingly. Olof Hedstrom announced the results of the 1980 Growth Management Plan Scoring for the applications stating, this is a preliminary scoring only, the verified tally will be included with this packet later. The Valley Duplex has a total average of 23.7 points, the Winnetka West has a total average of 34.0 points, the CooperjHop- kings has a total average of 40.2. The results of the tally of the interpretation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, do not meet the minimum requirements of the development allotment and therefore are all rejected. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'_' C.f.HOECKElB.8.&l.C.l. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning commission February 05, 1980 Lee Pardee commented that he thinks it is important that we instruct the Planning Office, that we have heard the arguments for the confusion with the code, etc, and we have still rejected all the applications. Olof Hedstrom asked the Planning Office to include this statement in their report to the City Council. Resolution - Law Olof Hedstrom asked if the members were ready to approve Enforcement Facility the Resolution as presented? Roger Hunt moved to approve the Law Enforcement Resolution as presented. Joan Klar, seconded. favor, motion approved. Facility All in Roger Hunt moved to adjourn the meeting. Joan Klar, seconded, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 P.M. ~ ' ~) .w:IJ; ~ ~oA~ -ti. San i Meredith, Deputy City Clerk