Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19800708 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 C.F.HOECKELB.B.8:L.LJ. July 08, 1980 Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on July 08, 1980, at 5:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Olof Hedstrom, Joan Klar, Roger Hunt, Lee Pardee and Perry Harvey. Also present were Karen Smith of the Planning Office and Jolene Vrchota and Bill Dunaway of the Aspen Times. Commissionmembers Comments Code Amendments Public Hearing Definitions of Bedroom Unlimited Employee Units in Lodges Olof Hedstrom called the meeting to order and asked for comments from the members. Roger Hunt questioned pretaining to the proposed ordinance for the Aspen Institute, what is the statis condition the City Council decided to drop in our abilities as a commission to recommend approval or denial of that proposal? Karen Smith commented that the proposal that goes to the City Council for public hearing is different in that Hans Cantrup's proposal is different than anything seen before, and would require going through preliminary review pro- cess and we will understand what to do next after his presentation on July 9th at 5:00 P.M., to the City Council. The ordinance differs from your recommendation in the definition of "use" at the Institute and City Council declined P & Z recommendation. Roger Hunt moved to have the Planning Office writing a resolution stating that the position of the P & Z Commis- sion is as the proposal for the Aspen Institute is now, specifically not having the definition of conference center, as stated by the P & Z Commission, and lack of restrictions is defensible to the Growth Management Plan and will make this plan become absolutely useless and contestible in Court. As that proposal stands now, it would have been forwarded from the Aspen P & Z Commission recommending denial. Lee Pardee seconded the motion, all in favor. The Commission unanimiously voted motion carried. Karen Smith announced that the Marolt Application will be on the July 22 agenda hoping to get an action to go to Council July 28. In order to do this we thought it would help to have a site inspection on the property with the developement plan in front of us. Could this be done on Tuesday 15, at 5:00 here then go out to the site. Olof Hedstrom called for the public hearing of the Code Amendments Initiated by Council. Karen Smith stated this is concerning technical matters on three code amendments. For the record, she submitted all information included in previous packets. The code amendment repealing the provision that exist in the code that requires any multi- family units with more than two baths, would come to the P & Z for special review for density based on the antici- pated density of the units. Roger Hunt moved to recommend approval of the proposed Ordinance 22. Lee Pardee seconded the motion, all in favor. Motion carried. Karen Smith then stated there is not a draft of this ordinance included but are referring the concept and recommended provisions of the ordinance. The proposal -2- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM'~ C. F. HOECKH B. B. 8: L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Plnaning and Zoning Commission July 08, 1980 Code Amendment Employee Units in Lodges deals with allowing employee units in non-conforming lodges with limited expansion. This comes out of a discus- sion on lodge preservation. P & Z agreed with the planning office not to get into the issue of expansion of non- conforming lodges until the GMP has been reviewed and until area and bulk impacts of expansion is looked at. Council agreed but wanted a provision of limited expansion for employee units. This is very similar to the caretaker unit concept. The planning office is recommending P & Z look favorably on this concept to allow expansion of non-conforming lodges in limited circumstances: the process of review be a con- ditional use, one-step review: limitation of 600 square feet to the expansion: units must be attached unless there is a pre-existing shed or structure: the units have to be deed restricted to employee price guidelines: language may be added that the addition may be new lodge space, provided equivalent of the addition is converted to employee space. In this circumstance, there could be no addition of lodge rooms, which would be inconsistent with the growth manage- ment plan. Council request P & Z look at employee units in basements and having unlimited square footage expansion provimed it was within the existing structure's basement. There is a possibility this may be substandard conditions. Another suggestion is to not limit the number of employee units that could be constructed. Pardee said if they allow additions to lodges attached or unatuached, they not be non-conforming structures but follow setbacks, etc. Harvey suggested doing it not to increase the non-conformity. Pardee said he would like the word footprint included in the ordinance. Harvey said he would like to see the expansion to give lodge owners flexibility to include employee housing with the least amount of money and hassle. Harvey said there should be some guideline to how much mass and bulk should be put on the property. Ms. Smith said this is an incremental approach to the problem of employee housing. The 600 square foot limit would accommodate a couple or seasonal employees and will not have that substantial impact on the neighborhood. A lot of lodges are in the single family zone district and the threat of massive bulk impact has to be dealt with. Harvey agreed, but felt 600 square feet is too small. Hunt suggested 660 square feet, which would allow up to three minimum size studios in the envelope. If they can do it within the existing structure plus 660 square feet, Hunt said the number of units should not be limited. An expansion to 660 square feet should be limited. Pardee said there are lodges in the R-6 that would have impact: however, there are lodges in other zones that could have more square footage and not have a great impact. This proposal is precluding that because of the R-6 zone. Pardee suggested the planning office put together criteria for each zone on how to review this applications, how it will be restricted, etc. Pardee stated this should not be restricted to 600 square feet if some lodge could easily handle 2,000 square feet. Pardee said in the R-6 zone it is 660 square feet: everything else is special review. Ms. Smith said that is how the housing overlay solved itself. Regular Meeting Code Amendment - Exemption from growth manage- ment review in 70-30 projects Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 8, 1980 Ms. Smith reiterated for R-6 through R-40, the process be conditional use, maximum 660 square feet: the other zones will have special review criteria which the P & Z will review. Hedstrom opened the public hearing on amendment to Section 24-3.2. There were no comments. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. The Board decided to defer action until they see the language including the enlargement of a setback encroach- ment. M~. Smith told P & Z this deals with a recent amendment to the growth management plan in the circumstance where 70 per cent of a project is deed restricted. The exemption reads that the 30 per cent of the project that is free market will be exempt from GMP if 70 per cent is deed restricted. It further reads that the 70 per cent is 70 per cent of the bedrooms of the project. Ms. Smith said the result of this is that a project may deed restrict 70 per cent of the bedrooms but it comes out to 50 per cent or less of the units. There is a question if this is any benefit. There is a complaint from an applicant that this is not giving the applicant any flexibility. Staff feels they are trying to get substantial employee units and a mix of bed- room type in the employee portion. The staff recommends some alternatives. One, a minimum of 70 per cent of the units be deed restricted. Second, within the employee portion there be an average of bedroom types. The original language said an average of two bedrooms: however, the staff feels this is too restrictive. The staff and housing director then reoommended 1.6: but this makes an applicant have to come in right on target. The staff now recommends the range be 1.5 to 2 bedrooms as an average across the employee portion of the project. Third, there is a suggestion that there be a limitation based on floor area so that projects do not have a very small amount of employee floor area. The suggestions are 50/50 and secondly 60 per cent employee and 40 per cent free market. Ms. Smith outlined an application for 70/30 which did not meet the average bedroom mix. Ms. Smith said she felt there is some cause for making the distinction between larger projects and smaller projects on small lots. Ms. Klar questioned having an average number of bedrooms in the ordinance. Hunt suggested having an applicant come in with a justifiable mix, and the project will be judged from the view point of the community in getting employee housing. Ms. Smith said this could be done by special review and tie it into the same standard that is in the housing overlay, and incorporate it into the subdivision process. Pardee suggested stating it is desirable to have a mix between 1.5 and 2 bedrooms, but not required. Pardee said to keep the 60/40 firm. Harvey said this 60/40 should be determined by going through some substantial applications to see how it works out: it could be prohibitive or overly constraining. Ms. Smith agreed should could not begin to predict all the permutations that might come in under the different zone districts. Hedstrom said that is a good reason for not putting the numbers in. -4- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM \~ C. F. HOECK EL B. B. II L. Co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 8, 1980 Ms. Smith said this could be handled also by special review like the average number of bedrooms. Pardee said it is important to let applicants know they cannot come in 40/60. Harvey said in two years that might be exactly what the market wants. Ms. Klar said she feels this complicates the process. Ms. Smith said this was presented tO,cover all loopholes, such a very, very small employee un~ts. Pardee said the mix of bedrooms and the percentage of floor area ratio should be used as a goal in a special review process. Harvey agreed these items vary so much depending on the size of the lot, the zone district. These would be all right for guidelines. Anderson agreed these should be guidelines as outlined by Pardee. Ms. Smith said this amendment gets a minimum of 70 per cent of the units deed restricted, with a mix across the project which will be by special review. Larger projects have more flexibili ty. Hedstrom opened the public hearing on amendment to Section 24-10.4(b) (3). There were no comments. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. The Commission requested to see this again with as guidelines the mix of bedrooms of 1.5 to 2 bedrooms and the square footage ratio. These are to be special review by P & Z. Anderson/Lightner Stream Margin Review Ms. Vrchota presented a map and showed where the property and the stream was. This lot was cut off in subdivision as a single family lot. This application is before the Board for stream margin review: they are encroaching in the stream margin only with an overhang. There is no structure under the cantilever in the floor plain. This was looked at with the stream margin review guidelines with an interest of not disturbing any of the land within the flood plain area. The engineering department suggested the cantilever have no supports into the flood plain. The existing vegetation should not be disturbed, and the ground adjacent to the structure be returned to pre-existin~ contours. The ground disturbance shall not extend into the stream bed. Ms. Vrchota said another concern is the trails. The Master Plan this is not appropriate alignment for a paved trail, but a fisherman's easement was dedicated. The planning office recommends the stream margin review be approved with the comments in the June 3, 1980 memorandum. Hunt moved to approve stream margin review of the Anderson/ Lightner project with conditions 1 through 5 of the plannin~ office memorandum dated June 3, 1980: seconded by Ms. Klar. All in favor, motion carried. Someone representing Jack Miller told the Board the proposec to put a patio in the flood plain. The Board discussed whether this was appropriate or not. Dan McArthur, engineer, told the Board that anything that obstructed the flow of the river was not allowed. The person showed the proposed patio and the flood plain. The person showed the contours and the grade and told the Board this would be a flush concrete patio. Hunt said he saw no problem with flush concrete grade. Ms. Vrchota said this would really change the contour of the flood plain. Harvey said Regular Meeting City of Aspen Duplex Special Review - Employee Housing Stock/McArthur Law Enforcement Facility Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 8, 1980 the Board does not have the authority to prove things that are not allowed in the flood plain. McArthur said if it is flush with the grade, it will not impede the river. Hedstrom said the stream margin review had been approved, and the patio permission should be pursued through planning, building and engineering approval according to interpretation of the Code. It will be building department interpretation whether this creates sedimentation or any- thing else. Jolene Vrchota told the Board this is lot 1 of the Aspen Employee housing No. 1 subdivision. The board has already made an approval on lot 2. The board has also approved the subdivision exemption to divide the lot into two duplex lots, and also approved condominiumization. In the condominiumization, there was an agreement these units would fall under the middle income housing price guidelines. This is a request for special review for lot 1, whether or not there is an employee housing need and do these units fit the need in size, location and mix. Ms. Vrchota said the change in this is that it will be owned by McArthur and McClung rather than Stock. These will be two three-bedrooms units connected by a garage: each unit will be approximately 2300 square feet. Pardee said his concern was that when the city gets these back, they are priced such that other employees can still get in them. McArthur said the price will not exceed 7 per cent or inflation rate. This agreement is exactly the same as the Chapman/Freers duplex. Anderson moved to approve the special review of the City of Aspen duplex lot #1, Aspen employee housing no. 1 subdivision subject that the financial agreements with the city are the same as the first one: seconded by Pardee. All in favor, motion carried. Hunt moved to adopt Resolution 80-7. Hunt withdrew the motion for discussion of the resolution. Pardee objected as he felt the P & Z should wait for the Rio Grande Task Force to come up with their recommendation. Harvey agreed and said the RGTF sent a resolution to City Council stating that is the one property around which planning has to revolve. Harvey stated to approve this resolution is to dissolve the Rio Grande Task Force. Hunt noted this is not part of the Rio Grande property and what is the RGTF doing studying. Harvey answered the parameters of the RGTF is to look at all parcels, not strictly property owned by the city or county. Anderson said you cannot master plan an area without some reference to the surround- ing property and uses. Hedstrom said at a previous meeting, P & Z moved to approve this with the conditions as outlined in this resolution. Ms. Klar moved to reconsider: seconded by Harvey. All in favor. Motion carried. Hedstrom said he had voted for the previously: however, it was under undo pressure from the planning office and the county. There was a threat that this property may be sold and anything could be built there. The Commission would prefer to wait until there is a report from the task force. Harvey said approving this conceptually is giving the County reliance to go ahead an start planning. Harvey said he felt it should be denied with stated reasons of the master planning of that area. Hunt said it should be approved, stating the Commission would prefer waiting for the task force report. r" - -- --- -6- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOR'" II C.F.HOECKELB.B.&L.CD. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission July 8, 1980 Ms. Klar disagreed with approving this as it will put the P & Z up against the wall from a planning standpoint. Pardee said he was against approving this because he wanted to see the result of the task force, who is spending a lot of effort on this. The P & Z is to vote for what is best for the community. Harvey moved to instruct the planning office to draw up a new resolution recommending denial of the conceptual application for the county law enforcement facility based upon the reasoning that the Rio Grande Task Force needs to give their input into the planning process for that proper~ and that particular site is a key element of the overall Rio Grande planning effort: the size and detailing of the building is so big, it is impossible to see the appropriate- ness on the site: the Commission feels that the County's threat to sell that property and building behind the Court- house is inadequate reason to justify approval: approval would not, in the Commission's opinion, be in the best interest of the citizens of the City and County: The Commission feels that any development on the Oden property or the County property behind the Courthouse would be undesirable at this time prior to the master plan for the Rio Grande: the Commission feels that the reasonable use for that property ultimately is for public purpose; seconded by Pardee. Anderson, aye: Harvey, aye: Hunt, aye: Ms. Klar, aye: Pardee, aye: Hedstrom, aye. Motion carried. Harvey moved to adjourn at 7:20 p.m.: seconded by Pardee. All in favor, motion carried. Hedstrom asked the Commission to re-think their position on alternates to the P & Z.