Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19800722 .# . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR"'!O C.F,HOECKELB.B.ll l. CO. Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1980 Olof Hedstrom called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Pardee, Roger Hunt, Joan Klar and Welton Anderson present. Ron Stock, Jim Reents, Karen Smith and Sunny Vann. members Lee Staff present Commission Comments Lee Pardee requested a status report on the health and safety requirements for condominiumization, in light of the recent electrocution. Also what can the Commission do to make the bandit units conform. Planning Director Karen Smith told P&Z there would be a special meeting next week to discuss the condominium regulations and health and safety inspections. The City and Council will be hiring a zoning enforcement officer who will start looking at these problems. Pardee encouraged the planning office and Commission to get the life, health and safety regulations on the books. Welton Anderson said that in the last two and a half years, items on the P &, Z schedules have gotten incredibly complex requiring more time and more meetings. Ms. Smith told P&Z the planning office has hired help to streamline the Code with COG and a local attorney. Hedstrom agreed there should be some simplification of the programs. One of the problems is that the Boards and Council, over the years, keep proposing and recommending more and more ordinances and regulations. Hunt moved to have a special meeting July 29, 1980; seconded by Pardee. All in favor, motion carried. Herdon Subdivision Reconsideration preliminar plat Sunny Vann, planning department, told P & Z the time for recording the plat has lapsed. In December 1979, Council approved this subdivision to create one single family lot. The applicant failed to record the plat within 90 days. Vann said the original conditions have been met, and the planning office recoromends approval. Gideon Kaufman said the applicant ran into surveying problems, which is why they missed the deadline. Hedstrom opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. Hunt recommended for minor reasons, the case should not have to come back through the entire process. Hunt moved to recommend reapproval of the Herdon subdivision with all previous conditions; seconded by Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. Code Amendlnent Ms. Smith told P & Z this amends 24-3.7(k) to delete the special review procedure for two baths or more. Ms. Smith said this section is not meeting the original intent, and staff has agreed this can be deleted. Hedstrom opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. Pardee moved that section 24-3.7(k) be changed to read "maximum density in ID1F, 0, NC, SCI districts must be pursuant to the provisions of the RBO district whenever within these district multi-family structures are constructed and shall be permitted no more than one bedroom per 1,000 square feet"; seconded by Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. -" ~ ~~..,,,,._J,... ..__~1II ",."'.._"~.~"...."--~......~"" ","-''''' --., --/" Planning and Zoning July 22, 1980 Code Amendment Jolene Vrchota, planning office, said there have been requests to have reduction in the size of parking spaces for subdivisions Ns. Vrchota said the staff feels there are advantages in reducing the size of parking spaces to 8~ feet rather than 9 feet. (tape missing. See next page) - - - ....,I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 5~ C. F. HOECK EL O. B. III L. CO. Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1980 Castlewood/ Headgate Ms. Klar agreed with Olof and Roger and said she wanted to help the development of the project for the employee housing needs but the Commission is undermining the employee housing needs if they develop tourist use in the other part of the project. Hunt said he was most concerned about Pardee's attitude about the six month minimum lease thing because there has not been a condominiumization passed in the residential zone that the P & Z has not required six month minimum leases. There has been a reason for that and that is to keep the residential in the residential picture. This would be a concentration of units with no restriction on. Hunt stated there was no doubt in his mind that this would be the next Aspen Institute conference center. Hunt stated six month lease restrictions is a reasonable restriction for residences. Pardee said it is important in this instance. If you had to go through an employee housing project to get to where you're going to stay as a tourist, and there's only 37 units, this is not a big deal. Hunt suggested zoning the property L-l or L-2. Pardee said people that are going to buy these units will be permanent residents, that tourists wouldn't move in on a big scale. Don Ensign asked that the P & Z not tie their hands regarding this project. They do not know yet whether this will work as permanent housing or as short-term housing relative to financing. Ensign pointed out they have expensive land and a lot of employee units and it is an enormous carrying costs. Ensign encouraged the P & Z at this point not to preclude getting the project in a situation where it is impossible to finance it. Ensign requested at this conceptual level that P & Z not include in their resolution anything about six month minimum leases. Ensign said by the time they get to prelimin- ary, they will have a better idea from a marketing standpoint and will know what the units will sell for and they will be able to say what works from a financing standpoint. .. Jim Mulligan addressed the issue of west of Cemetery Lane. One of the concerns the applicant bounced back and forth on between the two alternatives that they've looked at was when they came in with this alternative concept was a concern expressed to them on the entrance to Aspen idea and making sure that wasn't a visual impact problem; they attempted to keep the stuff down here while still remaining keeping open vistas to the extent possible. When the project started, the met with the Open Space, they said this fragmented the open space and they wanted to keep open vistas down here but were willing to compromise on the entrance to Aspen idea. So the applicant is in a catch-22 position and I just wanted to share with P&Z some of the, something has to give to allow us to do the project and the applicant is requesting some compromise. Hunt stated he was not cast in mud that the employee units have to be in the northeast portion of that property. Perhaps the free market units might be in the northeast portion of the property. As far as the six month minimum lease issue, Hunt said he was concerned about leaving the door op~n. If the Commission doesn't put constraints on this project, the applicant will not try hard enough financially. Ms. Klar agreed with Pardee's philosophy and that she wants to encourage the project. The parking, tourist uses should be left up to the applicant's creative abilities. - Planning and Zoning Commission July 22, 1980 Sunny Vann, planning office, told the Commission he wants them to pass on the comments they have just finished to the applicant and request the applicant come back with a revised conceptual submission based on these recommendations and with regards to the density, at which time the planning office will review it and attached specific items to include as part of P & z's resolution to Council. Hedstrom pointed out as far as the six month minimum lease restrictions, there was no unanimity. Vann stated the planning office would defer their comments until resumibssion. Pardee requested some work with the engineer on the road. Mulligan said within the parameters the Board is discussing now, he suggested alternative 2 is the envelope generally within which you want the applicant to back back with. Pardee said he felt the Board was agreeing with alternative 2 and to see how creative the applicant can be with that. Mulligan asked about alternative 1. Hedstrom said the P & Z has not considered that because they are deferring to objections from other bodies on that. Hedstrom said if the applicant should work with what is needed to satisfy the Commission's concerns and interestE Pardee said he agreed with the Open Space Commission that this does fragment a very important piece of property and the project can be done in another place. Hunt brought up the Midland right-of-way and he would like to see that settled as soon as possible. Vann said there are some site concerns with the Midland right-of-way. The recommendation of the planning office is, while they are not saying the Midland right-of-way is the appropriate one, take the potential right- of-way and not build in it. Ms. Smith told P & Z the study on engineering and rights-of-way, which the State is doing, should be complete in two months. Vann said the planning office is not asking for a detailed site design. This parcel after the determination of this line was made in conjunction with the engineering department would identify a certain size parcel that after reduction for slopes and whatever based on what would be a consistent density or appropriate density on that site, a rought approximation of the number of units could be made. And all we're looking for at this time is what those numbers are. And I think it's appropriate, before it goes on to Council, the P & Z make some firm recommendation as to the appropriate density in that location and to the potential right- of-way alignment rather than deferring it into preliminary plat. Pardee pointed out that density can only be addressed during conceptual. This is the most critical question. Hunt moved to informally approve the concept as indicated in alternative 2 and withhold formal approval pending resubmission of the conceptual PUD application working out the concerns that have been brought up today, so P & Z can form a resolution to Council. This should include a realignment "this" access point to the agreement of all concerned, reserving "this" as an employee development parcel, with sufficient information for results as to what the density should be based on a submitted architectural concept for the units. Vann told the Commission a specific requirement of the conceptual PUD submission is sufficient architectural information to make a determination. The planning office has a rough idea of what a section would look like and a potential concept. Now is the time for an architectural concept, site design, how many units will fit on the parcel, and what the resulting density would be. Ms. Wood asked if there could be parking, not units, on the west of the Cemetery Lane. Vann answered the specific recommendation was that development occur to the east and should include all necessary parking. Hunt agreed the west side is the wrong place for parking. Don Ensign told the P & Z he preferred a resolution approving the project with all the density located in "that" land parcel than to come back with a meaningless site plan RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORIlIi! C.F.HOECKELB.B.1t l. CO. Planning and Zoning Commission -3- July 22, 1980 Vann told the Commission the correct recommendation can be made at the time when a density plan comes in. Vann stated the question of density has been prolonged since annexation. There should be an upset figure. To further defer this to the pre- liminary stage is inappropriate. Lee Pardee asked city attorney Stock if the P & Z does not address specific density but addresses density in general terms pointed out the envelope the employee housing has to fit in and a 70/30 mix, is there reliance on the part of the applicant. if the P & Z indicates they want this addressed in preliminary Stock opined one cannot obtain reliance against the city until a building permit is issued; if this is applied to this particu- lar situation, there is no reliance. However, conservatively there may be some reliance. Pardee said he would like to indicate to the applicant the building envelope; however, becaus of lack of information at this time, they are not able to give specific density. They will reserve until such time as they can look at architectural rendering; however, they may go to preliminary if the choose. Pardee said he would like to spell out in the resolution that this applicant has had to meet with 48 different governing, or interested bodies. Also the resolution should say the P & Z does not have enough information Hunt suggested the resolution states the applicant prefers this route, even though it may cause a reduction in the total numbers later. Hunt withdrew his motion. Pardee moved that conceptual approval of the Castlewood/Headgate conceptual PUD and subdivision submission be recommended approval to Council on the basis of the concerns expressed by this Commission during this hearing with the specific indica- tion that the employee parcel be limited to the area between the Main street extension, Cemetery Lane extension, Highway 82, that the density of the entire project will be dependent upon the 70/30 mix with the resultant number of free market units depending upon what we can get into the envelope; that we recognize the fact that the applicant has had to meet with an undue amount of interested bodies, and in the interest of expendiency recommend approval of this; however, density will be discussed during preliminary, at which time, P & Z will have sufficient information, which the applicant has not been able to provide, and that this is all done with the agreement of the applicant - that he is, in going ahead to preliminary he is not relying on any indication of density or any indication the P &Z will approve any particular architectural organization; seconded by Ms. Klar Jim Mulligan outlined his understanding, the P & Z is recommend- ing approval but subject to constraints and concerns with respect to the density issue. Mulligan questioned if there was flexibility in working between the applicant and the P & Z and city staff in terms of the location of Cemetery Lane. P & Z agreed. Ms. Smith said she had concerns about deferring so many issues; many were deferred at time of annexation. Ms. Smith said it is a problem to keep deferring because the arguments keep coming back that the applicant cannot tell exactly what they need, let them just keep going. . Vann suggested a resolution outlined what Pardee has mentioned; that speaks to the envelope and communicates the planning office will work with the applicant on the relocation of Cemetery Lane so as to maximize the buildable site, defer action on parking /' . requirements pending presentation of preliminary plat also the question of density at that time; take a position with respect to the six month minimum lease: defer consideration on the Midland right-of-way: concerns about open space/land trade. Hunt stated he preferred the six month minimum lease stay in the resolution. Ms. Klar said it could be deferred. Hedstrom disagreed. Ms. Smith said if the Commission does feel strongly about the six month minimum lease, they should go on record now - which is fair to the applicant. All in favor, with the exception of Hunt who stated he wanted a comment about the six month minimum lease in the motion. Motion carried three to one. Stock requested the Commission ask the applicant, for the record, for a waiver of reliance. Stock pointed out the reso- lution speaks to it, but he would like to have it on record. Mulligan so stipulated. Ms. Klar moved to reconsider the previous motion; seconded by Hunt. All in favor, with the exception of Pardee. Motion carries three to one. Ms. Klar moved the previous motion with the addition that the Commission feels the six month minimum lease restriction should apply; seconded by Hunt. All in favor, with the exception of Pardee. Motion carried. P & z then lost its quorum. Kathryn "Y . '\" ,-' - ..I -