Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19801209 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves SPECIAL MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 1980 FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.O.&L.CO. Olof Hedstrom called the meeting to order at 5:10 P.M. with members Hunt, Harvey, Pardee, Tygre and alternate member Al Blomquist present. Also present were Smith and Vann from the Planning office and Bob Edmondson, City Attorney. Aspen Metro Sanitation District Employee Housing Units RBO, Special Review & Subdivision Exception It was announced that there will be a site inspection of the ULLR property next Tuesday at 4:15 P.M. Olof announced that this week's Public Hearing is a continuation of 12-2-80, thus opening the Public Hearing. Karen Smith re-stated the requests of the Aspen Metro Sanitation District application for employee housing (see 12-2-80 minutes). Karen summarized the actions before the Commission at this time. First, the Public Hearing is on a portion of the land from P-Park to Public/Residential Bonus Overlay. 2-Subdivision exception for a four unit multi-family project. 3-SPAapproval for area and bulk requirements in the Public Zone. 4-Special review approval of the employee units. Olof asked the Commission for comments. There were none at this time. Olof asked the public for comments or questions. There were none. Olof closed the Public Hearing. Members of the Commission reviewed the Plat and asked the applicant questions. Roger Hunt moved to recommend rezoning from Park to Public/Residen- tial Bonus Overlay as shown on the plat with exception where the road is shown; should be on straight line with the existing pro- posed line that is oriented west/northwest. That line shall be projected until it intersects their existing Public Park Zone at the easterly end of the property. The road shall be on the public side of that zoning, cutting diagonally across where the existing corner of the fence is. Karen Smith suggested adding to that, that a plat be redrawn and approved by the Planning office prior to it's publication for a public hearing before the City Council. Al Blomquist said since the Master Plan shows the whole sewer plant property as open space, shouldn't the Master Plan then be amended to exclude this parcel? Karen said the State Statutes require that whenever any public building is proposed in an area that has been Master Planned, then the Planning and Zoning Commission must approve that public building. It does not say that P&Z must amend the Master Plan. Al stated as the motion stands he will vote no, because it is pro- perly Park land and as the sewer plant is phased out it should be returned to Park land to be a part of the riverfront system. The Master plan should be followed and if this Commission passes the motion they are violating the intent of the Plan. Karen suggested that Al is suggesting the "spirit" of that State Statutory Review, in other words that this Commission should be reviewing public buildings with respect to the Master plan. If the Commission finds that this is appropriate regardless of it's conflict with the Master plan, the motion could be more elaborate to give the rationale for why it is appropriate. ie. The Housing Action plan, which is also an adopted plan suggests finding ways of balancing the need for Parks and employee housing. Roger again modified his motion to have a resolution written so it can be reviewed and approved in this case including Karen's above stated rationale. Also to be included in the motion are the Planning office recommendations as follows: 1) Existing trees will be preserved. 2) An effort will be made to improve the remaining greenway when snow dumping is terminated. 3) Stream margin review and floodplain considerations are sat- isfactorily resolved. 4) The City Engineer's comments regarding on-site drainage and area stormwater treatment objectives can be met regardless of the dev- elopment. Perry amended his second. Olof asked for a roll call vote; Hedstrom - aye Harvey - aye Hunt - aye Tygre - aye Pardee - abstain Blomquist - nay The motion was carried. The next approval is for subdivision exception for a four unit multi-family project. Karen noted this is not to approve the units for condominiumization. The City Engineer had recommended approval subject to 3 conditions; that the plat should show the proposed building site and include the following: 1) Existing and proposed fence around the existing treatment plant. 2) Adjacent parcels including the Rio Grande alignment. 3) Mill St. right-of-way and proposed access including necessary easements. The above should be done prior to Council approval of the final plat. Roger moved to recommend subdivision exception for the short process review, where it shall re-enter final plat before City Council based on; 1) property be. deed restricted to indicate that there shall be no condominiumization allowed. Conditions #2 through 4 being the same as numbers 1-3 above. Jasmine seconded. All in favor with the exception of Blomquist. Lee Pardee abstained. The motion was carried. Item number 3 is for SPA approval for area and bulk requirements in the Public zone. Karen noted this requires a public hearing because of the SPA. Olof opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Olof closed the public hearing. Roger moved to recommend SPA approval and specifically approving the set backs, area and bulk parameters, parking, open space, height and FAR of .28 to 1 as indicated on the plat. Perry seconded. All in favor with the exception of Blomquist. Lee abstained. The motion was carried. Item mumber 4 is for special review approval of employee units. Karen said the housing office recommended this project provided all four of the units rather than just 2 be deed restricted and deed restricted to the moderate income guidelines rather than the middle'income guidelines. Further, this recommendation is con- tingent upon the understanding that these units are rental units only. Lee Pardee asked what the current rental rates of the employee units are? - - ~"" , ~ FORM ~ C. F. HOECKEL 8. B.1i l. co. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 1980 SPECIAL MEETING Castelwood/Headgate Preliminary Sub- division The applicant said the maximum they could be rented at (however, the District doesn't plan on charging this amount) are $630.00 for 2 bedroom per month and $375 - $380.00 for one bedroom per month. Roger moved to recommend approval of the special review application of the four employee housing units subject to the following: 1-6 month minimum lease restriction 2-moderate guidelines 3-not allowed to condominiumize to perpetuity Perry seconded. Lee abstained. All in favor with the exception of Blomquist. The motion was carried. Olof stated this is a continuation of 12-2-80 public hearing. He summarized the attorney's recommendation's; The P&Z has three courses of actions; 1) to approve 2) to disapprove 3) to approve with recommendations Olof stated that on 12-8-80 the P&Z Commission met with the mem- bers of the City Council and the applicant to further study this application. Sunny Vann, Planning office, stated that as a result of the meeting of 12-8-80, .,',,, the applicant has requested a tabling of this issue or this public hearing for the preliminary plat until the meeting of 1-20-81. In the interim the applicant will decide whether to go back to conceptual stage, the preliminary plat issue or whether they should withdraw the application all-together. Olof asked the applicant if Sunny's statement is reflective of their wishes. The applicant answered yes, with the only addition being, whatever alternatives might be available. Sunny stated that prior to re-opening the public hearing he wanted to address some of the issues that were discussed at the joint meeting. Basically there were four issues discussed in detail; 1 - Site location - specific development envelopes for the free market portion of the project and the employee housing units of the project; where they should be on the Marolt property. The general con census of opinion among everyone present was that the application be revised to relocate the employee housing portion to the extreme southern portion of the property - across the creek from the Water Plant Housing Project. The free market portion would remain in the same place. 2 - Density - the groups were relatively evenly split, with the majority feeling the dinsity as submitted at 114 units was somewhat high. 3 - Projected unit rental cost - (employee housing) general con- census of opinion was that based on the anticipated opening date in 1982 the projected costs were in the ball park. 4 - Free market portion exempted from 6 - month minimum lease restriction - 5 members felt it should be waived, 5 members felt it should be kept, and one member was undecided. Also, the Midland Right-of-way was discussed an~ only one member felt it should be preserved. The rest concurred that preference was for the Main St. Right-of- way. Olof re-opened the continued public hearing. Cary Clark, representing the applicant read into the record a letter addressed to the public and the P&Z Commission from Opal Marolt. Sunny entered into the record 2 letters the Planning office had received from Eve Homeyer and Ken Hart. Cary Clark added, of the 37 acres this property entails, only 11 acres will be built upon. The following persons spoke at the public hearing; Vicki Marolt Buchanen, owner of property, stated the Marolt family is for building a quality project. Judy Marolt, owner of property, concurred. Peggy Marolt, owner of property, concurred. H. Bishop, brother-in-law of Mrs. Marolt, concurred. Celia Marolt, owner of property, concurred. Curt Bahr, no interest in project, stated alot of people don't understand what they are doing to Aspen. He was for this project. Sherrie ? , adjacent property owner, concurred with Marolt's. Paul Bohr, homeowner in Meadowood, stated he is worried about the high density and said the project should be looked at carefully. Gene Meckling, homeowner in Meadowood, concurs with Paul. Henry Sussman, homeowner in Meadowood, stated this project would be a disaster and is against it. Jack Connally, 3 yr. resident, said he would hate to see the area damaged. Archie McLain, hang glider, is for the project. Amanda Reed, student Aspen Country Day School, stated everyone should be able to find a compromise. Ellie Bellmer, adjacent property owner, stated the employee housing rental rates are too high for employees. Mary Perkins, 22 yr. resident, concurs with the Marolt's. David Burly, said the City should look at other sites within the City, because parking in the city is such a problem. Edward Sanditin, part time resident, commented on the meeting P&Z had with Council yesterday noon. He was also concerned with the problem of having to qualify and then being able to afford to rent the units. Mary Burly, 14 year resident and Meadowood resident, stated why don't we fill the employee housing we now have before building more? Michael Convisor, 16 year Maroon Creek Vally resident, said the good of the public must be looked at. Leta Heller, Woody Creek resident, stated her concern with congestion and that the employees these units are built for cannot afford them. Mr. Peterson, Meadowood resident, said he is not expressing favor or opposition for the project but is concerned with density and congestion. The Water Plant Housing Project will increase both of these problems. Gale Adelson, Castlecreek resident, said that alternatives to this location should be looked at. In opposition. Fencbman, 7 year-6month worker in Aspen, stated he couldn't afford this employee housing. Chris Leverich, Castle Creek resident, expressed 2 concerns; first, the traffic impact and second aesthetics. Ed Suzaki, adjacent landowner, stated the rent levels are question- able, should look at the public benefit vs. problems of the project. Cindy Suzaki, concurs with Ed and hopes the project doesn't go through. ,..... '- ,....'. .....) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves SPECIAL MEETING ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 9, 1980 ~ORM 10 C. F. HOECKEL B. B. & L. co. BROWER/RAGAN Use Determination NOSTDAHL/MARTHISSON Subdivision Exception Dottie Keleher, stated that Aspen needs employee housing and there will never be a perfect project. Something should be able to be worked out. Ed Gustafsen, employee who lives across the creek, stated he hopes the project really is for the employee. Roger Berkhart, employee, said he is for the project because of the advantages of living in or near town. Bridget Starry, stated a concern with congestion and the rental rates being too high. King Woodward, stated density is high because of employee housing. He also said because of the 70:30 zoning required for this property employee housing has to be included. Hans Gramiger, said the development should be looked at as an asset rather than a liability. Also, this project will serve as a catalyst for our transportation problem. Dorothy Sharp, stated that in this valley all employee housing is expensive - that's a reality to living in this area. Olof stated there will be no more public comments until the public hearing is continued on 1-20-81. Roger Hunt moved to table this application, at the request of the applicant, and to continue the public hearing at that time, which will be January 20, 1981. Al Blomquist seconded. All in favor. The motion was carried. Sunny Vann, Planning office, stated that this is a request for use consideration to use the Trolley Car for an Audio Pak Rental Shop. While an audio pac rental shop facility could loosely be construed as a "sports shop", the original intent of including a sports shop as a conditional use in the Park Zone was to allow for a facility which primarily served the adjacent recreational area. Based on this interpretation, the Planning office is of the opinion that the proposed use of the trolley car at Rubey Park is inconsistent with the original intent of the Park Zone. The applicant stated that they didn't feel the impact would be since congestion in the area is due to skiers and the skiers the persons they would primarily be renting the audio pacs to. great, are Olof entertained a motion to deny approval of this application for a use determination of an audio pac rental shop in the Park zone. Al Blomquist so moved. Roger seconded. All in favor. No discussion. The motion was carried. Sunny Vann, Planning office, introduced the application which is a request for subdivision exception for the purposes of condomin- iumization of the property at 175 N. Park Avenue (Lot 2, Sunny Park Subdivision). The zoning is R-6 and the lot size is approximately 15,077 sq. ft. Sunny stated the referral comments which can be found in the Planning memo dated 11-30-80. Bob Hughes, attorney for the applicant, asked the Commission what they mean by "existing tenants"? Sunny said it is those tenants that are currently there, it does not include anyone that may move in, in the future. The attorney and the Commission had a discussion about their concerns. Lee Pardee asked the attorney if the applicant would be willing to have the building subjected to a health and safety inspection. Hughes said he would have to discuss that with the owner. Perry said he would rather see this be deed restricted for 5 years. Bob Hughes asked if the application could be tabled so he could check with the applicant on the isues raised by the Commission. Perry moved to table the application, at the applicant's request, to the first meeting in January; 1-6-81. Roger seconded. All in favor. The motion was carried. Roger moved to adjourn the meeting. Perry seconded. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 P.M. ~QIA~~~~ enise P. Elzinga Deputy City Clerk ,,,...'..... - - .....;