Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19810908 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOR'" 10 C.F,HOECKEl8.8.ltl.CO. Planning and Zoning Commission - September 8, 1981 - Regular Meeting Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission that were present: Perry Harvey, Welton Anderson, Alan Bloomqnist, Jasmine Tygre, Joan Klar, Roger Hunt. First item of Old Business - Fairway Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization) Colette Penne of the Planninf Dept.stated that the applicants request is for Condominiumizati, Unite A is about 2,500 sq. ft. and has been occupied by the owner for the last 18 months. Unit B is 716 sq. ft. with a rate of $600.00 mo. which places it outside of the current income guidelines. Therefore no rental restrictions should be placed on the unit. The Building Dept. has inspected th e property, their comments are included in the P&Z packet, parking is adequate, The Planning office reccommends approval for the condominiumization, with the conditions listed. Perry Harvey said that the Planning office recommends that the Building Dept. comply with these recommendations, do these include electrical, building and other? Colette answers yes. Perry Harvey asked what the solution to proper fire separation between the units and what is the solution to Colette said as far as the fire separation, this is the Building Dept. responsibility. Perry asked what it means by are the sewers separate? Rick Nealy stated he was not sure what was meant by that wording either. Alan Richman said the last time Council dealt with this problem the applicant would have to go before the Board of Adjustment prior to City Council. Welton Anderson asked if anyone was prepared to make a motion. Roger Hunt moved to accept the Fairway Subdivision Exception (Condominiumization) recommend approval thereof conditioned on all four comments in the memo of Sept. 1981. Lou Buettner reminded Roger that the 2nd floor is not part of either unit. Roger asked what the status of the 2nd floor is. Rick Nealy stated that it is part of Unit A. and that it would be designated. Roger moves again his motion including the conditions mentioned in previous motion as well as condition # 5 indicating that the second story is part of Unit A. Perry Harvey second the motion. All in favor. Motion is carried. Welton Anderson is stepping down on first item of Public Hearing - Snow Queen Lodge Colette Penne said that it is the applicants request to the Snow Queen Lodge is to construct 400 sq. ft. of employee housing at the lodge and to legalize and Deed restrict their previous illegal employee unit of 200 sq. ft. The lodge is a non-conforming use at present with i' approx. 1900 sq. ft. with the addition of the FAR will be slightly under point 5 to I, this is in the RMF zone. In a letter from the applicants architect, he stated that this not significantly increase the footprint of the building and will serve to improve the architec- tural integrity of the existing house. He also committed that the parking space is advised to be usable for 5 spaces which is adequate because a Lodge is in the RMF zone. Colette said that Ordinance 26 to allow for a non-conforming Lodge to be enlarged, structuraly altered for the purpose of constructing employee units accessory to the principal use. The existing employee nnit is only 200 sq. ft.which is an inadequate size and cannot be legalized. The only language in the Code which addresses the size of employee units is in exemptions of GMP. Unit has to be at least 400 sq. ft. in the Planning Offices inter- pretation of the code. The Planning Office recommends approval of the addition of the employee unit at 400 sq. ft. and denial of the legalization of the existing employee unit and it would be for conditional use as well as exemptiom from GMP for the Employee unit with the conditions that the building plans be submitted prior the application proceeding to Council. The Planning Office feels that the plans were inadequate to address and the Deed restriction requirements. Joan Klar asked what the reasoning behind the denial of the legalization of the existing employee units? Colette said it is 200 sq. ft. and too small. Welton said he would like to address that point in particular- He showed snapshots of Snow- Qween. Welton recommended to the owner of SnowQueen that since there is no legislation enabl ing Lodges in nonconforming districts, to add employee units. There are three memmos from Welton Anderson, he quotes one of them" amend the application to 400 sq. ft because of that 400 sq. ft. rule." Welton find that ortions of the memo from the Planning Office and the City Attorney recommendind denial of the applicants request and elimination of any possibility of continuing to use the employee housing unit for the resident manager based on technicality based on something contrary to the intent of every thing that has transpired in the formation f&fthese Ordinances. ......_"'".~,,-._........"'"._~- ...- -,..."".-.~~-. ",,,,,,-.-.1 ,'''"'.'''"i><M;,;........_~......_,,. -2- It is Welton's feeling thqat perhaps when this Ordinance was drafted it was never men- tioned what a minimum size unit would be. Welton finds that a denial of an existing employee unitand taking one out of the market, He finds that contrary to goals and everything the Planning and Zoning Commission has been trying for. Perry Harvey asked if that 400 ft. minimum exists in the Ordinance? Al Bloomquist said state standards are different anyway. Alan Richman said he could help to clarify a point, we have determined that since we have created employee units, we need to be able to exempt those units under competition of the GMP. GMP residnetial section says that employee housing has to be Deed restriced for 50 years , low, moderate, or middle guidelines. Joan Klar said however, this is an~unit and it seems to me it would be ridiculous to elimi- nate an existing unit. elisting Paul Taddune said he does not have any problem legitimizing the unit so long as they met all the other requirements of the code. Paul Taddune was not aware that the units did not meet t the size requirements. Alan Richman said that when the ORDINANCE WAS DP-AFTED , developing that limitation addressed toward new units under the GMP. Paul Taddune said that apparently this is a unit that is illegal until this application and Mr Taddunes position would be that if the unit were to be made legal we would have to make requirements at this point. It should comply with regulations. Roger Hunt when the unit came into existence? Welton said five years ago. Perry Harvey said it seems to be the consensus of the commission , we would like to get this c clarified so we can legalize this unit, or not consider illegal just because of its size. Joan Klar asked if Paul Taddune had any suggestions. Paul Taddune said that he would not be entitled to a variance because the condition of the har hardship is resulted in a wrongdoing so he does not see that P&Z should approve something thE does not comply under the guides of employee housing. Alan Bloomquist was just commented that he will recommend that various provisions be modified. Alan Richman stated that th e exemption needs to be changed. Al Bloomquist said there is a principal, if the building code sets certain mlnlmums for the size of rooms and the State health code sets certain minimums for the occupancy of hotels ar and such, and then the Planning aNd Zoning comes along and sets another...we should correct all of these at one time. Alan Rich~an said there is no intention of creating size limitations for units outside the GMP. This is a review procedure. Perry Harvey suggested that procedure be initiated. Paul Taddune stated that the illegality here has nothing to do with growth management; that i it has to do with the the fact that a building permit was not obtained. Welton suggests tabling this issue until legislation can be initiated Joan Klar suggests that go ahead and approve the new unit and put a hold on the legalization of the existing unit. Perry Harvey opens the Public Hearing for comments on the Snowqueen Lodge. Norma Dall the owner of the Snowqueen stated that the kitchen is very small and the reason th they constructed a new kitchen was for the music students that they usually rent to in the summer. Roger Hunt moves to recommending exemption from Growth management for the Snowqueen Lodge new employee unit condition one being the same as the Planning Office memo. Jasmine Tygre seconds the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. Roger Hunt moves to table action concerning the illegal unit at the Snowqueen Lodge until such time the Ordinance is straightened out regarding minimum size of units. Jasmine Tygre seconds the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. Welton Anderson stated the next Item of the Public Hearing: Pitkin Reserve Preliminary Plat(PUD Submission, Rezoning to R-30. Perry Harvey steps down on this item. Alan Richman wanted to enter into the record the Planning Office memorandum. The zoning on this location is proposed as SPA R 30 , it is a lot size of 26 acres which in- cludes 6 acres of Railroad right of way. Its location is Willoughby llay directly across from the Aspen Institute. This application does result from the settlement agreement . The applicants were provided with ability to develope 19 free market units outside the Growth Management Plan provided that the existing units at Suggler were provided as employee housin The Smuggler application has received its Preliminary Plat approval and is still Pending on Plat approval before Council. This application has received Conceptual approval both by the P&Z and City Coujncil P&Z on April 14th and Council on June 8, 1 981 the condition of that Conceptual approval are included in your packet.. Part of those conditions being that part 0 of it be annexed prior to it being finally approved, the property is still pending annexatior at this point in time. That annexation is scheduled to occur at the Final Plat stage by Ordinance. Secondly that a Code amendment be adopted at time called 90-10 now called 85-15 Which would provide a ffiechanizm for exemting free market units from the GMP. That amendment is still pending your approval (P&Z). That Resolution is in your packet and the Ordinance sent to Council is pending approval. The third condition was assurances of Horse trails and the RioGrande trail. Provision of a pedestrian easement. , , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOR!IlI! C.F,HOECKELB.B.IllL.CO. Planning and Zoning Commission - September 8, 1981 - Regular Meeting Page 3 Alan Richman continues- The fourth condition beingextension and undergrounding of all utilit ies. Fith being compliance with code design standards of streets. Alan Richman states applicants request: 1. The Preliminary and final plat/PUD Submissions for six duplexes (12 units) need to be reviewed by P&Z and Council respectively. 2. The precise plan for the Specially Planned Area needs to be adopted, including zoning th the parcel as R-30. 3. An ordinance needs to be adopted by Council annexing the property pr prior to final plat approval.. 4. Enabling legislation needs to be adopted (85:15 GMP exem- tion?) to create these free market units without requiring competition under GMP. 5. The free market units need to be exempted from the GMP under the newly created legislatio 6. The proposed caretaker unit needs to be exempted from GMP under the provisions of Section 24-11.2 (h). AlanRichman will refedr to points 1,2,5,&6 and review comments and recommendation made by the Planning Office. The Planning office received comments from the water department. There request was that the applicant provide a root distribution system to insure reliabilty of the water system. The water Dept. is in support of the application if the applicant would agree to constuct that said water line extenton and a roofing of the distribution system. Secondly the Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District asked that the applicant permit the in= spector of the district to inspect the lines during construction and that the line be turned over to the district with the proper easements. Other untilities such as Holy Cross, Canyon Cable, Mountain Bell., all have no problem with the application of this development. The City Attorney made comments to the Palnning office regarding the need for subdivision P&Z agreement at the final Plat stage. He outlined several features of that agreement which will insure that any conditions which emerged from the P&Z review would be tied up properly Those include that all improvements get properly constructed that landscaping that is promise get constructed, that open space in common facility maintenance agreement get signed, that the applicant commit himself to a development schedule, that Park dedication fees be paid. The Engineering Dept refered to the fact that the preliminary plat needs some minor tech- nical amendments and that the site plan includes a balance cut and fill significant retaining walls and slope accomodating building design. The grading will require extensive disturbance t to the site. The Planning office recognizes that the applicant has put together a site design and a landscaping plan which over the long run of the project should over a long ter term of the project should result in a beneficial type of development. The site is 26 acres which in the R-30 would normally allow for well above 12 units. The County Zoning on this property would have allow around 16 units. Alan stated that there is another issue regarding the design approach - to cluster the units. The units have a lot area of a minimum of 6,000 ft. and maximum of 10,000 ft. The R-30 zone district requires 15,000 sq. ft.per dwelling unit. Clustering helps to retain the open space on the site. Alan Richman mentioned another point; Park dedication fees are require on these units. The Code does provide for Park Deication fees being used for improvements. The Planning and Zoning Office has been persuaded by the applicants legal representative as well as by the City Attorney that there is no problem as regards that point that the Planning Office can condition any action on this application in terms of that exemption Ordinance eventually being approved and we have made that condition a part of our recom- mendation. Paul Taddune said that the Planning Offices approval should take effect only upon the passage of the necessary neighborhood ----------... The concern in both of these application is to provide very essential employee units that might be lost if this application is not processed properly. Bob Hughes wanted to add to comments Alan and Paul made about conditioning approval upon adoption and legislation. We cannot assume that there will be legislation. Paul Taddune stated that any appproval that applicant gets will be in effect on approval of such legislation. Alan Richman has one last point which was lacking in specific criteria. Exempting that unit is based on knowledge of what the units will look like as well as what employee housing looks like. Alan suggests the applicant present the plan. Michael Lipkni Architect for the Pitkin Reserve Preliminary Plat, The developers initiall decision in purchasing this property was to preserve the open spacenad reserve the river frontage and to build and develope Pitkin Green the way it has been. Along Willoughby Way in the Hillside not close to the river, not on the flat and we plan to minimize mass.. We decided to use a cut and fill process. The developers chose not to build a lot of single family houses instead they went to a duplex and the intention is to come up a design where that two family house looked like a single family house and was basicly no bigger in foot- print than the surrounding houses on Willoughby Way. We are preserving the open space. Michael Lipkin continues by saying that there will be a little disruption while construction is going on but after you will see an improvement on the site but certainly an improvrnant toward s a much less disturbing development. The houses are meant to be quite expensive. The materials are stone, wood and a very lush landscape. Jasmine Tygre steps down on this issue. Welton Anderson opens the Public Hearing. Barry Edwards stated he would like to discuss legal points after the citizens of Pitkin Green have spoken. Jack Cronin is a property owner in Pitkin Green- he is anxious to the elvation side so we can see where the houses will be situated. Mich ael Lipkin said that the height of the new unit is not more than- at least 40 ft. below the deck on your home. Mr Jones neighbor of Cronin has been a resident of Pitkin Green for many many years . He feels he is being asked to dramatically change a neighborhood from what was single family dwelling(which was definitly zoned property) and now a grouping of 12 units which Mr. Jones considers conminiums. Leonard Larder resident owner of Lots lA and 1 and 2 and I look out at the proposed develop- ment. Mr. Larder is on the executive Bd. of the Aspen Institute. He has serious objections as to how the application came about the actual delopment itself. Larder feels the applicati, is part of a "deal" the City of Aspen and thedvelopers. Hr Larder thought he was zoned in a single family dwelling and now he feels he faces a housing development. Elizabeth Paepcke feels it is a beautiful presentation, she like the Architecture but she fee. feels that this is the wrong place for it to be constructed.Mrs.Paepcke is also troubled by the City making a "deal". She asked why this plan is exempted from GMP and feels it is very illegal. Sue Scott expressed concern of too much traffic. Bill Staley feels the developer should recognize that there is alot of opposition. He feels if the Planning and Zoning Commission has any integrity they should say "no". Kay Reed feels that the project looks like condominiums. She reads a letter she has composed for the P&Z. The letter indicates that she is definitly opposed to the new development. Larry Yard feels that in summation the "City has sold us out" He feels that when duplexes ar, stacked up they will become linear mutifamily dwelling. He is opposed to the new devlopment. Walter Miller feels that the Pitkin County Land should not be traded off for a piece of City Land.. He feels if zoning laws are subject to constant changes they have no value. Tam Scott stated that he wanted the 6 point write up from Hr. Jones entered into the record. Mr. Jones expressed concern that the neighbors of the new development were not given much notification of the proposal. He states the six points of objection: 1) zoning was single family dwelling 20 developpers are claiming low density but neighbors feel it will prove to b, high. 3) they feel the population could be close to 100 people plus cars and visiting frien( 4)these units could come under short term rental market. 5) neighbors question whether or n( not the acreage will remain open 6) present zoning laws are being changed . Shady Lane residnet is concerned about the traffic and not being able to get into the Pitkin Green area without a traffic problem. Joan Lane asked architech what are the rough Michael Lipkin said that per unit per size it Brent Waldren has two concerns; 10 the change 2) R-30 is appropriate zoning forthat lot Al Bloomquist wanted to clarify that this is Institute land and the Institute chose to sell this land . Mr. Lauder said that the Institute was trying to determine the value of the land all of the discussion then was on the basis that Pitkin County Zoning. Mrs Paepcke said that the land was owned by Mrs. Paepcke and her Husband and was given to the Institute. She later discovered the Executive Committee had sold the land to Hans Cantrup. Connie Walter stated that you can't landscape noise and the Character will be changed because of the new development. Phil Holstein said the development will alter the whole course of the area. He feels the scale of the project is not in scale. Michael Gassman said there are people in the community that don't live anywhere near Pitkin Green but are objecting to the new development. He feels the two most important questions in landuse are 1) Where its going to be and 2) How many is it going to be.. He feels it is incredible that a project can get to this point and this is the first public hearing and that there should be more public review. Kay a home owner in Pitkin Green presents a six page letter to the Planning and Zonin! Commission from the Westfield's(property owners) People that are opposed to the new development state their names: Evelyn Putney is violently opposed 4946 Willoughby Way Ed Demming 1151 Cottonwood Lane Rosemary Lavender - Cottonwood Lane Phyllis Young - 960 Willoughby Lanp Francis Davis Willoughby Lane Barbara Shook 1170 Willoughby Lane Kate Sheik - 421 Willoughby Way Walter Mueller - 0144 Magnifico Berta Mueller - " " have that transposed on maximum sq. footage is 3100 sq. ft. and of the character of for each unit. a double car garage. the neighborhood and ",""""II._">;."""~'''''- -",..',,-.'>IHlI~_ i'WI'lJ. ft II .._-.....,"~,._,.~...,,-1"i,~"II... --,. - """". ..-.,.,-" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FO~M 'I C. F. HOECKEL B. a. II l. co. Planning and Zoning Commission - September 8, 1981 - Regular Meeting Page 5 People that are opposed to the new development continue to state their names: Nelson Jay 0165 Shady Lane Marge Bolen Mountain Valley Homeowner Arthur Jones 0750 Willoughby Way Jack Cronin 170 Willoughby Way Gordon Forbes - 0126 Magnifico Mildred Rain 0123 Cottonwood Lane Virginia Cronin 720 Willoughby Way Jeane' Kirk 0059 Magnifico Road Robert Shook 1170 Willoughby Way Gary Lauder sent a telegram ,stating hecis,opjlGsed to the new development. J.R. Heide III Alan Rich reads tion to the new J .R.Heide III Gary Lauder Julie Auger Mr. & Mrs F.A. Davies Brooke Peterson has a comment that the preservation of employee housing is very important. Barry Edwards has some general legal points; this particular application came about as a result of the "settlement agreement" Paragraph nine of that agreement reqqires specifically that the City of Aspen, including its staff and elected officials agree to the maximum extended municipal consistent with statuatory and other legal obligations to take such steps to take such approvals as may be necessary to allow this development deal now being turned into high priced housing. It is important that the P&Z underst!nd how this deal came about - The developers at their own risk bought the Smuggler trailer court they substantially increased rentals in the park as a result of that there was a overwelming numbe of complaints from all of the trailer park owners.! Brooke Peterson then got involved and presented their concerns to the city "made a deal " which allowed the developers after the threat of condominiumizationand litigation was made which caused everyone to be thrown out anyway, to have free market units and make a great deal of money on the project. The agreement says that the City agrees and puts it staff in a position of having to agree but they have to do it in conjunction with appropriate current legislation. What they talking about in the agreement, is that theCity within its legislation and within the law take care of the request that the developer...the law concerning subdivision says that in connection with the presentation of an application on Preliminary Plat that the Planning and Zoning Commission must consider all other areas which are of interest to assurethat the subdivision is capable of of being constructed without an adverse effect on the surrounding area. Barry Edward said that Pitkin Green has never been contemplated to being any thing other than a residential single family area. For the Planning and Zoning Commission to grant a GMP exemption in this particular circumstance require legislation that isn't even on the books yet. This project as presented today as a Preliminary proceed= ing which is the only chance for the public to really get a say so. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the principal approver or denier of this Prliminary Plat. Ashley Anderson said he is personally offended by this process ... The Planning and Zoning Commission in the past has put an applicant through a very rigorous process. Ashley said he doesn't see what the hurry is . Al Bloomquist asked Ashley if he was involved when this land was sold? Ashley Anderson said another example of the "horse before the cart" concept, this is a single family neighborhood. It is a project and there are no projects in that neighborhood. Ashley stated that there will be alot of surface disturbance if the new proposal is approved. We are talking about steep slopes, cut and fill and you should consider these things befor it is passed on to council. Traffic generation is another major problem. Ashley asked what typ of intersection there would be. Welton Anderson said the Public Hearing would be continued to the22nd of Sept, 1981 Welton asked for comments from the commission. Joan Klar feels that this is a critical issue on how it effects our basic planning concepts. Then we get to the two critical concepts; the integity of thecMP and what it was set up to d do. Landuse principles, the where and the numbers is also criitcal. Walter Paepckes' idea of what this Aspen should be is why every person is in this roomand even though no string were attached to the generous concept of what they were trying to do by giving the land to the Institute, is at stake right now. This project becomes a moral issue. We must figure out a solution to this problem because it is critical. the enames of individuals development. : 972 Willoughby Way who wrote letter to the Planning Office in opposi- , "" """,,1, '" III;" "'II"HII.iHlI'IH'III1.II'''~''I''~_'''.lllIW..,iWllittiJio<~.,~,t''''HI_,' ~,,__,,',~,III I I I III ~-.l41~liI,,'~'IIlIH.'.IIlIW .,.,...._,,"... Page 6 Roger Hunt said he is in agreement with Joan and stated that he had voted agaist this proposa: on the conceptual leI. Al Bloomquist said in an absence for a better alternative; use for the land, this is about a good a design, given the large amount of open space but the thing that bothers Al is , as on the Moralt project as well, he thought it was going to be dedicated park groups. When it finally gets to final Plat it finally comes out as owned by the project and the public have the right of access there too, Paul Taddune said that was not necessarily true. Al Bloomquist asked what the alternative way is preserve it as open space.? Welton Anderson said the ball is in the court of the applicant. to respond to each of these concerns in two weeks. Bob Hughs said that given the time involved in planning thisand pushing through the trailer c( court, site plan review, I think it is unfair to the applicant to end it tonight, they ought to be given the opportunity to respond. Welton Anderson entertains a motion to continue the Public Hearing to the next regular meet in! Sept. 22, 1981. Paul Taddune said he has heard that there hasn't been enough opportunity for public input and by continuing the public hearing it allows for mor input so it seem consistent with what the people are asking. The open space is or must the public dedicated to come up with the the City. money to The applicant should be able It appears thatside #5 of the tapes on this meeting did not record properly. Welton Anderson entertained a motion to Roger Hunt Seconded The motion. All in Welton Anderson tabled all other items Welton Anderson entertained a motion to So moved seconded All in favor. approve Proposed Code Amendment- Residential GMP favor. So moved. on the agenda until the next regular meeting 9/22/81 adjourn the meeting ~..~~. Vi~. '~~~ll, Deputy City Clerk , .