Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19820803 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM ~o C. F. H OECKEL B. H. a l. co. Planninq and Zoninq Commission August 3. 1982 Chairman Harvey called the meeting to order wi th members Anderson, Blomquist, Hunt, Tygre and Fallin present. Commissioners' Comments 1. Anderson requested the legal staff to research conflict of interest and the issues that were raised at the last meeting. Gary Esary, city attorney's office, said when Ordinance t50, 1979, is in conflict with the by-laws, it overrules the by-laws. Esary said the Commission should use the definition of conflict in Ordinance 50; however, the Board votes to determine if a conflict exists if a particular member won't abstain on their own. Harvey asked the Commission if they feel that Blomquist, as head of the Lodge Association and a lodge owner has a conflict. Blomquist said if the ordinance applies, he is not in conflict; however according to the by-laws he is in conflict. Esary said he does not feel Blomquist has a conflict. Harvey said he feels a conflict exists when someone' s judgement can be directed because of a personal or business relationship. Harvey said Blomquist owning a short term accommodation puts him in a specific position from which he is looking at the ordinance, which would flavor his perception. Hunt did not agree with that loose a definition. Hunt said as long as the P & Z has someone associated with the lodging business, to knock him off during discussions of this ordinance addressing lodging would lose his expertise. Ms. Fallin said she does not have a problem with Blomquist discussing the nonconforming lodge ordinance. Anderson agreed with Hunt. Ms. Tygre said she feels Blomquist can give the Commission a perspective on this ordinance from a lodge owners point of view. Blomquist said he is going to step down on both timesharing and the nonconforming lodge issue as he would feel more comfortable. 2. Hunt brought up the Cemetery Lane nused carn parking lot is becoming a problem again. Harvey said the P & Z has brought this up periodically and it should be taken care of. Ms. Fallin said the resolution of the P & Z was to have the city landscape this ar'ea. Alan Richman, planning office, scheduled the Smuggler Area Master Plan work session for August 10, 1982 at 5 p.m. Resolution on Nonconforminq Lodqes <Blomquist stepped down on this discussion.) Alan Richman, planning office, told the Board the approach has been zoning to use. There are some small lodges in the L-l, L-2 zone which 1 " -~.~""'''''''''__"_''c' Planninq and Zoninq Commission August 3. 1982 could never complete with the larger lodges. If these lodges wish, they may be included in the L-3 zone. Hunt said he has a problem placing this designation on conforming lodges in the L-l, L-2 zones. Richman said they are only committed to looking at this; it is not an action yet. Richman said the resolution would not have to be changed. Harvey said the renovation and reconstruction points were removed from the GMP scoring system, and the basis for that was the P & Z would give the smaller lodges the option of being zoned L-3 and would have a separate GMP competition. Hunt said perhaps there should be a separate competition for L-l lodges under a certain size. Hunt said he does not see how to save a nonconforming lodge that is nonconforming. Harvey said the Commission is making these lodges conforming. Ande r son suggested adding the Holiday House. Richman said the Holiday House is long term use but since the zoning action is a ways off, he can check this out. Harvey said he would like to see nexisting mix" defined. Hunt suggested the existing mix of smaller lodges in other zone districts. Harvey said he would like to add that the Commi ssion is doing this because they are concerned with the stigma of nonconformity and with the encouragement for renovation and expansion. Harvey said the Commission is going through this process to make these lodges conforming. Some of these lodges may have rooms with kitchens, and the definition of nlodgen states it does not have a kitchen. Harvey said he has a hard time reconciling that the Commission is making these lodges conforming, yet they may have nonconforming rooms. Hunt said he does not have problems with kitchens in a lodge but does with lodges that are going to be condominiumized or timeshared. Hunt said this would be changing the characteristic of the lodge and the aspects of the usage. Harvey said the economics of tourism have changed, and the majority of tourists want a larger room with kitchen facilities. Hunt suggested adding lodge rooms with pre-existing kitchens with cooking facilities. Gideon Kaufman pointed out there is no def ini tion of kitchen in the Code. Harvey requested the staff address this problem as soon as possible. Harvey asked the intended meaning of "on site characteristics". Richman said it means site design, landscaping, location on the lot, orientation of the buildings. Harvey said the special review criteria for the reduction in required parking are very vague and would like some more specific terms. Richman told P & Z the staff does not yet have a recommendation for the parking requirement for lodges. The current requirement in L-l, L-2 is 1 per bedroom but the staff has committed to come back with a recommendation. Richman 2 ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOR"''' C.F.HOECKElB.B.!l:L.CO. Planninq and Zoninq Commission Auqust 3. 1982 told the Commission in the county, the requirement is .7 per lodge room and 1 space for employees. Harvey requested the staff make the language about reconstruction and renovation more understandable. Anderson recommended this section be correlated with the building code. Richman said for a small renovation, it is all right to not increase the nonconformity. If an applicant is going to do a 50 percent, it should remove the nonconformity. The decision is whether to use nmarket" or "assessed" value. Harvey suggested language "The investment of less than 50 percent of the appraised value of the structure, without the underlying land, is considered renovation. The investment of 50 percent or more of the appraised value of the structure is considered reconstruction". Hunt moved to approved Resolution 82-8 with the amendments and to authorize the chairman to read the final resolution as corrected and sign same; seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. Growth Management Plan Exception - Public Hearing Alan Richman, planning office, said there are 3 changes in this. Some exceptions have been eliminated because of the proliferation of GMP exceptions. One eliminated is those exceptions involving building permits issued prior to the GMP. Another exception deleted is the 85:15 provision; the third is the unification of two existing housing exemptions into one. These two are redundant and not well written. Richman told the Commission the 70:30 exemption has been retained as a method to provide employee housing. The staff recommends that the employee units built under 70:30 be deducted from the quota system. Richman said the staff has developed a review procedure for reconstruction of existing units in the case of delay of the reconstructions so it is clear they can rebuild outside the GMP. The staff has written a review procedure for historically designated structures and a specific mitigation requirement for these structures adding space or changing the use of existing space from residential to commercial. Richman said what is deducted from the quota has been expanded. Two new provisions have been added. One is by approval of the Council, projects can be exempted from the quota as well as from the competition process in the rare case where the determination is made this has to happen because the quota cannot accommodate this. Second, if in any occasion the quota is used up by projects which are exempt from it, then 20 percent of the original quota is available to insure a number of units are available for competi ti on in the free market. 3 ,----- -,,~,_....,.,'~..............."... Planninq and Zoninq Commission Auqust 3. 1982 Harvey asked if this 20 percent is of the original number of units available or the quota at the first of the year, which consists of leftover units, carry overs, etc. Richman said the intent is a percentage of the original 39 units. Richman said the key issue is to deduct employee units from the quota. All growth has impacts and should be counted against the quota system. Richman said the staff has no prOblem with the preferential treatment being given to employee units or to individually designated historic structures or any development exempted from the competition. Richman said staff does have a problem of giving them a second level of preferential treatment and not deducting them from the quota. Richman stated the impact of all growth upon services is equal. The staff is trying to get into the position where they are accounting for growth in one overall pie. This was recognized when P & Z recommended that commercial growth outside CC and C-l zone was of a magnitude sufficient that it be counted in a quota system. Richman presented the Board with growth data from 1977, when the GMP was put in place, to 1982. Richman said this approach is geared to the short term, recognizing that the growth management plan is dynamic and can reflect changes in priorities. The understanding and regulation of growth is an imperfect science and was a premise of the GMP when it was initiated. Richman said in the next couple of years, if deducting the employee units from the quota becomes a problem, GMP is a responsive tool and can adjust to that. Richman said the staff feels it is in the best interests of the community to take a comprehensive look at all types of growth under the same system and to include employee housing. Richman said up to now the city has been playing catch up with services and employee housing. Harvey said in order to plan a submission in the GMP and to make a judgement on building anything in the community requires a reliance that if they act under the certain set of guidelines, they have an assurance the same guidelines will exist in 9 months. Harvey said talk of being able to instantly change the quotas bothers him as there must be some consistency and time parameters for applicants. Harvey pointed out in the growth data given by the planning office of the last 5.5 years, the quota was exceeded in all but 1.5 years when you include free market and employee units. Harvey said in an average year, there would be no quota available for competition. Harvey opened the public hearing. Spencer Schiffer brought up decreasing non conformity, it can't be done under this proposal. It would be prohibited because it 4 '-"" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C. L HOECKEL B. 8. 1> L. CO. Planninq and Zoninq Commission Auqust 3. 1982 is a change in use. Schiffer said this section was to address whether or not an appl icant could reconstruct on an adjacent si te. This came up in connection with the GMP scoring of L-l. Harvey said this was an in place reconstruction. Schiffer said this might also be the time to consider whether a person could reconstruct anywhere in the same zone district. Richman said this would require a transfer of density rights. Schiffer told P & Z the former city attorney made a finding it was appropriate to reconstruction anywhere in the zone as long as there was no additional impact. Richman said the quota on a year by year basis is based on growth minus demolition. These growth rates in Aspen are net. Blomquist said any ordinance should include land use accounting for changes in use and it should be done for all zones. Richman said this is being done because there is a requirement to come before P & Z before each competition to tell what quotas are available. Mark Danielsen said this ordinance would eliminate an RBO application because there would not be any quota left. Richman told the Commission a unit is not deducted from the quota when it is applied for; it is deducted when it is built. There is never an instance when someone could not apply for a unit because a quota does not exist. Danielsen asked in the 70:30 projects, are the units deducted from the quota. Richman said currently the 30 percent free market units are deducted, the employee units or the 70 percent are not. The recommendation is to deduct the employee units. Schiffer said if one is changing the use from mUlti-family to lodge or vice versa, what conversion ratios is used. Richman said it would be a unit to unit; however, this is not in effect because there has not been a change in use in thi s reconstruction. Schiffer brought up the exemption for historic structures. Richman said there is language in the Code which indicates that these units are to be deducted from the quota. Richman said the building department will calculate the commercial square footage or dwelling units in historically designated buildings. The issue is whether it was meant to be dwelling units or residential and lodge units. Everywhere else in the Code it means residential and lodge units. Richman said up to now there has been no historically designated lodge which has added rooms. Richman said staff is recommending that all units, lodge, commercial and residential, be in the quota. Harvey closed the public hearing. Ms. Tygre agreed with deducting employee units from the quota because housing is an impact whether it is employee units or free 5 Planninq and Zoninq Commission Auqust 3. 1982 market units. Anderson said the growth chart presented by staff shows an average of 55 new units per year in the city. Anderson said 1 imi ting the total growth in the city to 39 units per year will hurt both people who need year round employee housing as well as secondary growth, like construction and economic growth. Richman said if the quota gets to the point where there are only 8 units available, there is a reason for that. There were more than 39 units built in the previous year. The net effect of these 8 units is broadening the quota to 47 units. The point of the growth management system is the community wanted 39 units in a year. Blomquist said he supports the planning office on this but would like to see the accounting system started. Hunt supports the planning office. Harvey said this should be looked at in the overall picture. All zones have been put into the growth management system. The GMP requires employee units as part of the competition in all zones. The lodge competi tion has been expanded, and conceivably will result in more residential units. Harvey if the Commission keeps the 70:30 GMP exemption but deducts the employee units from the quota, 39 residential units per year may be too few. Harvey said he would like to see the number of units approved under GMP and not built and number of units exempt under the old code. Richman said it is a substantial number. Richman pointed out 24,000 square feet of commercial space, based on the generation factors, will require 21 employee units. Harvey said he would like some further information on change in use, ratios of lodge bedrooms versus employee units. Harvey continued the public hearing on GMP exemptions to the next meeting. Hunt moved to continued GMP exemptions to the next regular meeting; seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. TIMESHARE REGULATIONS Harvey opened the public hearing. Hunt moved to table this until August 10, 1982; seconded by Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. BENEDICT ANNEXATION - PUBLIC HEARING Alice Davis, planning office, said this is in the Callahan subdivision and the request is that land be added to lot II and be annexed into the city. Ms. Davis said the first request is to amend the Callahan PUD and the second request is for zoning. The applicant is requesting this be zoned R-15/PUD and the staff is recommending the parcel be zoned R-15A/PUD. Ms. Davis said 6 ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 'I C.F.HOECKELB.8.5: C, CO. Planninq and Zoninq Commission Auqust 3. 1982 R-15A/PUD was created to prevent people annexing into the ci ty and getting around the requirements for 50 percent employee housing. Ms. Davis told P & Z another issue is whether or not the new land, if it is added to lot 11, should be included in the floor area ratio. Ms. Davis said the staff recommends the area be included in the FAR, as the FAR ordinance is based on bulk being relative to lot size. This would increase the FAR about 1440 square feet. The amendment to the PUD would just be changing the lot line to include this parcel. The staff recommends the P & Z approve the amendment to the PUD subject to the new parcel being deed restricted to open space and that the engineering requirements be met. Ms Davis recommended the P & Z approve R-15A/PUD zoning for the property. Jim Moran, representing the applicant, said the Callahan subdivision is restricted to single family dwelling. R-15A/PUD zoning allows a duplex if one unit is employee housing. It is doubtful that a duplex can be built on this lot, so the applicant does not have a problem with R-15A/PUD zoning. Blomquist asked if there are any trail easement in the Callahan subdivision. Moran said the trail dedicated to the city is directly across the river from this property. Harvey opened the public hearing. Harvey closed the public hearing. There were no comments. Anderson moved to recommend to Council the Benedict annexation be zoned R-15A/pUD and that the PUD be conditioned upon the calculations of the FAR on the new lot 11 be based on the entire lot including the annexed parcel, which is being deed restricted to open space; that the PUD designation of the .55 acre annexed parcel be deed restricted to open space; that the amended Callahan PUD plat meet with engineering department's approval; seconded by Ms. Tygre. Blomquist suggested that the GMP be amended to include an annexation policy. This is basically a subdivision without going through the procedures. All in favor, motion carried. DOREMUSipOTVIN SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION Ms. Davis told P & Z this is a request for a lot split of 4 city lots with an existing dwelling unit and a vacant parcel. This does not meet the requirements in the code for setbacks. The planning office did not accept this application. The applicant got a variance from the Board of Adj ustment. The setbac k 7 '<-. -- Planninq and Zoninq Commission August 3. 1982 requirement is 5 feet and they only have 2-1/2. The other parcel will be required to give a 7-1/2 foot setback only for the length of the deck. There are covenants that include this. Gary Esary, ci ty attorney I s off ice, said the intent of the protective covenants is to get a 10 foot separation carved out of the adjoining lot. Hunt objected to approving a lot split when the safety corridor is not being met. Esary asked the applicant if they would accept an additional P & Z condition of a 10 foot corridor. Potvin said he has received a variance from the Board of Adjustment and is not willing to accept a further condition. Potvin said the motion at the Board of Adjustment is very clear. Hunt moved to table the Doremus/Potvin lot setback requirement; seconded by Blomquist. carried. split to clarify the All in favor, motion 750 SOUTH MILL SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (Welton Anderson stepped down due to conflict of interest) .Colette Penne, planning office, said the applicants would like to put a lot line between lots 21 and 22, give an easement so that Summit street can be extended through from Monarch to Mill. Lot 23 becomes a part of this and one single family lot will be lost. Ms. penne said the applicant plans to move a single family structure onto one of the lots. One lot has a duplex on it. Ms. Penne pointed out if the Commission allows an easement, that land can be used to calculate floor area ratio. Spencer Schiffer told P & Z the purpose for this is to be able to construct a fourplex on one of the lots. Schiffer said the city wants the extension of Summit street, and the applicant wants to expand the lot. Schiffer said the recommendation is to change the lot lines so that one lot can accommodate a fourplex while accommodating the city's request for the street. Schiffer noted if they dedicate this land to the city, rather than an easement, they could not use the land for FAR. Hunt said he is willing to go for a larger building in order to get the trade off of the street for the city. Esary told the Commission when this went to Council for the trade off of a fourplex for the street easement, the Council accepted. When it when to the building department, there was a legal opinion that Council did not have the authority to approve that type of request, and maybe the P & Z or Board of Adjustment had the authority. Ms. Penne told the Commission that the staff is requiring a 5 foot setback from the street as this will be a side yard rather than a front yard. 8 '-- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~ORM 'I C. F. HOECK~L 8. 8. a L. co. Planninq and Zoninq Commission Auqust 3. 1982 Hunt moved to recommend approval of the Cantrup-Cantrup 750 South Mill subdivision exception for a lot 'line adjustment as shown on the attached drawing of the planning office memorandum of 3 August 1982, conditioned upon conditions 1, 2, 3, in the planning office memorandum, and further recognizing this includes the easement for Summit Street extension; seconded by Blomquist. Hunt commented the P & Z is willing to accept the easement rather than a dedication because it is an essential transportation way and realizing that greater than normal development will occu r. This is in the lodging district and the easement is of a greater benefit than the detriment of larger density on this lot. All in favor, motion carried. Hunt moved to adjourn at 8:05 p.m.; seconded by Blomquist. All in favor, motion carried. All in favor, motion carried. 9