Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19821019 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FCRM\O c. r. HOECKtL B. B. a: l. CJ. Aspen Planning and Zoning commission October 19, 1982 Acting chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Al Blomquist, Lee Pardee, and Roger Hunt present. commissioner Comments Roger Hunt mentioned that an area off of Cemetary Lane was again being used as a used car lot. Alan suggested the staff research ways to adopt a 200 foot set back along Highway 82 from the bridge westward. As areas are annexed they would automatically be subject to the 200 foot set back on Highway 82, which could also be implemented within the city limits and east of town. Little Victorians Subdivision Exception Colette Penne informed the commission that the Little Victorians are located at 634 W. Main St. The applicants are requesting an exception from subdivision for the purpose of condominiumization. For the past eighteen months all of the units have rented outside of the middle income value which is the planning office's highest guideline at 829 a square foot. The lowest rent charged for the Little Victorian units was 839 a square foot. The longest tenancy remaining ends on July 1, 1983. The applicant is committed to honoring all the leases, though the lease provides for its termination with the issuance of a 30 day notice should the unit sell. All of the units have been offered to the current tenants and they have all refused purchase. However the units will have to comply with the provision that allows the present tenant a 90 day first right of refusal should a bonnified offer be made on the unit. Colette recommends approval of the subdivision exception with the following conditions: 1. The improvement is necessary to the building prior to the sale of a unit, in accordance with recommendations made by the Building Dept. in an electrical and structural inspection. 2. The attorney's office has requested that compliance with the inspection results be changed to read "compliance with section 22a and 22b". This covers both 6 month minimum leases with no more than two shorter tenancies per year. It also covers the 180 day period in which current tenants will have the opportunity to buy the unit. 3. A statement of exception from the the full subdivision process for the purpose of condominiumization be executed on forms approved by the City Attorney. Roger Hunt asked if the low to moderate/middle income guidelines should be revised. Colette said that considering the size of the units being discussed the rents have been outside the guidelines and fairly expensive. Roger asked if the rent included utilities. The rent is determined on a square foot basis,but it does include utilities. Roger suggested that the commission look at the guidelines again considering how applicable they areuwhen the utilities are excluded from the rent. Gary Esary, Assistant City Attorney pointed out that the 20/22 analysis only has to prove that rent is not in the low or moderate ranges. Colette is showing that even with the utilities included the rent is above the moderate income guidelines. Gary Esary also explained that guidelines permit utilities charged in common to be included in the guideline price. Roger stated that -1- "'.'~~~''''''''' ,_._._~. , ..., .......,""."....' ,. """".,,..,.,,- Little Victorians (cont. ) V. Mark Rezoning Reconsideration of Golf course Preliminary Plat ~~ ---.........,...-......, -2- the utilities involved in this application were not necessarily utilities in common. If the units are condominiumized the utilities would probably be seperated as much as possible. The inclusion of utilities in the rent may have skewed the rent out of the range that the Planning Commission should consider. Lee Pardee thought that the fairest thing to do would be to study the cost of utilities for the past year and divide it out on a square foot basis and than determine if it fell into any of the income ranges. Colette reiterated that 20/22 only addresses low and moderate ranges and that the middle range has been included by inference. These utilities are above the middle range. The utilities would have to be expensive to bring the cost of rent down. Mr. Horn, applicant, informed the commission that the building in question has a commercial utility rate and the utilities are extremely low. Alan Blomquist thought that the application was incomplete and asked if a motion to table would be in order. The applicant stressed that time was of the essence. Lee Pardee suggested approving the application contingent upon an analysis done by the planning office, which would calculate the rent on a square foot basis, taking into account the effect of utilities. The analysis would determine whether or not a low and moderate income level could be considered. Lee asked what the moderate income guidelines were. Colette said they were approximately 759 a square foot. Lee Pardee moved to recommend approval of the subdivision exception for the purpose of condominiumization of the Little Victorian Apartments, 634 W. Main, with the following conditions: One, improvements necessary to the building from the results of the Building Dept. inspections must be made prior to the sale of any unit as outlined in the memo dated October 19, 1982 from Stan Stevens and Jim Wilson. Two, the units must comply with the conditions set forth in 20/22 A & B of the Aspen City Code. Three, the statement of exceptions in the book of major process for the purpose of condominiumization and the declaration of restricted covenants be executed under forms approved by the City Attorney. Four, this approval is conditional upon the units not qualifying for low or moderate income levels of rent after deducting the utility cost on a pro-rata basis per apartment or condominium and should any ~ fall therein they should be deed restricted to the level recommended by the Housing Authority. Jasmine Tygre seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing and table the action on the V. Mark rezoning until the next regular meeting on November 2, 1982. Lee Pardee seconded the motion. All in favor,motion carried. Welton Anderson stated that the Commission had tried once before to get the kind of legislation through the first time this proposal was being considered in order to prevent a mistake. The Commissioners felt that something had happened that the commissioners would not have approved and that was against ~ their recommendations. Roger Hunt noted that there was a~ Planning Office recommendation to approve the Golf Course application with no conditions. Welton agreed that the Commission did not have to accept the Planning Office's "'-"... , ,. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FGRl.!lO c. r. HO,CKEL B. 8. 8c l. C;)' Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 19, 1982 Golf Course Preliminary Plat (cont.) recommendation and that the Commission could take action to keep a building such as the ~mo Shop from being built again without any P&Z approval. Alan Richman, planning office, told the commission that this applciation was being reconsidered because there was a mistake made within the City when a plat, given preliminary plat approval by the p&Z and final plat approval by the Council, was not recorded. Thus, the application is being presented to the Commission again in order to obtain approval for the resubdivision of the Golf Course Subdivision. There are no changes of substence to the plat. The Engineering Dept. has added one easement to the plat. Alan informed the Commission that the memo dated October 8, 1982 is intended to clearly state the facts so that there was no question about the action the Planning and Zoning Commission took which was, at the conceptual level, to provide a mechanism for review of any development that would occur at the golf course, including the Pro Shop. The P&Z's recommendation was brought to Council and the Council did remove that recommendation from the Golf Course Support Overlay as it was finally approved. Alan said that he was not sure whether the Planning Office had informed the Commission that the Golf Course Support Overlay had been ammended after the P&Z'S recommendation. However, when the Commission did see the Preliminary Plat there was nothing specifically on it regarding the Golf Course Pro Shop, so no approval was given by the P&Z. Since subdivision itself is not a matter of any controversy, the Plannning Office is recommending that the Commission place a PUD on that piece of property as part of the subdivision to give the golf course,~the area thats zoned Golf Cour~Support (GCS) a PUD. Therefore if anyone proposes to do anything there in the future there is a review mechanism. Roger Hunt said that the Council members he had contacted expressed suprise at reviewing the Golf Course Pro Shop so he rejected Wayne Chapman's letter on the subject. Roger agrees with implementing a PUD, but does not agree with passing the application unless a PUD is implemented. Roger recommends that if the P& Z passes the application it should be a motion to deny unless PUD is included. If PUD is not included, the Commission would have denied it and the application would be returned to the Commission. Alan thought that this would entail a motion to initiate a zoning action on the Golf Course Subdivision in order to move the PUD ahead and to withold action on the preliminary Plat. Welton Anderson opened the Public Hearing. Peter Guy, chairman of the County Planning and Zoning Commission, read the following statement on the County P&Z's position: "The Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission by the unanimous action of 9 regular and alternate members attending its meeting on October 19, 1982, wishes to go on record with the following statement regarding the Pro Shop at the Golf Course: 1. The commission w~es to express its concern and disappointment at the violation of the pitkin County policy that all buildings be set back 200 feet from -3- Golf Course Preliminary Plat (cont.) .~'""'---""~~,~.- -4- from Highway 82. 2. The Commission feels that of all the areas where there might be possible conflicting objectives between the City and the County that there should never be inconsistancy regarding the highway set back. 3. The Commission recognizes the original efforts made by the Aspen City P&Z and the Planning Office to have review power over the location of the Pro Shop and agrees with that approach as proper. 4. The Commission has established a historic precedent of consistency in its actions in the corridor and has never waived the application of a set back, regardless of the community objective and its conflicts with this policy. 5. The Commission advocates taking whatever steps necessary to relieve the current situation. Specifically to include the removal of the building, even at this late date. Such actions have been taken by the City in the face of past violations of city poliCl by private interests and appear to be justified. Bill Dunaway, Aspen Times, said that he realized the City and the leasee have spent a lot of money, but it would not cost much to move the building. Bill did not agree with the City Manager, and felt that being able to see both tees did not justify putting the building in the set-back. Michael Gessner, County P&Z, felt that there was an opportunity to correct a mistake by moving the building. The higway set back is one of the most important and consistent community goals in existence said Mr. Gessner. The highway set back is vital to Aspen and the entrance to Aspen. It is vital to keep the entrance to town uncluttered and Utleveloped. Joy Caudell reiterated Bill Dunaway and Michael Gessner. Welton closed the Public Hearing. Roger suggested coming up with a resolution concerning the reconsideration of the Golf Course Preliminary Plat. A top priority would be to place a P.U.D. on the property. Roger also concurred with moving the building. Lee thought the first step was the zoning action, followed by a review of the preliminary plat in conjunction with drafting a resolution stating that the building should be moved. Al Blomquist felt that the problem was in the number of different zones that applied to public land. He thought that if there was one public zone a mandatory review of this land would be easier. Al agreed that the building should be moved. Jasmine thought it essential to include within the resolution the idea of exploring all possibilities to have the building moved. Al Blomquist reiterated that the parcel in question needed to be placed under, P.U.D. level planning. Welton Anderson pointed out that it was time for the City to play by the same rules that it sets up for everybody else. Al Blomquist said that the City has predetermined the Main St. extension without a master plan for the Thomas property. There should be a P.U.D on every piece of public property. , . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOllM\O c.r,HOEcKtLB.B.a.l.CJ. Octoeer~19,1982 Aspen Planninq and Zoninq Commission Golf Course Preliminary Plat (cont.) Upper Elemenary School Conditional Use Roger Hunt moved to table the action on the reconsideration of the Golf Course Preliminary Plat until such time that the property can be considered for zoning, including P.U.D. Included in this motion is a request to the Planning office to provide a resolution along the lines stressed at this meeting. Al Blomquist stated that in addition to the resolution the Planning office should be instructed to come up with a change in the zoning map and ordinance to create one public zone with a mandatory P.U.D. A public zone would include all lands and properties within the city limits owned by any public entity. It was suggested that AI's request be included in a second motion. Lee,Wardee seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. A~an Richman informed the Commission that the resolution addresses the issue of establishing a set back of 200 feet along Highway 82. Welton said that the Commission should establish as a precedent an administrative rule that any land in the County with a 200 foot set back will be annexed in the City with that same 200 foot set back. Alan said he would write this up as something the Commission needed to look into. Colette Penne reminded the Commission that the Building Dept. had come in earlier asking for a Conditional Use to locate in the Upper Elementary School. At the time the Commission talked about the the other uses that were in the school/but had not gone through a similar process. The Commission requested that these other uses apply to the P&Z for a conditional use. The Upper Elementary school~ located on Hallam and Garm~h in the R-6 zone. All of the applicants on the summary sheet are requesting conditional use approval to be located in the Upper Elementary School. All of the applicants are present tenants except for the New Creation Christian Center. Colette informed the Commission that the inclusions of Conditional Uses in the R-6 zone are open use recreation sites, public schools, churches, hospitals, public administration buildings, day care centers and museums. The applicants all fit into the conditional use catagories. The applicant is considered to be public administration if they are recieving City or County funding, or State or Federal funding and they are often a use that would have to otherwise be handled by government. Colette demonstrated to the Commission that there is adequate parking for all of the appicants without the removal of the playground equipment and off street parking. In terms of compliance with the zoning code and consistency with the zoning district,the conditional uses do cover all of the uses applied for. The criteria of land use compatabli1ity is that the proposal doesn't propose any further development of the site. It is an interem solution for the use of the school building. Colette felt that all of the applicants fit the definition recommended by the Planning office for a conditional -5- Upper Elementary School (cont.) Aspen Downtown Storage Lodge GMP Scoring ...--......."'---.,...-. -6- use. The Planning Office recommends that the Commission, as was the case with the Building Dept, give the applicants a one year conditional use permit. It is also recommendeS that a master plan for the long term use fo the building be provided before August 31,1983 at which time the leases expire. Ron Molford requested a mailing of agendas and summaries. Lee Pardee moved to grant conditional approval to the applicants outlined in the Planning Office memorandum dated October 19, 1982 for the period extending from the present to August 31, 1983. This conditional use is conditioned upon the submission of a plan for the total use of the property on a.long term basis. Included in this motion in the grant of a Conditional Use Permit. Jasmine Tygre seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Welton Anderson stepped down as he was the associate architect on the storage warehouse. Roger Hunt nominated Lee Pardee to act as temporary chairman. Jasmine seconded the nomination. All in favor, motion carried. Roger Hunt mentioned that the P&Z's action on the original Trueman plan pointed out that this piece of property should be designated as not having any major capital improvements on it. It has been identified as property that should not be significantly built on. The Commission asked Colette to check on and verify the recommendation that this parcel(Trueman) should not be developed to any significant degree. Roger moved to approve the resolution concerning Lot 3 of the Trueman property and to ~uthorize the acting chairman, Lee Pardee, to sign it upon the inclusion of the additional "whereas". Jasmine seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Welton asked to make public his familiarity with the Carriage House property. Lee Pardee moved to have Welton Anderson step down. Jasmine Tygre seconded the motion. Lee Pardee and Jasmine Tygre in favor, Al Blomquist and Roger Hunt opposed, motion fails. Welton chose to stay on the Commission during the discussion of the Lodge GMP. Alice Davis, Planning Office, informed the Commission that this years quota is 76 units and is derived from all of the units that have not been used in the past and from the present years quota of 35. The applicant is requesting 26 free market lodge units and five (5) employee units for a total of 31 units. The lodge facility will be located at the corner of Aspen and Durant Streets. There are currently 6 multi-family units there. The lodge would include a lobby conference area, bar, health club, dining area, swimming pool, and 31 parking spaces, 22 of which are underground. Should the applicant recieve a GMP allocation a GMP exemption from 5 employee units would not be necessary nor would he have to go through the new GMP exemption for demolition/ reconstruction. The six multi-family units currently located on the parcel will give the applicant credit for six units should they be demolished. The six unit credit is not included in the 26 unit request and there has been interest on the applicants part in moving these units to another location should someone "draw the line". Public Facilities and Services: Water: There are two existing lines that can service the project. The applicant will remove these two and replace it with a third. The Engineering Dept. states that this does not warrant a two and would not improve the quality of the service in the area because it is a service line which is not a City responsibility. - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.r.HOECKElB.B.Ill.CJ. Aspen Planning and Zoning October 19, 1982, Lodge GMP Sewer: Existing lines can handle the project. Engineering again feels that a 2 is not warranted as there is nothing out of the ordinary and responsibility falls with the owner. Storm Drainage: A series of dry wells have been proposed which are sufficient for drainage on site. The applicant has suggested that he put 2 new catct basins in. The Englneering Dept. thinks this is a good idea. Howevp.r, where the applicant wants to put these is not where the Engineering Dept. feels they would be the most effective. If the applicant agrees to comply with the Engineering Dept.'s suggestion the planning office would recommend a GMP scoring of 2, but as it stands on the application the planning office recommends a 1 because it is not an effective way of improving the service in the area. Fire Protection: Existing facilities provide excellent fire protection and there is nothing that warrants giving it a 2. Roads: The applicant has agreed to install 2 street lights to improve safety in the area and to pave the alley which would improve access to the 3 other lodges that access off the alley. The increased traffic volume would not present any significant impacts. Quality of Design: Architectural Design: The applicant has submitted a standard acceptable design. It includes rock, wood glass, materials typical of neighborhood. The structure is three stories high and is surrounded by 3 and 4 story structures. The planning office recommends a score of 2. Site Design: Open space proposed is 29%, 4% above the required 25% open space. Landscaping is proposed to screen the parking. The applicant proposes a small town lodge atomosphere. Benches will be provided ln the tree area along the road. The utilities will be underground and there will be an underground parking garage. Overall the proposed site design is acceptable and is nothing exceptlonal. Planning office gave it a 2. Energy Conservation: The project includes thermal insulation which exceeds the standards by 10%, energy efficient fireplaces, and other energy efficient devices. This is fairly standard. Parking and Circulation: The application recieved a rating of three as the application includes an underground garage, a landscaped screen of surface parking, and parking is provided for the 5 employ~e unlts as well as for the free market units. Ther~lso acceptable trash facilities. Visual Impact: This recieved a score of 1. The major problem wlth the design project is visual impact. The view from other lodges is completely blocked by a 3 story structure though it lS wlthin the height limitations. Amenities Provided for Guests: Meeting Areas: The project proposes that almost 8% of the total rental area will be in the lobby. The meeting rooms constitute 18% of the the total rental space. The combined total of 26% is felt to be a high percentage for a project of 26 units. A score of 3 is recommended. -7- ..,......,...,.-,-..-...--...--- -8- Lodge GMP (cont. ) Dining Facilities: The project includes a small indoor/outdoor dining area, a bar, and the posslbi1ity of using the meetlng area for banquet facilities. If the banquet facilities are included, 24% of the rental space in going to be used in dining area. This is adequate dlning space worthy of a score of 2. Recreational Facilities: The applicant has promised to put in a pool and a health club totalling 19% of the total lodge area. This is adequate but not exceptional. provision of Employee Housing: The appllcant intends to house ten people in five units. They estimate that they will only generate ten employees. Planning office feels that ten employees will not be enough. The plannlng office increased the number of employees from ten to nlneteen. With nineteen employees and houslng for ten, only 50% of the employees are being housed. This works out to be a score of 5 points. Alice informed the commission that there should be a total of 54 pOlnts. Mark Danielson, representing the applicant, told the commiSSlon that the Carriage House is a small lodge development proposal located on 15,000 sqare feet, Lots K,L,M,N,O, Block 77. Mark felt that the Carriage House provides a total compliment of guest facilities and amenities on a small lodge scale. Mark felt that the application deserved 2 points for water rather than the one given it by the planning office. After talking with Jim Markalunas, head of the Water Dept., it was felt that a service would be provided by decreasing the maintenance of 2 water 11nes by replacing them with one new line. Mark told the Commlssion that Aspen Metro Sanitation was responsible for the sewer lines and if the applicant committed to financing periodical maintenance it would help ',:--,' all the users on the sewer line, thus improving service to the area. Mark said that the applicant would provide 2 new catch basins on a location determined by the City Englneering Dept. Mark thought that the scoring handicapped projects already ln an excellent location with regard to fire protection. There is already excellent fire protection ln the area of the Carriage House. Considering the quality of design, Mr. Danielson stated that the lOdge was small in comparlson with surrounding developments. In terms of height, the lodge was an intermediate step in the neigborhood being three stories hlgh. There is also a compatability of building materials with the surrounding area. The applicant feels that the design maximizes the materials and is most compatable with the height and size of the neighborhood while also maximizing the amenities and services for the guests. The applicant disagreed with the visual impact score because of the compatability of height with the neighborhood. The applicant also mentioned that there would not be a full time employee for each jOb. Rather, the employees would be doubling as everything from restaurant to maid and desk clerk to maintenance person. Ten employees would be used only when the lodge is full. Mark felt that ten employees would be adequate to fulfill all of the needs of the lodge. Alice Davis responded to the comments made by Mark Danielson by saying that she had also talked with Jim Marka1unas who said that replacement of the the water lines would improve service but that was the water department's responsibillty anyway. There is nothing out of the ordinary being provided. This is also true wlth the sewer lines. Fire protection - ~, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FCRM\O C.F.HOECKrLB,a.&l.CJ. Aspen Planning and Zoning CommlSSlon October 19, 1982 Lodge GMP (cont. ) can be improved in the general area, if not on the speciflc lodge site, Alice said. The scoring system is designed so that if its difficult for an applicant to score in one area, such as fire protection, they can score better in another area, such as employee houslng, increasing the score. Alice said that the applicant did provide a lot of energy conservation devices but a score of 3 lS usually reserved for those applicants who use active solar devices and is more into solar orientation. Miss Davis reiterated that the visual impact of the project was seen as a major design flaw because of the impact on surrounding structures. Gary Esary, City Attorney, disputed a conclusion that the applicant made concerning the consideration of height. The applicant said that consideration of height in GMP scoring would be spot zoning and therefore il1eagal because maximum height was already logged by the zone. This is not correct. Zoning and GMP applications are two seperate issues. Alice asked the applicant to clarify how commltted they were to the proposal. The ~pplication proposes thlngs that could be done but does not definitly commit the applicant. Mark confirmed that the applicant was committing to everything in the appllcation and in the presentatlon. Lee Pardee moved to make a GMP allocation to the Carriage House should the numbers/score meet the minimum requirements. Alan Blomquist seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carrled. Lee Pardee moved to adjourn the meeting. Alan Blomquist seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. ie Markalunas ty Clerk's Office -9-