The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutminutes.apz.19791016 . ...AOt'OIID ronLI_HlNG co., D..NV"" . .. -. '. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 1979 Regular Meeting, The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on October 16, 1979, at 5:00 PI1 in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Olof Hedstron Lee Pardee, Roger Hunt, Welton Anderson, Nancy McDonnell and Perry Harvey, Also present were Richard Grice of the Planning Office, Housing Director Jim Reents and City Attorney Ronald Stock. ' . COffimissionmerr~er Comments :,..t h.=-''- rr;-::.r.". - _t- .' _.....l. ~, .3~ ,:"",,;-,-. ".- .;-:-:~ ...,. _ _ n _. ~ " , _l--;;:'-:- .':,,: +':.....~ ,,"-'C. . Bill House, Stream'Ma:t:gin Review ... l-;- ," ~r- Wesson Employee, HouSing Project " " 'Chairman Hedstrom noted he attended the last Council meeting He told the Council that the P&Zdid not feel their recom- mendations were getting through to the Council. He sum- marized the P&Z's deliberation on the Lodge condominiumiza- tion. The P&Z felt the intent behind the lodge zoning shoul< be upheld, that a reduction in the number of units available in this zone would be inadvisable, and that condominiumiza- tion of these units would create pressure for tourist units outside the lodge zone and tend to weaken the quality of the lodging facilities because of the change in ownership. He noted there was no certainty that these things would happen but the P&Z felt they should prevent them from occur- ring. He explained to the,Council that P&Z is aware that condominiumization may be the only way for certain lodges tO,finance upgrading of the facilities but felt this problem should be attacked directly; Pardee asked if Council had taken any action. Stock said they requested an ordinance prohibjting all subdivision of lodges and hotels which Stock did not support. He recommended a moratorium on these condominiumizations and a rewrite of the subdivision regu- lations. This rewrite would take up to eight months. He recommends a long subdivision process, a short subdivision process similar to subdivision exemptions and a condominiumi' zationjsplit fee type process. He noted that a moratorium envisions action whereas~ prohibition,does not. Anderson moved to recommend'-to City Council a moratorium on all cohdominiumizations of lodges and hotels until legisla- tion can be drafted to clarify existing subdivision and condominiumization regulations concerning the condominiumi- zation of lodges and further.r~commend that,this revision to exist~ng legislation be done' in the most expeditous manner possible, Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Lee Pardee stepped down from his position on the commission due to a conflict of interest" ' ' Grice introduced the application. He 'no,ted the property was filled and graded some time ago through a Stream Margin approval. The Code requires that no building be cohstructed in the Stream Margin without approval. The Engineering Department has recommended approval subject to the applicant reSUbmitting a stream margin review plat. The Planning Of- fice recommends approval subject to the five conditions of the Engineering Department. Hunt moved to approve the Stream Margin Revi~ of the ad- dition of a tennis court to the Hill House property as proposed conditioned upon compliance with the Engineering Department items ,1-5 listed on the' Planning Office memo dated October 11, 1979, Harvey seconded. All in favor, motion, approved. ' Pardee resurnedhis position on the commission. Reents introduced ~heapplication. . The applicant wishes to build an office building next to the Shaw residence on Main Street, 605 W. Main. The HPC,'has .given their approval. In the O-Office, there is an FAR bonus for employee housing. This application needs special review and the employee housing parking reduction. The employ~e housing is garden level. , . .. -. r -2- . .egular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 16, 1979 Anderson moved to approve Dr. Wesson's application for special review for two employee housing units and for parking reduction of two spaces from that which would normally be required by the code, for his new office building at 605 W. Main Street and conditioned that the property is deed restricted to Low, Moderate or Middle income housing, Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion, approved. Hunt abstained from voting for lack of information. 'i " , ' :;1 omers ubdivision xemption Grice introduced the application. The applicant requests subdivision exemption for the condominiumization of a duplex, presently a single family occupied by the owners with the second unit proposed. The Engineering Department recommends approval subject to their conditions. The Planning Office recommends approval subject to the Engineeering Department's concerns. 11 "l.;;:r\" Hun~ moved to recommend exemption from strict application of the subdivision regulations applied to the Somers duplex condominiumization conditioned on, 1) compliance with Item 1 of the Engineering Department memo September 24, 1979, prior to consideration by City Council, 2) compliance with Item 2 of the above referenced memo, 3) compliance with Aspen Municipal Code Section 20-22:, the six month minimum lease pro~ision and the property be so deed restricted. Otherwise, there are no significant adverse land use impacts ordetri- ments to the public good, Anderson seconded. All in'favor, motion approved. ~"'( i'; ~ ~~ ~ =a5,~. l..:.--::t':'l" -- Eave': ::ms-Hall ubdivision ltemption ..'-. Grice introduced the application. The, applicant requests subdivision exemption for thecondominiumization of an existing duplex. The rental' history indicates that one unit has been rented for .57/sqft. in the last 18 months. Stock feels this shows the unit (aIls with1nthe low, moderate and middle income housing pool. He recommends denial. The Engi~eering Department recommends approval subject to their conditions. ~. ! \', F-I , ~"',,- ... Jon'Seigle, representing the' applicant, said the duplex was purchased in 1972, both units are now under contract to sell. The~north unit has been rented, the south unit is owner oc- cupied. The tenants do not wish to exercise their ri.ght of first refusal and the prospective buyers do not intend to rent it as employee housing. Seigle did not feel these units fell under the housing guidelines. j 1 I, I Pardee felt it important to know who has been renting this unit; has it been four labor~rs paying $675/month. Hedstrom felt it important that the rent has been $675 since October 197~. Hunt did not feel they should penalize them fOr keep- ing .theirrents down. Anderson felt they should get more infqrmation. I1cDonnell did not feel it fell under employee housing. Harvey agreed with~McDonnell and asked for'more information. , - "II. . Bunt,moved to recommend exemption from strict application of the subdivision regulations of the Sams-Hall condominiumiza- tiori conditioned on, 1.>. comp'liance with item 1 of the' En- gine~ring Department memo dated October 11, 1979, prior to City, Council consideration, 2) compliance with item 2 of the, above mentioned memo, 3) compliance with Aspen Municipal Codei 'Section 20-22, the six month minimum lease provisions and r: be so deed restricted. Otherwise, there are no significant ji adverse land use impacts or, detriments to the public good, i Harvey seconded. Roll call vote: Harvey, aye; McDonnell, ! aye; Anderson, nay; Pardee, nay; Hunt, aye; Hedstrom, aye. ' Motfon approved.,. ',' solution 79-19, ordes Employee using Approval Harvey felt they should include the six month minimum lease restriction in the resolution. " , ") , " " " -3- .....D..e".o PUDU'HING C=O.. DRNV~" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS II . .-- October 16, 1979 Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Hunt moved to adopt Resolution 79-19 with the addition of the application of the Aspen Municipal Code Section 20-22, the six month minimum lease restriction on all the units and with the amendment that the la'st'three "whereas" clauses be placed under the "New, therefore, ,be it resolved" section so as to ma~e them conditions 'of the approval, Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Harvey moved to adjourn the meeting, Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 PM. "~*~~~p~&~C~Y " . . . '. 1-' . . . 'i f'.~ ..... .'. , " .-..,. " , :.,.. ',. ,> ~ ,. ~ " " , , " ... " " . " " Clerk i . , , . .' , .~