Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19790918 BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS September 18, 1979 Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on September 18, 1979, at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Olof Hedstrom Welton Anderson, Lee Pardee and Roger Hunt. Also present were Karen Smith of the Planning Office and City Attorney Ron Stock. Approval of Minutes Commissionmember Comments Aspen Ski School, Conditional Use Coordes Housing Project Hunt moved to approve the minutes of August 7, 1979, as is and the minutes of August 23, 1979, as amended, Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Pardee wanted to see the P&Z speed resolution of the trailer park zoning and trailer park specifications. The p&Z had a site inspection that turned up alot of fire hazards in need of immediate attention. He also asked that the City Engineer, Building Inspector and Fire Marshal come to the next P&Z meeting and give their comments. Hedstrom sug- gested a special meeting to discuss only this issue. Pardee suggested the Fire Marshal and Building Inspector begin en- forcing the minimum regulations of the Building Code. Hedstrom called for a special meeting Wednesday, September 26, 1979. Smith introduced the application. The Ski Corp wishes to make an addition to the ski school building of 275 square feet. This building is in the C-Conservation zone. She presented a plat of the building and the proposed addition. Smith noted that the Planning Office memo recommends denial. because they originally did not think the application would comply with Conservation District setback requirements. They have since resolved this question. The Planning Office now recommends approval. Hedstrom opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. Hunt moved to recommend approval of the expansion of the conditional use of the Aspen Ski School Building located at the base of Little Nell as it is compatible with the existing Conservation zoning, Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Joan Klar entered the meeting. Anderson stepped down from the Commission due to a conflict of interest. Reents introduced the application. The applicant wishes to add a second story on the south wing on his house. The addition is employee housing to be controlled by the price guidelines. The applicant wishes the three units be desig- nated one low, one moderate, one middle. There is a possi- bility these units may be condominiumized in the future. Pardee asked if they were changing the outside of the building. Welton Anderson said they would be removing the roof and adding a floor. Klar was concerned with tenant displacement if the units are condominiumized. Pardee felt they would be displacing tenants if they take off the roof. Hunt moved to recommend approval of the expansion of the three low, moderate and middle income housing units to the existing Coordes building known as the Coordes Housing Project conditioned that, 1) if breaking of an existing lease occurs during construction, the developer will provide comparable housing, 2) the property will be deed restricted to include the new units within the low/ moderate and middle income housing guidelines. Further, the P&Z finds that the expansion of these low, moderate and middle income housing units are exempt from the Growth Management Plan and other- wise, this expansion is beneficial to the community, Klar seconded. All in favor, motion approved. -2- Regular Meeting September 18, 1979 Housing Overlay L-l Code Amendment Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Anderson resumed his position on the Commission. Smith said this proposal is similar to the previous proposal in that it gives a density bonus in return for a substantial number of units being committed to employee housing. The ordinance offers a doubling of the density in R-6, R-15, R-30 and R-40 and allows the P&Z and City Council to vary the minimum lot area required per unit by special review in the other zones. The ordinance also shortens the review procedure for employee housing. The first step addresses the questions of impacts and how well it meets the needs of employee housing. This step does not require a public hearing before the P&Z, only before the City Council. The second step is the final plat with technical information. It offers an exemption from the GMP. It allows multi-family uses in the single family residential districts. In order for projects to qualify for this bonus, they must have at least 75% of the units in the employee housing pool. Unlike the previous proposed ordinance, this ordinance allows a variance from FAR and other area and bulk restric- tions with guidelines. The ordinance provides for a pre- application conference with various staff members to discuss the application before entering the process. P&Z was con- cerned about changing the character of single family neigh- borhoods; in this ordinance, projects will be favored which are most compatible with the existing character of developed neighborhoods. The bonus potential has been deleted from the Rural Residential and Conservation Zone because they are not suitable for a doubling of density. The ordinance does not permit a variation from the minimum lot area, the maximum height, the setbacks, the internal FAR and the mini- mum distance between buildings. It also does not allow variation in the external FAR in the zones that already grant the density bonus, O-Office, C-C and C-l. She recom- mended adding that smaller additions that would not require a subdivision plat may proceed through the first step only. She felt the preapplication conference would help guide the applicant and eliminate future complications. Pure employee housing projects may go ahead at any time but mixed projects should proceed in conjunction with annual review of residen- tial allotments. Stock felt they must require 50% employee housing with 50% free market units in order to get a response to this bonus. He did not feel the preapplication conference was necessary. He did not agree with a two step process. Hedstrom asked that they return to this item later in the meeting. Smith noted that City Council supported this amendment. She noted the P&Z previously declined to support this. They felt this might open the way for condominiumization of lodges yet this type of conversion would go through GMP. This amendment would allow nonconforming uses to improve. She noted the only potential buildout in the L-l zone is the property owned by Mr. Sabbatini who initiated this proposal. She noted a proposal for a residential and lodge preservation clause which would allow nonconforming uses to reconstruct or restore. The City Council is aSking for P&Z's recommendation on this item. Hedstrom opened the public hearing. Rich Sabbatini restated that he had asked for P&Z's support of this amendment. P&Z did not wish to support this and the City Council was interested. The item is now back to P&Z for comment. He owns the only buildable property in this district. He said it is financially impossible to build what is allowed on his property. He bought the lodge five years ago and converted it to long term residential -- .....I BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER -3- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS September 18, 1979 Regular Meeting Mollie Gibson Lodge Subdivision Exemption Aspen Planning andZonin<1 Commission units. He now wishes to reconstruct the old building into 5 or 6 free market townhouse units in place of the 6 existing units. Four of the townhouses would be sold, two would be retained by Mr. Sabbatini. He asked for support of this amendment. Klar asked about tenant displacement. Smith said they would discuss this at condominiumization. Hunt supported the preservation clause for nonconforming uses. He did not feel it wise to change an entire zone district for one piece of property. Hedstrom noted the P&Z has been con- cerned about the nonconforming use problems. Anderson agreed that the preservation clause would alleviate this problem. Pardee concurred. Smith noted that a noncon- forming use is not allowed to condominiumize. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. Hedstrom concurred with the commission's feeling that this problem is best solved by a preservation clause rather than amending the zoning code. Smith understood the concern of the commission but did not feel the amendment would damage this zone. Hunt moved to ask the Planning Office to draft a resolution recommending to City Council that there be no change to the existing L-l zone for the reasons the P&Z has given in their previous action, however, further indicating to Council that we are fully aware of the problems of this particular project and that we believe that it is advisable in this case to handle in under the proposed expansion of nonconforming use clause which we are presently engaged in working on and within the housing overlay, Pardee seconded. All in favor~ motion approved. Smith introduced the application. She noted the lodge is a nonconforming use in the R-6 zone district. The code does not allow subdivision of a nonconforming use. She noted the City Attorney is working on an amendment that would exempt from the GMP this type of conversion. The Planning Office recommends denial. Herb Klein, representing the applicant, asked the commission to consider the merits of the application notwithstanding the comments of the City Attorney. David Jones, owner of the Mollie Gibson, noted the lodge has 20 units. He feels he has given the best service possible to his customers. He noted he also owns the Aspen Ski Lodge, formally the Smuggler Lodge. This lodge was in great need of upgrading. He also noted. the Mollie Gibson is also in need of work that he cannot do because it is a nonconfoming use. He said if he was granted condominiumization, he intends to have every room upgraded along with the rest of the lodge without changing the nature of the lodge, only the ownership. Klein felt condominiumization was the only way to finance these improvements without raising the rates substantially. Hunt asked how they would prevent an owner from installing a hotplate/kitchen. Klein felt the town was losing more by not allowing these lodges to upgrade than worrying about one owner out of 100 that will not rent out his unit. He did not feel there was any way to make someone promise to never to install a kitchen, etc. Hunt wanted to see some type of agreement that the lodge would be operated by one management. Klein agreed to attempt this type of language. Pardee felt the Mollie Gibson is what it is because of David Jones and questioned what would happen without his concern. He felt the number of units owned by people who did not need to rent them out for the income would increase. -4- Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 18, 1979 Coordes Housing Project Housing Overlay -" Jones noted that lodges are not a viable entity anymore. Anderson suggested condominiumizing one quarter of the lodge and leaving the rest as is. Jones entertained the sugges- tion and also suggested a programmed release of the rest of the units over 5 years. Klar asked if the preservation clause proposal would help their situation. Jones said it would have helped a few years ago but it would not be financially possible now. Stock said the code created a downward spiral that made it impossible for certain lodges to upgrade. He is working on a method for these lodges to be reconstructed without limi- tation. He noted that nonconforming uses.cannot condomini- umize. He suggested an amendment to the GMP that exempts the modification from a nonconforming use to a conforming use. Anderson moved to recommend denial of the Subdivision Exemption for condominiumization of the Mollie Gibson Lodge based upon Section 20-9(c) of the Aspen Municipal Code which states that no subdivision shall be approved which includes elements not in conformance to the provisions of any applicable zoning ordinance or other ordinance of the City of Aspen, Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Hedstrom noted that Stock was working on an amendment to the code that would exempt conversion from nonconforming to conforming uses from the GMP. Smith noted there is also a subcommittee of the P&Z working on this question. Stock noted that Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, was not present earlier in the meeting during the discus- sion of this application. He asked that they reconsider this application. The Commission agreed to this request. Kaufman said the applicant wishes to build three employee units in his project in addition to condominiumization of the other part of the project. Hunt moved to reconsider his previous motion concerning the Coordes Housing Project, Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Hunt moved to reword the second condition to indicate that the property will be deed restricted to state that the in- creased numbers of units will be included in the Low, Moderate and Middle income housing guidelines, Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Smith noted that Stock was doubtful that the 75%/25% ratio would be enough incentive for developers. She agreed it might not work for fourplexes but would work for the larger projects. She felt the preapplication conference would guide the applicant. She felt the final step was important because it ties up the technical details. She suggested a guideline that would encourage development that it suitable in terms of its character with existing devel- opment in the neighborhood. The ordinance does not allow any variation in setback requirements. Hunt did not feel building over an existing wall that is in the setback was a problem. He felt they should not allow new construction to violate the setback requirements. Ashley Anderson, representing Hans Cantrup, noted the pressing need for employee housing. He asked that the P&Z not bog down this ordinance. He felt the 75/25 ratio would work if you could build the free market immediately. He asked that they build flexibility into the ordinance. Anderson felt the ordinance was too lengthy and complicated. ....... --J BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.. DENVER -5- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS September 18, 1979 Regular Meeting Resolution #79-17 Wright-Gant Annexation Rezoning Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission The Commission asked Stock to meet with Smith and Reents to finish writing this ordinance and set a public hearing. Hunt moved to adopt resolution #79-17, Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved.. Klar moved to adjourn the meeting, Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM. ~-ttJf\. );~~ ) Sheryl . en, Depu y City Clerk