Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19790904 BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS September 4, 1979 Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Conunission The Aspen Planning and Zoning Conunission held a regular meeting on September 4, 1979, at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Olof Hedstrom, Lee Pardee, Perry Harvey, Roger Hunt and Joan Klar. Also present were Karen Smith and Jolene Vrchota of the Planning Office and Lou Buettner of the Engineering Office. Approval of Minutes Conunissioner Conunents Proposed Zoning for Wright-Gant Annexation, Public Hearing Hunt moved to approve the mintues of July 17, 1979, with corrections, Harvey seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Hunt stated there were two excavations in town with no acti- vity for a substantial period of time and he wished to ask the building department to investigate. One is next to the Durant Mallon the corner of Original and Durant. He felt this was a very unsafe condition and a possible hazard. He also objected to the number of parking spaces used during the construction. The other site is the Aspen Inn. He also asked why the Pitkin County Bank and Trust does not have any sidewalks on the Hunter Street side. Smith said they are waiting for any possible future delineation of a downtown improvement plan. They have a waiver of one year with temporary minimal improvements. Hunt also voiced his concern for employee housing. He felt they should consider amending the code to allow for smaller studios. He submitted drawings of the type of housing he envisioned. It should be strictly rental units for low income employees. Klar agreed they should encourage this type of housing but did not feel it was appropriate for the local government to develop. Pardee agreed that this type of employee housing was the most cru- cial and suggested a conunittee to pursue this amendment. Harvey supported this proposal. Smith noted the City and County is pursuing this idea with the direction of the recent survey which indicates which housing was the most needed at this time. Hedstrom asked Hunt, Anderson and Pardee to meet on this item and come back with suggestions. Pardee asked that the Planning Office submit a list of the items that P&Z has asked for in the past. He noted that they had requested a landscape plan, a transportation plan and a storage plan for the Water Plant Housing which never came back to them. He also noted P&Z approved a condominiumiza- tion with the condition that one unit be controlled and they had never seen the documents come back for review. He also asked the status of the Zoning Enforcement Officer they had requested. Smith said the Council supported their recom- mendation for a Zoning Enforcement Officer and they are looking for the budget to support it. Harvey asked the status of the Aspen Waterfront Restoration Program as presented by Mr. Benedict. Smith said there was no formal status, they are looking at several proposals at this time. They wish to use the direction of the survey to guide their decisions. Hunt again asked about the excava- tions noted above. Smith said she would alert the Building Inspector. Smith asked the P&Z to consider RMF for this property. The house is located South of Highway 82 directly East of the Castle Creek Bridge. The surrounding zoning is RMF/PUD, R-15/PUD, R-6 and some R-30. She submitted an improvement survey. She noted there are six dwelling units in the building, the records in the County show four legal units. The previous owners thought they were buying six units and the present owner estimates the two extra units were in- stalled sometime between 1964 and 1969. The owner wishes to be annexed into the City to secure the zoning that will allow it to become a conforming unit and thereby allow him to make improvements to the property. He also wishes to bring this employee housing into the City. The RMF zoning would allow additional buildout on the property. She -2- Regular Meeting Aspen Plann~ng and Zoning Cotnlrlission Septenilier 4, 1979 Mr. Jenkins reconunended RMF/PUD with restrictions on the buildout and rental of the units, provided that the issue of the legality of the two units can be worked out. Hunt suggested zoning the property R-15/PUD. smith said that would limit them to improving the building by 10% of the replacement value of the building per year. There is pending legislation to increase this percentage for residential or lodge uses. Hedstrom opened the public hearing. Jenkins, a member of the Board of the Villa of Aspen town- houses, said they support the improvement of the property but are concerned if they are allowed to increase the number of people living there. He also questioned if the change from the County to the City would affect the roof line. He felt a change could affect the Villas. Gary wright, owner of the property, expressed his desire to make the building as legal and safe as possible which is difficult in a nonconforming structure. The present struc- ture has a flat roof that leaks and he wishes to replace it with a gabled roof. He felt the building was in need of attention and felt it was an important issue since it is the first house visible upon entering the City. He noted he wished to condominiumize in the future for long term employee housing. There has been interest from the business conununity to buy these units for employees. He said he was able to get a building permit for the gabled roof improve- ment if there was no increase in living space. This roof increases the height of the building by 6 feet. There is a heating unit on the flat roof that is very visible and he wishes to change that to a pitched roof. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. Smith said there would be no change in the height limitation between the County and City. He is within the limits with the gabled roof. Wright said he would work with the Villas on the roof line change so as not to affect their view. Hunt asked how many parking spaces were provided. Wright said there were eight spaces in the Villas parking lot. Harvey asked how many bedrooms there were in the building. Wright said there were 12 bedrooms but some were excessively small. Harvey suggested zoning the property R-15 and if the pending legislation passes, he would then be able to improve. Hunt agreed that, with the present alignment of Highway 82, R-15 would be appropriate. He felt if 82 were realigned, they should then consider RMF. Smith noted there is a potential for expansion toward Highway 82 but with the expansion they must attempt to reduce the nonconformity. Hedstrom polled the members for zoning. Hunt was in favor of R-15/PUD, Harvey agreed with RMF/PUD. Wright indicated a piece of property owned by the Villas that they wish to subdivide and sell to Wright. He has no intention of increasing the size of the building and is willing to so deed restrict. He wishes to reduce the density in two of the units with a six month minimum lease on all. If he obtains the land from the Villas and the P&Z and Council grant the exemption, the building will be conforming. Klar was in favor of ~~/PUD. She asked if Wright was willing to restrict all the units. Wright said he wishes to live in one unit and is still nego- tiating with the rest of the building. Pardee agreed with RMF/PUD with the restriction that there be no further devel- opment in the physical size of the structure. Hunt sug~ gested the wording "no expansion of footprint or living space". Smith suggested "footprint or internal floor area". Hunt felt this would allow them to use the area that will be created by the gabled roof. Wright said he did wish to use this space but was willing to reduce the density of the "" -....I BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER -3- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS September 4, 1979 Regular Meeting Mobile Home Zone District Bil Dunaway Brooke Peterson Jeffrey Sachs Aspen Planning and Zoning Conunision building. Pardee did not wish to see a reduction in the number of employee bedrooms but was against an increase, also. He was agreeable to a trade of an undersized bed- room for a loft. Smith suggested the wording "no expansion of footprint or number of bedrooms". Harvey felt the appli- cant, the City Attorney and City Planner should negotiate the language. Smith asked if they wished to address the legality of the two units. The Board asked for assistance from the staff. Hunt asked the mix of bedrooms. Smith said there are two three-bedroom, two two-bedroom and two one-bedroom apartments. Hunt asked how the proposed loft would affect these numbers. Wright said in one of the three bedrooms, they wish to reduce it to two and adjust the awkward layout; in the other three bedroom, one bedroom is more a closet, 8'xlO' with no windows. Harvey asked if they could require that the two units without building per- mits be inspected. Pardee moved to table action on the Wright-Gant annexation pending clarification of the legality and putting the intent of the conunission in the proper language for our considera- tion at our next meeting, Hunt seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Vrchota noted that they discussed three alternatives at their last meeting; allowing mobile homes as a conditional use, a permitted use or adopting a new zone district speci- fically for mobile homes. She reconunended adopting the new zone and asked for their suggestions on the draft, Hedstrom polled the members for opinion on the alternatives; Pardee did not support a new zone, the rest felt a separate new zone was appropriate. Vrchota began discussing the speci- fics of the ordinance creating a mobile home district. The permitted uses would be mobile home parks and accessory buildings and uses, conditional uses would be the same as in the R-6 zone. She reconunended reducing the proposed 20' front yard setback to 5', possibly 10'. She also recom- mended reducing the proposed 25' height limitation to 15'. She reconunended allowing residential uses, single family or duplex, as a conditional use so as not to encourage a con- version. Hedstrom opened the public hearing. Dunaway did not feel it wise to allow single family Or du- plex units, even by conditional use review. Future P&Z'S may not feel as strongly about this issue and may change the intent of this provision. Brooke Peterson, attorney for the Mobile Home owners at Smuggler, supported the alternative to set up a separate district for mobile home parks. The homeowners at Smuggler feel that 5' is sufficient for the setback requirement. He asked that the height limitation allow the height of the existing single family dwelling and the accessory building. He agreed with Dunaway's conunents regarding conditional uses and single family and duplex dwellings. Sachs felt they should discuss the restrictions on additions to mobile homes. He asked if they wished to allow double- decked mobile homes with the 25' height limitation. Harvey noted that the Uniform Building Code does not allow double decked mobile homes. . Hedstrom closed the public hearing. Harvey asked how they could correct the parking situation. They can come up with a great plan but in February the road is three feet wide because of the snow buildup. Vrchota said the units are 12'-14' wide and with 5' setbacks, there -4- Regular Meeting September 4, 1979 Anderson Subdivision Preliminary Plat and Condeptual Submission "-' Aspen Planning and Zoning Conunission is still enough room for the required 9' parking space. They are considering requiring one space per lot. William Levin, part owner of the trailer park property, said with the existing setbacks, each parcel can park at least one car. Hunt asked if the trailer hitch was allowed in the setback. Vrchota said her reconunendation for a five foot setback includes the hitch in the setback. Pardee agreed that a separate zone for mobile homes is ap- propriate but supported allowing single family houses or duplexes as conditional uses. Hunt moved to table action on zoning to include mobile home parks to September 11, 1979, Harvey seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Vrchota introduced the item. She noted that in their pre- vious discussions, there was a problem with the trail align- ment on the property. Jeff Sachs, attorney for the appli- cant, has presented a proposal to draw the lot line for the third lot but not to.allow development on this lot without full subdivision review. The applicant would be willing to contribute a trail easement along the river, the Planning Office is asking for a "fisherman's easement". City Engineering notes that the code requires that there be a public or private road accessing any City lot. The appli- cant has provided an easement across one lot to the other. The purchaser of this lot must accept and recognize this easement. She noted that the Open Space Advisory Board looked at this parcel and did not consider this a high priority open space acquisition. Hedstrom opened the public hearing. Vrchota stated that the applicant notes that the park dedi- cation fee would be required in the final plat for the two smaller lots but not on the larger lot. Sachs said they have been negotiating on the easement and have decided that, before this goes to final plat, the easement will be staked, reviewed and approved by Brian Stafford. He asked that the park dedication fee on the single family and duplex lots be waived in consideration of this easement. He asked that they impose a condition that Lot 3 cannot be developed until the single family residence is removed with a 60-day grace period following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new structure on Lot 3 and during such grace period the existing single-family residence on Lot 1 will be re- moved. He noted there have been inquiries into relocating the single-family cabin. As far as the road easement, the strip is 20' wide by 56~' long. The P&Z can give an excep- tion to the code for a private road but this land is then subtracted from the square footage of the lot. They must then redraw the lot line to allow for the minimum lot size. Lou Buettner of the City Engineering Department noted that the 20'x56~' strip is about 1/5 of the total lot. He noted they would collect taxes on an easement, not on a private road. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. The Board was concerned that they were splitting this parcel into three lots. Sachs noted that the third lot would have to go through Growth Management Review to be able to build anything. The preliminary plat showed the split creating only two lots. Harvey did not think the easement was such a sacrifice since it may not be paved and is considered a "fisherman's easement". The Board discussed the problem of access to the one lot without a driveway. -' BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER Regular Meeting Golf Course Pro Shop, Conditional Use, Public Hearing Smuggler Enclave Zoning /.. '. -5- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Aspen Planning and Zoning Conuniss~on September 4, 1979 If the square footage of the road is subtracted from the total area of that lot, they must then redraw the lot line to bring that lot up to the minimum lot size. Buettner reconunended taking the land from Lot 1 so it could not be figured into the density at a later date. He also recom- mended the maintenance and upkeep of this private road be tied to Lot 3. Hunt moved to table this application to September 11, 1979, pending explanation from Ron Stock concerning the legal aspects, Harvey seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Smith introduced the application. The City wishes to operate a golf course pro shop and related facilities at the Plum Tree Inn. Recreational buildings and sports shops are conditional uses in the P-Park district. Jim Holland, Director of Parks, explained the uses intended for the site. The Planning Office reconunends approval conditioned upon landscaping to minimize the visual impact on Highway 82 and that there be painting in a color that is compatible with the Plum Tree. The use is compatible with the uses of the surrounding land. Hedstrom opened the public hearing. There were no conunents. Hedstrom closed the public hearing, Pardee asked why they could not use this for a tennis pro shop also. Smith noted there is a tennis pro shop on the property. She also noted that this would restrict them from uses other than golf. Hunt asked where they would do golf cart maintenance. Holland said they would be repaired at the Parks Building. Hunt asked what type of signs they would be using. Holland said they are planning a coordi_ nated sign program to route the golfers. Hunt asked if they have the landscaping plan designed. Smith said they could condition their approval upon the review and approval of the landscape plan by the City Engineer. Hunt preferred that the building be painted in earthtones. Holland said they hope to cover the building with cedar siding, Hunt sug- gested including in the motion that the previous site discontinue its use as a pro shop 30 days after occupancy of the new site. Holland said they need this space for bag storage, etc. Hunt moved to recommend approval of conditional use of a golf course pro shop and the structure being moved on-site north of the parking lot provided and conditioned that uses are limited to golfer registration including driving range control, retail sales of golf equipment, golf cart rental and golf pro business office, the building is painted or covered using earthtone colors compatible with the existing lodge, that there be a landscape plan executed, including- trees, to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Hunt moved, for the purposes of annexation, to temporarily zone the Smuggler Enclave R-15A, Pardee seconded. Hunt withdrew his motion. Hunt moved to reconunend the following zoning of the Smuggler Enclave: Section 1, the trailer park, is zoned as SPA to allow proper time to develop a zone for mobile home parks, Section 2 is zoned R-15A, Section 3 is zoned RMF, Section 4 is zoned O-Office. The rationale for zones 2-4 is that the zoning is consistent with adjacent proper- ties and actually, the O-Office and RMF is a record correc- tion as they resulted in a lack of contiguity of previous annexations and the P&Z fully intends to address the Smuggler Trailer Park zoning issue with reconunendations on September 11, 1979, Pardee seconded. All in favor, passed. -6- Regular Meeting September 4, 1979 Peppermint Tree, Use Determination Beriro Subdivision Exemption Aspen Planning and Zoning Cotnlrlission Smith introduced the application. She stated the applicant wishes to locate a candy store/ice cream shop in the C-l district. The C-l zone includes uses that are not primarily tourist oriented. The P&Z must find that a candy store is so similar to the list of permitted uses that it ought to have been on the list. Smith noted that candy stores are listed in other zones and she felt it was not ignored in the preparation of this list. She also noted the applicant stated in their letter that they wish this location because of the prospect of tourist traffic. They estimate their percentage of business as 65% tourist, 35% local. She noted their previous location was in the Conunercial Core and their percentage of business would be based on that location. The use is generally aCknowledged as a local oriented business. Based on all this information, the Planning Office recom- mends against this use in this zone. Hunt questioned their rationale in approving the Chocolate Soldier. Smith said the minutes note that it is not a sit- down restaurant facility. Mabel Macdonald said their business caters to locals as well as tourists. Hunt also noted the Chocolate Soldier is just up the street from this proposed location. Klar did not feel they could deny this application when they had approved the similar application a few years ago. She felt they must keep a better eye on this type of application. Pardee moved to allow the Peppermint Tree as a conditional use in the C-l zone with the reasoning being that this is not food service but retail sales and things that are pack- aged (candy, etc), are much more similar to a retail sale and the conditional use does not include the retail sales of cones and that this is established as a precedent for future applications and further move to set a conditional use hearing for as soon as possible, Hunt seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Grice introduced the application. The applicant wishes to separate three 3,000 square foot lots. Two lots are vacant, the third and middle lot is occupied by a Victorian. The minimum lot size for the zone is 3,000 square feet, single family residences are not allowed in the C-C zone. The granting of this exemption will result in no development. The City Engineer is concerned that there is no sidewalk and requests an 8' sidewalk. The City Attorney recommends approval. The Planning Office recommends approval sUbject to the construction of an 8' sidewalk across all three lots or, in the event that the property is developed in the next 12 months, the owner agree to enter into an agreement for the construction of the sidewalks. Klar noted that, if they require a sidewalk now, if there is construction in the future, they would have to tear it up for utilities, etc. Buettner agreed that they would have to tear it up and noted this was the reason for the sidewalk improvement agreement. Harvey felt it an undue hardship that they construct a sidewalk that will be torn up. Peter Van Domelen, representing the applicant, noted there will always be a gap in the sidewalk since the sidewalk across the parking lotiof Bullock's is not paved. The applicant wishes to sell the two lots surrounding the Vic_ torian since he was not allowed to tear down this structure. The building is not in suitable condition for relocation. Hunt moved to reconunend exemption from strict application of subdivision regulations applied to the Beriro subdivision of Lots D, E, and F, Block 24, City and Townsite of Aspen, provided that the owner construct an 8' sidewalk across - '-' -- , -7- BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Conunission September 4, 1979 Lots E within 12 months of Council approval of this exemp- tion, Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Hibberd Subdivision Exemption Grice introduced the application. The property is located at the corner of North 7 and North Street. The applicant requests condominiumization. City Engineering reconunends approval subject to the granting of an easement for drainagE and the installation of water meters by April 1, 1980. The rent is .47/square feet. The Planning Office reconunends approval subject to the conditions of the City Engineer, the property being deed restricted to six month minimum leases, the notice and option provisions of Section 20-22(aJ and further that the north unit be deed restricted by covenant limiting both price and occupancy of the north unit for a period of five years. Harvey moved to reconunend exemption from strict application of the subdivision regulations as applied to the Hibberd Subdivision of a duplex on Lot G, H, and I, Block 8, City of Aspen, provided that 1) both units comply with the six month minimum lease with no more than two shorter tenancies per year and is so deed restricted, 2) the granting of a 10' drainage easement along the westerly boundary of Lot G between North Street and the alley, 3) that individual water meters are installed prior to sale of either unit in any case no later than 90 days after Council approval of this exemption, 4) that the north unit be deed restricted by covenant limiting both price and occupancy for a period of five years to the moderate and middle income guidelines as set by the City of Aspen, Pardee seconded. All in favor. motion approved. Horizons III, Subdivision Exemption Grice introduced the application. City Engineering notes that they propose two driveways which is not consistent wit] the City code. They also wish the applicant to install separate electric and water meters and to enter into an improvement district for the construction of curb, gutter and sidewalks. Since this is a new unit, it cannot fall under the rental guidelines. The City Attorney and Planninc Office reconunends approval sUbject to the six month minimum lease restriction with no more than two shorter tenancies per year and subject to the City Engineer's comments, Pardee moved to reconunend exemption from strict application of the subdivision regulations as applied to the Horizons III subdivisions subject to the property being held deed restricted for six month minimum lease term, no more than two shorter tenancies in any calendar year and subject to the comments of the City Engineer in his memo of August 14, Harvey seconded. All in favor with the exception of Hunt, motion approved. Tipple Lodge Resolution Hunt asked that they add that this subdivision may poten- tially reduce the number of tourist units and place adverse pressure on surrounding zones for tourist acconunodation. Mrs. Faulkner read a formal statement to the conunission appealing to them for the approval of this subdivision. The conunission thanked her for the statement and for their honesty in the deliberation of this very important issue. Klar apologized for confusing the Tipple Inn and the Tipple Lodge. Hunt felt his main problem with the application was the disintegration of management. Harvey was disappointed that they could enforce on-site management but could not force an owner to short-term his unit. Hunt moved to approve Resolution 79-14 as written with the addition of paragraph 7 stating, "The potential reduction 0 supply of tourist units in the lodging districts would plac. adverse additional pressure on surrounding residential -8- Regular Meeting September 4, 1979 Resolution Recom- mending Against Alternate Members to P&Z Special Meeting September 11, 1979 - Aspen Planning and Zoning conunission zones for tourist accommodations, Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Hunt moved to deny and remove from the record Resolution 79-13, Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Hunt noted a typographical error in the resolution. He also suggested changing "two years" to "five years", the Board supported this amendment. Hunt moved to adopt Resolution 79-15, with a change in the first line in paragraph two to read, "In the past five years, there has been only one occasion where there was not a quorum present at a regular meeting, etc.", Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Hedstrom called a special meeting of the P&Z for Tuesday, September 11, 1979, at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Klar moved to adjourn the meeting, Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 8:55 PM. ~~ Sheryl en, Deputy City Clerk '-'