Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19790823 BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Continued Meeting, August 23, 1979, Council Chambers The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a continued meeting on August 23, 1979, in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Olof Hedstrom, Welton Anderson, Joan Klar, Nancy McDonnell, Lee Pardee, and Roger Hunt. Staff representatives were City Attorney Ron Stock, Planner Karen Smith, and Assistant Planner Jolene Vrchota. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Anderson moved to approve the minutes of June 19th and July 2nd. McDonnell seconded. All in favor. Minutes approved. Hunt moved to approve the July 17th minutes as corrected. Hunt further moved to approve the July 31st minutes as corrected. Hedstrom asked to defer action on the 17th minutes. Hunt withdrew his motion to approve the July 17th minutes. Anderson seconded. All in favor. Minutes from the 31st were approved with corrections. MOBILE HOME PARK ZONING: Ron Stock introduced this project. Stock stated that he gave the commission 3 separate documents. These are the proposed MHP Zone, proposed ordinance repealing Chapter 14 and adopting new mobile home regulations, and the City Attorney's report that the City Council has on the redevelopment on Smuggler. Stock stated to the commission that there will be 4 questions that would be brought up towards them. They have a responsibility to zone the Smuggler Enclave area including Smuggler Park because they have annexed that area into the City. One of the questions is that - will it be either a conforming or non-conforming use. If they are going to zone is as a nonconforming use then they could just make a selection of all the zoning districts and place that in there. On the other hand, if they decide to zone it conforming use, then they must amend their zoning code. No where in the zoning code are mobile home parks allowed as a use. The question is how are they going to amend it, and this question will come before the commission in the public hearing. There are three choices and one was presented in the ordinance. The first choice is that they could amend a current zone district or more than one zone district to allow mobile home parks as a permitted use in the district. The seconded alternative is to amend one or more of their districts to allow mobile home parks as a conditional use. The third choice is the adoption of an entirely new mobile home park zone area. Stock stated that he and Smith both felt that they should zone it as a conforming use. If they would zone it as a non-conforming use they would simply zone it out of existance. The "reason being that with the codes as they stand now, it would eventually make it unprafiitable to run. Then eventually it would be turned over to the type of use that is permitted in that zone. Stock stated that the problem that they have about mobile homes is that when they are placed next to conventual housing, they tend to detract from the neighborhood. It is the concept of people who have conventual housing near mobile home parks that being there would devlaue their property. cities generally have not allowed mobile home parks as permitted uses. They require them to either be in a separate district or to be a conditional use so that there be a special development permit before a new mobile home park could go in. This way the Planning and Zoning Office could look at that area for the effect of the density that would have on that area. In the sense then, by using either a new district for conditional use provision, they could require each and every proposal to come before them for special reView. If they want to amend one of the current zone districts to allow it as a conditional use, they do not need a draft proposal. If they are going to adopt a new district, they would need a new draft proposal. The MHP Zone was specifically drafted with the intent that it would be very simple and striaght forward. They wouldneed to redraft Chapter 14, which is the current mobile home park regulations. Stock stated that for fire protection, the displacement between trailors should be about 10 feet wide. Stock told the commission that they might want to amend the height for this zone so a two story building would not look out of place. Stock stated that this topic is scheduled for a public hearing on the September 4th meeting. Stock stated that the licensing of the Mobile Home Park is different. There are three separate area and bulk requirements established, and those are for current parks, parks that have to be updated after 5 years, and the new parks that come in. On the page that has Section 14-3, there is Section 17 of 14-2, that says use area and bulk requirements of all mobile home parks or as provided in 24-3.2 of the Aspen Municipal Code. The bulk requirements of the mobile home parks, are either as established by this ordinance or as established by 24-3.4 whatever is more restrictive. Then the bulk requirements under C for mobile home parks not under existance upon the effective date of this ordinance is either as established in this ordinance or in 24-3.4 of the Aspen Municipal Code which ever is more restrictive. So the commission would have this licensing to back them if they want a new park. They would have to submit to the Planning and Zoning Commission the proposal which would include the rezoning and all of the normal requirements that they would havesfdr~ a planned unit development. Then the Planning and Zoning Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council and then the Council would act. Stock stated that the City Council has been asked by the residents of the Smuggler Trailor Park to do two things. The first is to somehow to protect the residents from evictions by their current landlord, or unreasonible rent increases. They also asked the Council if they would take the property and redevelop the property, and prehaps take the property, subdivide, and sell it to the occupants. Stock stated that the City Council could not prevent evictions because there is a State Statute. The Council could not modify the methods of increases in rents because there is a thing in the State Statute that controls the issue. Council can if they wish adopt rent .controlsin the City of Aspen, but the staff does not recommend them. The Council must be careful that it be gentle in nature and that any protection laws are provided to all individuals. Stock stated that the best method of redevelopment is the private sector. There will be combinations of licensing, provisions using police power, and zoning provisions. Smith stated that on the September 4th meeting, the zone district will be on the agenda for the commission's consideration. She told the commission that they could consider the recommending zoning for the Smuggler Annexation at that time or she could give the commission an introduction at this time, and the commission could take action on September 4th. Hedstrom stated that he would prefer that they wait for her introduction. - 'wi BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning and Zoning Commission, Continued Meeting, August 23, 1979, Council Chambers, page 2. Stock stated that if the commission was going to recommend the adoption of a new district the commission should wait until they recommend that adoption of districts, so that it would be the second item on the agenda for the September 4th meeting. Council would be able to both create a district and zone an area within the same process without using two different ordinances. This is what would be required of Council if the commission should take that action. Stock stated that what he would like the commission to decide is whether they are going to zone it conforming or non-conforming. If they are going to zone it conforming, then it would be proper to put on the floor all of their prealternatives. That would either be an amendment to a current district either in a permitted use area, conditional use area, or the adoption of a new district. Klar stated that if it is zoned non-conforming, then essentially they would be zoning it out of use. It points to the direction that it has to be conforming use then unless that is something that people would want. That is one of the more valid employee housing points. Hunt stated that at this point, he would like to go non-conforming. Reason being that eventually they would find a zoning code that would make it a conforming use but by establishing it as a R-15A area now, they would be putting it on record what the density of that property should be. He stated that he would like to see it continue as a mobile home park for employee housing. Anderson stated that he did not see any real advantages to zoning it non-conforming. McDonnell stated that she would like to see it zoned as a conforming use and that they need the employee housing. Stock stated that the MHP Zone has one use and that is a mobile home park. Stock stated that according to the Mobile Home Landlord Tenant Act, which is a State Statute, a tenant could be evicted under a change in use. Pardee stated that he was hesitant to down zone by putting in a mobile home zoning because it :restricts its uses. This is very serious because we would be taking away the owners' rights. He stated that he would be more inclined to zone that area with either a R-15 or a R-15A. McDonnell stated that it would become an issue after they decide whatever, to make it a conforming use. It is all on how they want to make it a conforming use. If it is a conforming use then they could just make it into a mobile home park, or they could make it a conditiona: use an R-15 and he has an option. Anderson stated that he was in favor of whatever was better. Smith stated that from a planning and land use point of view, she would prefer to create a district and have them to review rezoning to mobile home park districts rather than for them to review conditional uses of mobile homes anywhere in the City. The process of rezoning would giVE them more control than the conditional use process. Hedstrom suggested that in the conditional use limit the size. That would rule out some of these questionable situations that might occur. '--- Klar stated that they should only be thinking about non-conforming zoning as a device. Non-conforming is not the way to go but they would have to look at providing a conforming use and keep it. But she is very concerned that they keep it within the confines of the employee housing. That has to be the direction they head for. Hedstrom stated that he gathered from the commission that they are generally in favor of conforming, but not at all certain at this point whether to make it conforming by a conditional use in some zone such as R-15A of a new mobile home park zone. Stcok stated that with that concept, it makes it necessary to have a public hearing on the 4th and have the public come forth to hear how the code ought to be amended so as to allow for mobile home parks. Hedstrom entertained a motion to continue the hearing on the mobile home park until the 4th. Hunt so moved. Klar seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Klar moved to adjourn. adjourned at 6:35PM. Anderson seconded. All in favor. The meeting ') .,,- /:J ( (,. j ...,../~f ~. C"1'- Pam Realmuto, Deputy ....,