Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19790807 .~.I BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS August 7, 1979 Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on August 7, 1979, at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Olof Hedstrom, Welton Anderson, Lee Pardee, Joan Klar, Nancy McDonnell and Roger Hunt. Also present were Karen Smith,' Richard Grice and Jolene Vrchota of the Planning Office, City Attorney Ronald Stock and City Housing Director Jim Reents. Approval of Minutes Water Plant, ,Low, MOderate, Middle Income Housing Project, SPA Zoning, SPA Plan Approval, Special Review for Employee Housing, 8040 Greenline, Subdivision Exemption Celia Marolt SPA Zoning Motion Hunt moved to approve the minutes of July 10, 1979, as amended, Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Reents introduced the items. He noted the City Council has annexed, by emergency ordinance, the site for this housing and has recommended to P&Z the SPA zoning. The parcel is 581 acres. The City annexed a 10' strip followed by two other annexations to bring this property into the City. The County has requested that the ten foot strip be zoned R-15 which is compatible with their potential employee housing project adjacent to this property. The Planning Office has recommended SPA for the rest of the parcel. He showed on a map the existing Water Plant and the site of the proposed housing. Hedstrom opened the public hearing on zoning this property SPA. Stock noted that parcels annexed. map. this zoning is to cover all three of the He showed the property in question on a Mrs. Marolt owns a parcel of property across the street from this site. She asked if it were true that the County wishes the City to annex the hospital. Stock said no. She asked how her property could be annexed. Stock ex- plained the procedure and noted that she would have the right to petition for annexation with this property being annexed across the street. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. Anderson moved to recommend adoption of SPA zoning desig- nation for the 63 acres owned by the City and R-15 for the additional lands owned by the County, which property is known as the Water Plant property, annexations 1, 2 and 3, Hunt seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Reents stated that they do not have an SPA plan for the remainder of the parcel, which would show on this SPA as future potential housing sites. This site has been con- sidered for employee housing since 1972, Council made a commitment to pursue the development in January of 1979. With the aid of Design Workshop and a housing marketing study by Sno-Engineering, they developed the sizing of the project. There are 80 units, 8 buildings, 10 units per building, 3 studios and two one bedrooms on one side, four two bedrooms and one three bedroom on the other. Off street parking is provided above the required with access to Castle Creek Road to the north. Orientation of the buildings is mostly to the north, northeast or northwest. Maximum height of the buildings to the peak is 26'. There is additional storage and a laundry facility in each build- ing. Pardee felt this would be very visible from Castle Creek Road. Reents said there was a large screen of cottonwoods between the units and the road that will remain. The building area is covered with second growth Aspen and oak- brush. Higher on the slope is mature Aspens which will remain. He showed on a drawing the row of cottonwoods which have one break where the buildings are visible. He noted that fill from the construction will be used for -2- Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 7, 1979 berms. He said it was impossible to hide the entire pro- ject. He also noted that there is a possibility of having the City Parks and Recreation Department do some additional landscaping. City will retain ownership of the property but the structures will be owned by the developer. Any additional cost for landscaping would be reflected in the bond issue and the rental rates. Hunt noted there was no plan on the water plant. Reents stated that the Engin- eering Department was presently working on that plat and they would see it later. Hedstrom opened the public hearing on the proposed SPA plan. Celia Marolt Marolt asked the precise location of the proposed develop- ment, especially in relation to her house across the street. Reents showed her the location on the map. He noted that the access would be the same road that presently accesses the water plant. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. Klar asked the density on the balance of the land. Reents said there has been no density designated. The only area with the density designated is the area for development with 16 units per acre. Stock added they are approving the public area for the existing water plant site. He suggested the back parcel be designated open space with parenthesis to be developed later. McDonnell asked the parking ratio for Midland/Park. She felt the ratio for this development, 1.6/unit, was low. Reents said this was above required code, which requires one per bedroom, this is 1.2 per bedroom. Pardee said there are 108 bedrooms and 128 parking spaces. County Manager George Ochs was present and noted that they provided 1 space per unit with more for the three bedroom at Midland/Park which was not enough. Pardee was concerned with the size of the project and the amount of time allotted to the P&Z for review. Stock sug- gested a special meeting before the Council meeting on August 13. Reents said the only other additional informa- tion they would have at that time would be the boundary lines for the water filtration plant and the location of those existing structures. Hunt asked the remaining acre- age outside the proposed development. Reents said approxi- mately 43 acres. Hedstrom felt they should have one full meeting for this project because of the number of questions and concerns. Celia Marolt asked how this would be maintained over the years. She was concerned that it would become rundown. Stock said they have found that governments cannot manage this type of housing as well as private industry. They want private industry to design, build, manage and operate the facility with the City's restrictions. He noted these would all be rental units. Stock said the land lease would restrict who may rent, rental rates and their inflation rate. The lease will be 32 years with an 8 year option and then it will revert to the City at the value of the proper- ty. One of the commitments in the bond documents is the commitment to maintain and to invest certain funds. The bond company is requiring that they put aside $300,000 in a fund for the maintenance of the facility to be replen- ished when used. He said there would be first priority given to City employees. The second priority would probably be for County, Aspen Metro Sanitation District, Aspen Valley Hospital and School District employees. Pardee was concerned with the ability of the various City departments to sufficiently review this project within the timeline. He felt things would "drop through the cracks". ....... .....) ~........ -3- BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 7, 1979 He questioned whether they could get it in the ground this year. Stock felt they have a good chance to start this year. Pardee felt they would have 50% efficiency working through the winter. He felt they should shoot for this Spring. Reents said the builder said he could save between 10-15% by constructing through the winter. He said with a $4 millon project, that is a large factor. Klar under- stood the time and money factors but was concerned with the details in planning. Pardee said one factor he saw was the buildings are all north facing which will raise the heating costs. McDonnell felt under pressure and was in favor of a special meeting. Anderson felt under pres- sure to pass the project but also under pressure to supply employee housing. Klar asked about their energy conservation plans. Reents said this is a north sloping site which eliminates any solar possibilities. It is also in the shadow of Shadow Mountain in the winter. Hunt moved to continue this meeting to a special meeting at 12 Noon on Thursday to consider all aspects of the Water Plant Housing Plans, Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Hildur Anderson, Preliminary Plat Vrchota introduced the application. Ms. Anderson wishes to separate 6000 square feet from her property. Vrchota solicited comments from several utility agencies with no negative results. She noted there have been negotiations between the City Attorney and the applicant's attorney for the sale of a parcel of this property to the City. She noted most of the concerns of the City Engineer have been resolved which was a condition of approval at the concep- tual stage. One of the main concerns is the trail easement which Vrchota and Lou Buettner walked. They found that, while there is a generous 20' easement proposed, a good deal of it is under water. There are also a number of cottonwoods and spruces in the easement which Hildur has asked not be removed. Vrchota suggested possible reloca- tion of these trees. She said Brian Stafford demanded that they require a workable trail alignment. If the City buys the property, they could work the alignment where needed. Jeffrey Sachs, representing the applicant, noted this is a PUD overlay and said the applicant could relocate the existing house anywhere on the site. He said it has been a quasi-pUblic park for years since Hildur does not object to people walking along the river on her property. He agreed that they would need from 25-30' of easement to not disturb the vegetation. He felt the solution is to make part of the land a public park and have Hildur put a duplex in the corner of the lot with the single family house on the remaining parcel. He felt strict application of the ordinance is unfair based on the circumstances. He hopes that the City accepts the offer to make the one parcel a City park. He asked that the P&Z not require that this easement be dedicated and let the negotiations continue between the City and Hildur for the park. Anderson noted that Hildur would only be giving an easement, the land would still be hers. Sachs agreed but felt it would be a deterrant to the developable value of this riverfront property. Hunt asked why the duplex was not plotted. Sachs said because they are still negotiating with the City. Stock noted there is nO guarantee the City will purchase the remaining property. He said if the P&Z requires a dedication, it must be a workable dedication. He suggested taking a portion of the easement as part of the park -4- Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 7, 1979 County Corral, Conditional Use -- dedication fee and exempt it from further park dedication fees. Hunt said if the duplex lot were platted, they could require a trail easement on the new developed pro- perty and forget the remainder of the property until it was developed. Sachs preferred the P&Z approve the plat without the easement; they would then present the plat to Council with the offer to purchase the land. If Council agrees, there would be a plat for the 9,000 square foot duplex and an easement of necessary width. The City could then plan the easement on their land. Hedstrom opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. Klar asked if there is a priority list for land acquisi- tion. Stock said there is an open space priority list that hasn't considered this property. Hunt suggested they not consider the easement at this point but specify that should there be any intersection of the subdivision going to the river, they should then address the easement. Vrchota noted this is an important link in the trail from the Aspen Club to Highway 82. Hunt moved to recommend Preliminary Plat approval of the Hildur Anderson Subdivision with the following conditions: 1) approval of the final plat by the City Engineer, 2) park dedication fee on the smaller lot be paid, 3) park dedication fee on the larger lot will be waived but a note will be written at the time of issuance of the building permit such that the fee will be considered in the event of the sale to the City or collected by a specified date if the sale does not occur; the fee will be calculated on increased density from a single family to duplex units, 4) the historical society determines historical significance of the old dwelling prior to any proposed demolition, 5) occupancy of the existing dwelling by the present resident be allowed up to 60 days after certificate of occupancy is issued for the new dwelling, 6) dedication of a usable trail easement recognizing the possible sale to the City and ensuing possibility of waiving this requirement, Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Smith introduced the application. This is an public hearing to consider a conditional use application for additional equestrian uses at the County Corral. In 1975, -the P&Z approved a use determination to allow equestrian uses in this location. This application comes from the County to ask for an expansion of this conditional use. The Colorado Taxi Company wishes to use two of" the stalls for their horses and the grounds for no more than two surreys at one time. She noted this is a public zone and they are recommending this use on the basis that the taxi company is a public use. Hedstrom opened the public hearing. There were no com~ ments. Hedstrom closed the public hearing. Pardee asked how much use the stables get now. County Manager George Ochs said they do not get much use. The applicant has been using the facility on and off. Klar asked about some letters written to the editor after the conditional use was granted in 1975. Ochs said there was an application for a sleigh team to use this facility. The applicant did not live up to the agreements, there were many complaints and the appliqant WaS not allowed to continue the use. Smith recalled that many of the com- plaints were regarding the treatment of the animals as opposed to the conditions in the neighborhood. '-" BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER -5- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS August 7, 1979 Regular Meeting Yarbrough 8040 Greenline Review Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Hedstrom felt there were two questions: the use of public property in a public zone by a private company and the desirability of the possible affect on the neighborhood. Pardee felt the third question is the loss of use of a structure that was built with public funds for the public. He suggested letting the taxi company use the stables in the winter when it is necessary to be near town. Ochs noted they are using two of the four stalls, two horses in one stall and one horse and the tack in the other. Hunt asked if the public would be getting some income from the use. Ochs said they would pay $50/month. Hunt moved to determine the use of the County Stable facili- ties by a horse-driven taxi company within the original conditional use provided that: 1) the stalls be cleared daily of manure and at all times properly maintained to avoid obnoxious odor, 2) that no maintainance or repair of the horse-driven vehicles be accomplished on-site, 3) main- tain the grounds in a sanitary, litterfree state, 4) the approval be conditioned on a hearing being held sometime in October of this year to review the extent of compliance with the stated conditions and with neighborhood impacts, 5) no more than two horse-powered vehicles be parked on the property, and 6) the horse-driven taxi company occupy no more than two of the existing stalls, however, are respon- sible for the service maintenance of all four stalls, Pardee seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Smith noted the P&Z attended a site inspection of the property. She added to her list of conditions that the applicant comply with the construction techniques and inspection requirements suggested in the letter of Bob Bash from Lincoln Devore Lab dated August 6, 1979. She also added the trail easement and an escrow for landscaping to the list of conditions. Klar asked if the adjacent property owners were aware of the fire access problem. Smith noted some of the adjacent properties were put through the same review. There is no notice requirement for this type of application. The Fire Marshal has suggested several modi- fications that will make firefighting easier which the applicant has agreed to comply with. McDonnell asked who would check to be sure these requirements, such as the fire cabinet with fire fighting equipment, would be maintained after the approval. Smith said the Fire Marshal makes the inspections. Pardee asked about the liability on the ease- ment. Stock said the liability on the improved trail would lie with the City. Pardee moved to approve the Yarbrough 8040 Greenline Review subject to the following: 1) the conditions recommended by the Fire Marshal that a 2" standpipe be installed between Yarbrough's property and Galena Street as a supplement to the existing fire hydrant on the property immediately to the South; hose and other necessary fire equipment to be stored in a cabinet adjacent to the property, 2) a covenant of indemnity be implemented to absolve the City from any responsibility in the case of fire, 3) a trail easement be reserved along the existing trail alignment the width of which to be determined by the City Engineer, 4) pursuant to the recommendation of the Aspen Water Department, water hookup is made on the 6" main supplying the Blitz residence, 5) that there be an escrow placed in reserve for landscaping specifically for the replacement of dead trees and any vegetation damaged by construction, 6) the building is con- structed of fire resistant materials and built to one-hour standards, 7) the recommendations for construction and in- spection made in the August 6, 1979, letter of Lincoln Devore be a condition of approval, McDonnell seconded. All in favor, motion approved. -6- Regular Meeting Tipple Inn, Subdivision Exemption Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 7, 1979 Grice presented an agreement requested by the P&Z which was drawn up between the City Attorney and the applicant's attorney. The Planning Office recommends approval subject to the signing and recording of this document. The agree- ment restricts owner usage in prime tourist periods to no more than thirty days, prime tourist periods being July and August and from Christmas to the end of March. Hedstrom asked Stock if this agreement accomplished the objectives stated at the last meeting. Stock said yes. JD Muller, representing the applicant, noted that they may run into problems with the SEC(Security Exchange Com- mission) and they wish to warn that they may not be able to sign this agreement. Grice stated that if the applicant cannot sign the agreement, the Planning Office must recom- mend denial. Hunt said he wanted to see the management on-site and cover all the units. He felt to allow any other type of management would disintegrate the rental activities. Anderson moved to recommend approval of subdivision exemp- tion conditioned on the signing and recording of the agree- ment and protective covenants between John L. Faulkner, Mary I. Faulkner and the City of Aspen, whereas, the City desires that all lodge units in Aspen remain without kit- chens and remain in use as temporary accommodations and more specifically that lodge units in Aspen not be conver- ted to residential dwelling units without review and approval pursuant to the Growth Management Plan contained in the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Further, the City desires that all existing lodge units be made avail- able to the general public as short term accommodations during the winter and summer tourist seasons in the City of Aspen with reasonable short occupancy by owners at reasonable rates during said seasons, and whereas the city may realize the benefit from the upgrading of individual lodge units made possible by individual ownership, McDonnell seconded. Hunt said he could not vote in favor of the motion because it does not require on-site management or some provision for one rental entity. Pardee felt there should be a "smiling face" at the front desk to greet the tourists and give them keys, information, assistance, etc. Roll call vote: Anderson, nay; Pardee, nay; Klar, nay; McDonnell, aye; Hunt, nay; Hedstrom, aye. Motion defeated. Pardee reiterated his concern for an on-site employee. Faulkner noted that there is not an on-site employee pres- ently. They run it through the Fasching Haus with a tele- phone at the Tipple that summons the employee with the keys, etc. Klar suggested continuing the current manage- ment setup. Pardee was concerned with the dangerous precedent they were setting. Stock noted that in a similar application now pending before the P&Z, the applicant has provided one unit for the manager to be maintained in the COmmon area of the building. Anderson moved to recommend approval of subdivision exemp- tion for the Tipple Lodge conditioned on signing and re- cording of the agreement and restrictive covenants between John and Mary Faulkner and the City of Aspen and also con- ditional on a manager or custodial person being available 24 hours a day to handle all functions except renting the rooms maintained at the present location, whereas, the City desires that all lodge units in Aspen remain without kit- chens and remain in use as temporary accommodations and more specifically that lodge units in Aspen not be conver- ted to residential dwelling units without review and '-' '-....I BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER /,".., -7- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS August 7, 1979 Regular Meeting Resolution #79-12, Recommending Amendments to S/C/I Zone Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approval pursuant to the Growth Management Plan contained in the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Further, the City desires that all existing lodge units be made avail- able to the general public as short term accommodations during the winter and summer tourist seasons in the City of Aspen with reasonable short occupancy by owners at reasonable rates during said seasons, and whereas the city may realize the benefit from the upgrading of individual lodge units made possible by individual ownership, Pardee seconded. Roll caLl vote: Anderson, nay; Pardee, aye; Klar, aye; McDonnell, nay; Hunt, nay; Hedstrom, aye. Motion defeated. Hunt moved to recommend to City Council the exemption of subdivision regulation for: the Tipple Lodge provided that 1) the agreement and restrictive covenant is adopted as well, and only as well, as a requirement to require all functions of the lodge to be handled by one entity, perhaps one management activity hired by the condominium association and all those rooms in that complex have to be operated by the one entity in order to maintain the lodge as an active lodge and that management activity be within 250 feet of the premises and any present management conditions may continue to exist but it must fall within the 250 feet eventually, Klar seconded. Hunt withdrew his motion. Hunt moved to have the Planning Office and the City Attor- ney's Office come up with a resolution basically along the lines of this agreement and restrictive covenant but also including the requirement that on the condominiumization of a lodge, it is required that all management activities are handled by one entity which can be hired by the condominium association within 250 feet of the premises or a reasonable distance but that any existing services be continued or increased, Pardee seconded. Roll call vote: Anderson, nay; Pardee, aye; Klar, aye; McDonnell, aye; Hunt, aye; Hedstrom, aye. Motion approved. Klar moved to adopt Resolution 79-12, Anderson seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Anderson moved to continue the meeting to August 9, 1979, Klar seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM. ~CI..J snerylc;rimmen, Deputy City Clerk Note: Due to a problem with scheduling, the continued meeting was held August 10, 1979, at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers.