Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19890320Continued Meeting Aspen City Council March 20. 1989 Mayor Stirling called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. with Councilmembers Isaac, Tuite, Gassman and Fallin present. ORDINANCE #6, SERIES OF 1989 - Technical Code Corrections Alan Richman, planning office, told Council most of the corrections in this ordinance are technical in the strictest sense of the word and have resulted from 6 months of experience with the code. Richman said one additional change in the ordinance is on page 5, lot area. This change is to change "mean water line" to high water line", which is defined in the ordinance. Richman said for the purposes of calculating FAR, land under water does not count. Richman said also excluded from lot area is any area within existing dedicated right-of-way or surface area. Richman said the change is to add "existing" and the reason is to encourage people to grant rights-of-way and easements in developments and not lose that towards the floor area ratio. Bil Dunaway suggested "below" rather than "beneath" the high water line. Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. Councilman Isaac moved to continue the public hearing to March 27, 1989; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #7, SERIES OF 1989 - Substantive Code Corrections Alan Richman, planning office, reminded Council one of the things they instructed staff to look at was the maintenance of historic structures program. Richman said the ordinance asks people to maintain their structures and suggests if the city sees structures that are falling apart, they initiate corrections. Richman said some people might not be able to afford the effects of this program. P & Z recommended a one-time, no interest loan. Richman said the finance department is not concerned about this program in terms of overall budget because of it's limited nature. The finance department was concerned that the city be able to get the money back. Richman suggested the loan be made of record so that it comes up in the title search. Richman said the ten-year pay back could be eliminated and the money due when the property is transferred. Richman asked if Council wants standards for evaluating who is eligible. Richman said he thought someone would apply to Council for this loan, and Council would approve it or not. Mayor Stirling said it would not be necessary if this is repaid at the time of transfer to have any personal qualifications. Mayor Stirling suggested the city look at loan to value ratio. Councilman Tuite said he does not see a downside in helping keep up structures that are important to the community. Mary Martin suggested owners could also be fined for allowing structures to deteriorate. Councilwoman Fallin said Telluride has an ordinance with penalties for people 1 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council ___ March 20, 1989 who let a historic structure deteriorate. Ms. Martin said historic structures that are empty could also be used for employee housing. Richman told Council the P & Z felt comfortable that with $10,000 real improvements could be made. Richman said the figure is not intended to get at all the needs of a structure. Roxanne Eflin, planning office, told CoLincil the goal is to get the owners involved as well. Mayor Stirling asked how this will be monitored. Ms. Eflin said in HPC, each member has a different project which they monitor and communicate back to the HPC. Richman said there is a requirement in the ordinance that the property owner give the city a description of the improvements program. The plannin g office would administer the disbursement of the funds. Richman suggested some paperwork back demonstrating that the expenditures match the original request. Councilman Isaac said he would like to see a fine program along with this, perhaps even levied on an annual basis. There would be no excuse for not f fixing historic structures up because this money is available. Fred Gannett, city attorney's office, told Council this may trigger the general penalty provision in the Municipal Code, which is a fine of $300 and/or 90 days in jail. Councilman Gassman said he does not like the idea of a fine. Councilman Gassman said it is not a big step from fining people for what they do outside their house to fining them for what they do inside their house. Councilman Gassman moved that the ordinance specifically note that the fine provisions of the-Code does not apply; seconded by Mayor Stirling. Councilwoman Fallin asked what enforcement there is to get people, who have received the loan, to fix up their houses. Gannett said the city has injunctive relief procedures in district court. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Isaac. Motion carried. Council agreed that accountability for the loan should be part of the ordinance. Gannett said staff will discuss the loan to value ratio with some title companies. Councilman Gassman said he feels there should be a time limit. Richman suggested a 10 year loan with an extension review process. Council agreed to a 10 year time limit with the ability to extend. Richman said P & Z has recommended that demolition of an existing dwelling in the CC, C-1 and office is a conditional use. P & Z has also recommended that construction of a duplex in RMF, C-1 and office be a conditional use. Richman said demolition as a conditional use is an outgrowth of discussions on Ordinance #47. 2 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council .March 20, 1989 P & Z felt construction of a duplex in the RMF, C-1 and office zones is not always in character with the neighborhoods. Richman said the more conditional uses there are, the more reviews there are. Richman said staff has wanted to avoid more reviews as much as possible. Richman said an alternative may be eliminating the growth management exemption for duplexes, which would make the conditional use unnecessary. Councilman Tuite asked if duplexes can compete in GMP. Richman said they can because of the way the scoring system is set up. Richman said part of P & Z's concern is that the duplexes that are being built are not fitting in with the neighborhoods and are changing the character of the neighborhoods. Laurie Moss said a lot in RMF is worth a lot fnore if a person can build a duplex on it. Ms. Moss suggested the ordinance state one is required to put on site housing on a duplex lot rather than having to go through a conditional use review. Richman agreed there are alternatives to the conditional use review, like requiring on-site housing. Joe Edwards said the RMF zone was originally designed for apartments for people who 1 ive and work in Aspen . Edwards said because of the gondola and other things, it has become viable to build large duplexes in the RMF zone as second homes. Edwards suggested prohibiting very large duplexes and limiting the size of units to a floor area of 1500 or 2000 square feet. Richman said the FARs for single family and duplexes in the RMF, CC, C-1 and office have been reduced dramatically. Richman said duplexes could be prohibited in some zones. Councilman Isaac said it may be appropriate to prohibit duplexes in the office and C-1 zone as there is lack of adequate commercial space for local users. Council agreed to let this stand until the next public hearing. Richman said the next issue is the FAR bonus in the FAR zone. P & Z discussed this and felt comfortable with 10 percent bonus. Richman said there is a suggestion that all the 1:1 FAR be available for free market housing and the 15 percent bonus is where the deed restricted units be created. Richman said this is not the recommendation of staff and P & Z. Richman said when units are demolished, reconstruction of some number of affordable housing units is the obligation of the owner and will take away some development potential on the lot. Eugene Alder told Council 2/3 of the FAR bonus is unworkable in the current format because no developer would take advantage of this because of the cost reasons. Richman said the P & Z was not comfortable with a big FAR bonus in the beginning. P & Z wanted to insure that this bonus came back in the form of affordable housing. Council agreed to leave this provision as is until the next public hearing. 3 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council March 20, 1989 Richman told Council the section to repeal and reenact the regulation of historic landmarks has been received very favorably. Richman said this section gives more tools to the HPC. They will not have to support demolition or relocation proposals. This section strengthens the position of the neighborhood and the existing structure. Councilman Isaac asked about designated structures rated 3. Richman said the section addressing that is in this ordinance. Councilman Isaac suggested doing this in a separate ordinance. Richman agrees this will require a lot of notice and the other inventory owners should be notified of this change. Richman said the other change is the call up provision, which is an attempt to increase communication between HPC and Council. Richman told Council P & Z recommended regulations for PUD or SPA which would place limits to the extent such variations could be granted. The variations are height, floor area in PUD and also minimum lot area per dwelling unit (density) in SPA. P & Z suggests minimal or modest increases which have to be demonstrated to be in the best interest of the community and for good cause. P & Z also introduced the idea of compensation. Richman said compensation or trade offs have been inherent in discussions of variations; if height is increased in one place, it should be decreased somewhere else or setbacks should be increased. Richman said people have suggested that minimal or modest is not specific enough. Richman said this variation can have a number; however, specific numbers can become targets. Mari Peyton, P & Z member, told Council the minority position was that the variations should not include FAR increases. The minority position was that if heights were increased, setbacks should also be increased. Ms. Peyton said the purpose of a PUD is to allow design flexibility. Ms. Peyton said they could not agree with the concept of allowing increases in size as well as changes in shape. Ms. Peyton said by allowing increases in size, the city is selling their zoning regulations. Mayor Stirling asked what effect this would have on the Meadows application. Richman said there are no variations requested in either height, FAR or density in the Meadows application. Perry Harvey said if the city puts arbitrary limits on PUDs or SPAS, when they are confronted with unusual situations there is no flexibility to deal with the situation. Harvey pointed out in the Aspen Mountain Lodge PUD, the hotel rooms were clustered where they were most appropriate. Harvey suggested there might be more direc- tion given in the purpose of the PUD to what the standards of review are otherwise this would be too much of a limit on crea- tivity. Chuck Vidal said for the issues of FAR and density, there should not be the ability to negotiate. Vidal said zoning gives people a certain amount of reliance. Vidal said he does not feels 4 Continued Meeting Aspen City Council March 20, 1989 the word minimal works. Vidal said if a modification is desired, there should be a rezoning request. Vidal said this does not apply to smaller landowners and is discriminatory. Vidal said he does not feel zoning is appropriately negotiated. Bob Hughes said currently density in a PUD cannot be varied. Hughes said it is incongruous to start building in arbitrary limits as no one knows what will work for the future. Council is the final arbitrators on the plans. Jim Curtis said he disagrees with using the PUD process and the ability to increase FAR above the underlying zoning given the growth pressures that Aspen has been facing. Joe Edwards said there is a letter from the then city attorney indicating that in 1974 when the PUD was first adopted that the intention of it was to provide design flexibility. There was no intention to allow it to be utilized as an indirect rezoning to increase density. Edwards said the recently amended code used to say that the density could not be increased at all. Edwards said there was no definition of what density was in the old code. The new code defines density to be residential only. Edwards said the PUD was intended to be a design flexibility tool for architectural creativity. Edwards commended the recommendation to confine changes to minimal or modest. Edwards urged Council not to allow the size to be varied on a case by case basis. John Sarpa encouraged Council to keep flexibility in the PUD. Richman pointed out on page 5, item 11, which states there is no requirement for the lodge zone. In the CL, and LP and LTR zones it states lodge units are not regulated as to density. Richman said the city has never regulated the relationship between lodge units and land area because the city has not wanted to mandate the size of lodge units. The FAR is the determining factor. Councilwoman Fallin moved to continue the public hearing to March 27, ,1989; seconded by Mayor Stirling. All in favor, motion carried. The meeting was over at 6:45. ' // ~ ,/ `,~i~ n Kathryn Koch, City Clerk 5