HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20080219Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -February 19, 2008
MINUTES .................................................................................................. ............... 2
COMMENTS ............................................................................................ ................ 2
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ................................... ................ 2
CODE AMENDMENT PUBLIC NOTICE .............................................. ................ 2
CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING NON-CONFORMITIES ........... ................ 5
ASPEN CLUB CONCEPTUAL SPECIFICALLY PLANNED AREA ... ............... 6
1
Aspen Planning & ZOnlrig Commission Meeting Minutes - February 19, 2008
LJ Erspamer, vice-chair, opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning &
Zoning Commission Meeting in Sister Cities meeting room at 4:30 pm.
Commissioners present were Michael Wampler, Cliff Weiss, Stan Gibbs, Dina
Bloom, Brian Speck and LJ Erspamer. Jim DeFrancia and Dylan Johns were
excused. Staff in attendance: Jim True, Special Counsel; Chris Bendon, Jason
Lasser, Jessica Garrow, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City
Clerk.
MOTION: Dina Bloom moved to approve the minutes from January 29`" and
February 5`k; seconded by Michael Wampler. All in favor, approved.
COMMENTS
Stan Gibbs requested that staff memos be embedded in the documents for one
point of reference to follow the resolutions.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
LJ Erspamer wanted to disclose that he was the main organizer for the 3
committees for the ARC but at the time there were not any weight rooms or
aerobic rooms; so this was a disclosure.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
CODE AMENDMENT PUBLIC NOTICE
LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing. Jim True stated this was a
public hearing and it was duly noticed; published once, all that was required. True
said the two questions that remained after last week's discussion were 1. the
content of the notice and if there should be a mailing address and additional
information provided by an applicant; there would be a statement that a hearing
maybe continued from time to time and 2. whether the posted notice shall remain
on the property throughout the process or some other aspect of that, shall the dates
be changed rather than the from time to time language. True reiterated the two
issues 1. is the content of the notice as far as the name and additional information
of the applicant and 2. whether posted notices shall remain up after the initial
hearing if there is a continuance and how it should remain up. True said this was
totally discretionary at P&Z and will go to Council with either a recommendation
of approval or denial.
Michael Wampler said he read the minutes and memo and he agreed that the notice
should stay up through the hearing and if the hearing is continued the date should
be posted on the notice because things were changing. True said that there would
2
Ashen PlanninE & Zori1nQ Commission MeetinE Minutes -February 19, 2008
be a change to the code that says there need not be any new notice or second notice
and there would have to be an additional affidavit before every continued hearing
that was re-posted; again there wasn't that significant a problem and it was a
legitimate request on this commission's part.
Stan Gibbs asked what was the point of "the best of the applicant's ability". True
replied that was a comment that Jennifer made at the meeting saying that we would
not require a new affidavit saying it had been up that would be their best efforts to
keep it up throughout the process; she did not want notices to disappear and
applicants not necessarily know that the notice was gone and have somebody come
in a say the process is defective because it was not up. Gibbs said that they
understand that there is some room but it was like saying you have to stop at a stop
sign to the best of your ability; laws were not written that way. True stated that
you were just trying not to create a situation where somebody says the process was
defective or you make a requirement then there needs to be affidavits.
Dina Bloom said that Jennifer made it clear that in other communities there have
been problems of signs that did not stay throughout and then the process would
stop and she did not want that to happen here so "the best of the applicant's
ability" makes sense.
LJ Erspamer asked the consequences if the sign does fall down and the applicant
does an affidavit that it was up. True said there was a risk that somebody says that
you have to re-notice and start over or get a continued hearing.
Chris Bendon said that they prefer "to the best of the applicant's ability" because
often times Council will continue a public hearing to the next night. Bendon noted
that in the winter, especially this winter, signs get piled up with snow piles. Gibbs
said that "the best of the applicant's ability" made sense after the discussions; more
affidavits make it difficult. Gibbs stated the posting should be continue throughout
the process with "continuing from time to time" and the best of the applicant's
ability" to keep it visible to the public was good enough.
Erspamer asked if an affidavit was needed to change or add the dates of the
meetings. True responded that the situation of continuation to the next day or
continuation for a week had to be addressed. Erspamer asked if this commission
put something together where they recommend some ideas or some thoughts on
this issue to think about and address. True said that Council will make this
determination; this was a recommendation, it was a resolution recommending
something to Council.
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 19 2008
Bendon noted there was no place in the code that said after so many continuances
the public hearing had to be re-noticed. Gibbs asked if P&Z should recommend
something like that to Council. Bendon replied that would be easier to administer
then deciding on an arbitrary basis when you need to re-notice. True said an
applicant has the ability to request a continuance and after that it was more
discretionary with Council; it is just discretionary to re-notice. True said that it can
be written that if the hearing is continued more than "x" period of time it will be
re-noticed.
Erspamer asked if on the other part of the noticing it was name, address or email.
True stated that he re-wrote based on what the group was most interested in was
name and either a mailing address of the applicant or a phone number or email
address of applicant or the representative. Erspamer said that this was a public
notice and people should have the right to know and comment to a contact on the
project and he thought email should not be the only contact; there should be a
phone number of a representative somewhere. Cliff Weiss requested the mailing
address be required and the other two were optional (phone number or email).
Michael Wampler said that in 5 years people would not be mailing anything; this
was a band aid; email was the future not snail mail. Brain Speck noted that
sometimes email goes through Spam filtering and you don't get it. Erspamer asked
either/or; and/or; or just require all 3. Gibbs agreed with what Dylan had to say
that some people just don't want their phone number out there; it was a reasonable
compromise to the have mailing address as a requirement but the phone or email
should be the applicant's choice, which one they want to provide. Gibbs said that
snail mail will actually only go away when you can actually verify the receipt of an
email; until certified mail can be replaced reliably. True reiterated that the mailing
address was required and the mailing address and either the phone number or email
for the applicant or the applicant's representative.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
1. Toni Kronberg thanked John Worcester and Jim True for taking on this
issue; the content was important because as a member of the public we don't care
about the mailing address we care about the address of the development
application. Kronberg said that the person to contact was in Community
Development and included on the notice; email was not legally recognized by the
state statute as a form of communication because there was no way of knowing if
someone has received that notice that was the purpose for mailing certified.
Kronberg said the Council notice and said that the public notice has to stay through
the public hearing; she suggested a 7 day time frame be changed for continued
hearings. Kronberg said that she has never seen a notice intentionally taken down.
4
Aspen PlanninE & Zonlri$ Commission MeetinE Minutes -February 19, 2008
2. Gideon Kaufman said that the number one way somebody opposes a project
is on notice because that was the most strictly construed way to oppose a project;
he has had signs disappear when people want to find a way to challenge a project.
Kaufman said that if you don't have language "to the best of someone's ability"
you are opening them up to have a situation that someone takes the sign. Kaufman
said neighbors don't like the signs because they don't think they are very attractive
also when you constantly continue a hearing that means you have to change the
sign every 2 weeks, every month, that becomes a real burden and it is not that
simple. Kaufman said the bottom line was that you are going to follow up on it.
MOTION: Stan Gibbs moved to approve Resolution #007-08 as amended in the
discussion to include the mailing address and either the phone number or email of
the applicant or its representative and the applicant shall maintain this notice on
the property throughout the hearing and continuances to the best of the applicant's
ability; seconded by Michael Wampler. Roll call: Bloom, yes; Speck, yes; Weiss,
yes; Wampler, yes; Gibbs, yes; Erspamer, yes. All in favor approved 6-0.
The commission requested Council consider placing a date deadline for continued
meetings and re-noticing.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING NON-CONFORMITIES
LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for non-conformities. Jason Lasser said
that Alice Davis represented Gary and Laura Lauder. Lasser provided the history
of these mandatory occupancy units which was before the Telluride decision that
talked about privately owned rental housing that can't be required to be deed-
restrictedbecause it was considered rent control and that was a decision that made
the City of Aspen change the way that they do things. APCHA now controls that
an ADU or Carriage House has to be deed-restricted for sale and run through
APCHA, which clears up the rental issue decided in the Telluride case.
Lasser stated that what they were talking about today were mandatory occupancy
units to clear up the language in the code. Lasser read the definition of non-
conforming structure: a structure which was originally constructed in conformity
with the zoning and building codes or ordinances in effect at the time of this
development which no longer conforms to dimensional or other requirements by
the title to the zone in which it is located. Lasser said because of code changes the
property could have more FAR than it was allowed with the new code so
technically it's non-conforming. Lasser said the code amendment in 2004 was that
the Lauder's wanted to expand and propose changes to the code and staff did not
5
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 19 2008
recommend approval and P&Z voted no for those code changes but Council
approved that through Ordinance 35 and it was codified and in the code now. Staff
was going to eliminate a general section making historic stmctures the first
exception and mandatory occupancy for accessory dwelling units and carriage
houses the second extension in the non-conforming stmctures and extensions
section of the code; that cleans up the language so it is easier to read going through
"A" (procedure) and "B" (review standards) and "B1" (maximum cumulative 500
square foot of floor area from historic transferable development rights or
extinguishing unused floor area from other properties). Staff recommended
approval.
Gideon Kaufman introduced Alice Davis from Davis Hom Planning. Kaufman
said they were just cleaning up the language with no substantive issues or changes.
Michael Wampler asked for clarification on the 500 feet coming from the house,
Kaufman replied there were 2 options (1) purchase a historic TDR or (2) go to
another free-market property in the City of Aspen and take the square footage off
of that property and put it into a mandatory occupied ADU.
No public comments.
MOTION: Michael Wampler moved to approve Resolution #10-08 finding that
the application for the code text amendments meets the applicable standards of
review; seconded by Stan Gibbs. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Bloom, yes; Wampler,
yes; Gibbs, yes; Weiss, yes; Erspamer, yes. All in favor APPROVED 6-0.
Discussion: Stan Gibbs asked what the difference was with an ADU and Carriage
House. Kaufman replied that they are now referenced the same way (page 35
defines it the same way). Lasser stated it was basically a square footage issue; the
carriage house was 800 to 1200 square foot and ADU was 300 to 800 square foot.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
ASPEN CLUB CONCEPTUAL SPECIFICALLY PLANNED AREA
LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing on the Aspen Club. Chris
Bendon recused himself from the public hearing. LJ Erspamer stated that he
organized the 3 groups that built the ARC; it didn't have the weight room or the
aerobics room.
Jessica Garrow mentioned 3 letters from neighbors in the packet and another letter
from Peter C Meining added. Garrow noted there was a site visit at noon. Garrow
6
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 19, 2008
said that on March 4`" the issues of transportation, parking, factional unit
components, the lock off scenarios, affordable housing as well as more depth in the
architecture; tonight would be a conversation of the area and proposed site plan.
Garrow provided a brief history beginning with appendix b exhibit 1, an overview
of the original subdivision approved in 1976 with 161ots; lot 15 was where the
club currently sits; lot 14A was designated a parking facility, across the river from
lot 15, the club was access from that parking area via a walkway that goes over the
river; lot 14 was intended to be a club facility. The club was built in 1977 and
throughout the 70s and 80s there were some changes to the PUD that allowed an
increase to the size of the club and also changed lot 14 into a single family lot; in
the 1980s and 90s the owner, Dick Buetera, amended the PUD a number of times
again and split lot 14 into 2 single family homes. Also at this time parking was
added to lot 15 and the primary access to the club was moved to Ute Avenue
instead of from Highway 82. Garrow said that lot 15 was zoned rural residential
with a PUD overlay; lot 16 (the Benedict Building) was zoned rural residential
with a PUD overlay and SPA overlay to allow commercial uses on the property;
the rest of the subdivision is zoned R-15 PUD and includes single family homes
and multi-family homes (Aspen Club Townhomes no relation to the club). The
club currently includes 35 parking spaces on lot 14A, 56 spaces on lot 15, 5
outdoor tennis courts (1 under the bubble for winter use), the Aspen Club and Spa
and an outdoor deck. There is an Aspen Club trail that traverses the property near
the river and the 100 year flood plane is located immediately below the trail. Staff
talked about benches; the upper bench contains the Aspen Club and the lower
bench is essentially where the 4 tennis courts are located, which is proposed to be
new fractional units. Garrow stated that the proposal retained the Aspen Club trail,
it adds 12 affordable housing units, 19 timeshare units (13 of these timeshare units
are stand alone townhouse units in 4 different structures and 6 are flats added on
top of the existing building), a total of 42 parking spaces are proposed to be added
to the current parking (133 spaces total with 35 spaces remaining on lot 14A and
98 spaces would be on lot 15).
Garrow stated the reviews before the Planning Commission were all conceptual.
Conceptual PUD, which allows changes to the dimensional requirements to the
existing PUD, variances in 2 setbacks for the proposed affordable housing units,
front yard setback requirement is 30 feet and this request is to amend that setback
to 7 '/z feet and the east side yard the setback should be 20 feet and they are
requesting to amend it to 3 feet. Conceptual Specially Planned Area (SPA) to
permit the construction of affordable housing and timeshare units; an SPA enables
a parcel to have different uses then are permitted in the underlying zoning. The
third is Conceptual Timeshare review which is required when a timeshare
7
Ashen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - Februarv 19 2008
development is proposed. Conceptual Commercial Design Review is required at
conceptual and final level at anytime a commercial or lodge project is proposed;
this has a lodge component so therefore a commercial design review is required.
Staff determined that this project should go through the small lodges area review
because this is in a residential area.
Staff is supportive of this general concept of healthy living facility and was a
different exciting use and would be a good amenity for the community. There
were some concerns regarding the architecture, transportation and parking
elements, which will be discussed at the next meeting in more detail.
Cliff Weiss asked for the terms of the Butera agreement. Sunny Vann replied the
agreement was in the appendix. Garrow explained some of the exhibits in the
application; the 1980 approvals permit the use of the Ute Avenue entrance.
Sunny Vann introduced Chris Wright and Richard DeCampo from Poss Architects.
Chris Wright identified the context of the neighborhood with a handout of
drawings that shaped the project; he said that the neighborhood was pretty eclectic.
Erspamer asked the lot size of the adjacent parcels. Garrow responded that she
would get them for the next meeting.
Richard DeCampo utilized the board drawings and the handout of drawings to
show the different parts of the 5 acre site with the existing building and the access
from Ute Avenue. DeCampo utilized sheet 2 from the packet to show the property
line and setbacks, some setbacks were determined by the stream margin review
criteria and the 100 year flood plane which was below the trail. DeCampo said
that the proposed buildings were setback and there was a sewer easement through
the property. DeCampo noted there had to be emergency access and the biggest
were the fire department trucks. DeCampo said there were just a couple of places
that could be developed because of site constraints.
Erspamer asked if the hammerhead turnaround was big enough for emergency
vehicles. DeCampo replied that if you don't go too far into the site that you were
allowed to pull something in and back out to a turning radius. Vann showed more
pavement for the access. Erspamer asked about the setbacks. DeCampo replied
that the front yard setback was 30 feet and they were asking for 7 1/2 feet and a
side yard was 20 feet and they were asking for 3 feet; if you look at the site for the
surrounding area you are quite far back from the public areas. Stan Gibbs asked if
they were cutting the comer of the building. DeCampo replied that was correct.
8
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -February 19, 2008
Vann said the only setback variance requests were those 2 setback points for the
affordable housing and could be done within the setbacks themselves but it would
significantly reduce the amount of housing that could be placed on the site. Vann
said that backing up to the Silver Lining Ranch had no adverse impacts.
Cliff Weiss asked how many parking spaces were there for the affordable housing.
Vann replied the affordable housing parking spaces were based on the code at 1
per unit and they are providing those 12 spaces in the sub-grade garage to
discourage the use of the vehicles, which would be a place to store the vehicles;
there were 5 spaces in front of the affordable housing units which will be signed
for temporary drop off or a timed period. Michael Wampler asked with the
exception of those spaces if all the rest of the new parking would be underground.
Erspamer asked about parking design. Vann replied the site design was why the
parking was where it was. Vann reiterated what Jessica had said about the parking
and added that Butera made a pitch that the parking was insufficient for the
operation of a facility like that yet Council restricted and reduced the amount of
parking as an attempt to limit vehicular traffic in the neighborhood. Vann said
what was there today in parking spaces were 56 in the surface parking lot and 35
across the river; the new proposal the fractional ownership units require 'h space
for each unit, all of these units have lock-outs with a total of 38 keys so the code
requires 19 spaces that will be located in the sub-grade garage. Vann said the
surface lot would be reduced to 40 parking spaces and changing the way it is laid
out to improve circulation; the sub-grade garage includes 22 spaces for the club.
Vann stated there were a total of 133 spaces with 53 spaces in the garage.
Erspamer asked for the location of the hydrants. Vann replied that they were in the
application on the improvement survey.
Chris Wright said that Michael Fox was trying to create a project that addresses
spending time together as a family and extended family; creating spaces from a
building program by which an extended family can vacation together and spend
time and take advantage of the opportunities that the Aspen Club has to offer.
Wright said that our society was changing with people living longer and finding
the opportunities to travel together; that was a big component to create a building
program that allows this kind of activity to take place. Wright said there were a lot
of different activities that this property has to accommodate. Wright said that they
were approaching this on sustainability on a lot of different levels; sustainability in
terms of energy usage to upgrade the existing building; the use of ground source
geothermal, solar voltaic and a mixture of things to get the most efficient system
that they can. Wright said the other aspect of sustainability was the construction of
these units, the units themselves being energy efficient, the type of materials, the
9
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 19, 2008
quality of life, the quality of daylight and use of the site. Wright said there were
constraints to this site and the next phase was to work with the topography of the
site with the two benches on the site. Wright noted that they were sensitive to the
area and applied for LEEDS development and they are in the pilot program
because they are taking a site that is developed and they are recycling the site.
Weiss asked how many apartments (flats) there were. Vann replied there were 6; 4
on the upper level.
Erspamer asked if the growth management was on a point system. Garrow replied
this would potentially play into the point system when they get to the growth
management application; they will need growth management allotments for the
affordable housing units after conceptual; the earliest would be August or this time
next year. Erspamer asked if LEEDS was a requirement. Garrow responded that it
was a way to get points in the competition for growth management allotments.
Garrow presented the "sketch up" model of the project; the immediate context was
used; the model was generated from wire frames taken from the 2004 fly over for
the GIS Department. The wire frames are accurate with respect to height and
grade that used 2 foot contours.
MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to continue the Aspen Club Conceptual SPA, PUD,
Timeshare and Commercial Design Review to March 4`"; seconded by Brian
Speck. All in favor APPROVED.
~it~t~
J kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
10