HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20100202City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -February 02, 2010
Comments ................................................................................2
Minutes ....................................................................................2
Conflicts of Interest ....................................................................2
301 W Hyman -Subdivision and associated land use reviews ................. 2
217/219 S Third St - Rezonin~ ........................................................10
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -February 02, 2010
Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting in Sister Cities Meeting Room to order at
4:30pm. Commissioners present were Jasmine Tygre, Michael Wampler, Cliff
Weiss, Bert Myrin, Jim DeFrancia, LJ Erspamer, Stan Gibbs and Brian Speck.
Staff present were Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer Phelan and Ben Gagnon,
Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
Comments
Cliff Weiss said that this week was an example of project creep; 2 site inspections,
2 major meetings and a TV thing and he wasn't getting paid. Weiss said that he
can't schedule 5 meetings in a single week; it wasn't what he had signed up for.
Jennifer Phelan responded that P&Z created a very aggressive AACP meeting
scedule. Stan Gibbs said that this could be discussed at the AACP meetings.
Jennifer Phelan said that she will be putting the Aspen Valley Hospital application
in your boxes and will send an email when they are in there and Jasmine and Bert
will get some additional information.
Ben Gagnon welcomed Jasmine back to P&Z and the commission agreed.
Minutes
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes from January 19, 2010,
seconded by Cl~YVeiss; all in favor, APPROVED.
Conflicts of Interest
None stated.
CONTINi.JED PUBLIC HEARING:
301 W Hyman -Subdivision and associated land use reviews
Stan Gibbs opened the continued hearing on 301 W Hyman and asked if the notice
had been provided. Peter Fornell responded that it had been provided.
Ben Gagnon said that it seemed that the Planning & Zoning Commission was
comfortable with the standards of review with the exception of the architecture and
parking discussion to continue. Gagnon said there were photographs of some other
properties in town and this was not meant to be what should be done on this
property it just meant to convey that staff felt there was a higher standard that
could be reached in the application and staff felt these were examples of higher
standards.
2
City Planning & Zonin¢ Meeting -Minutes -February 02, 2010
Gagnon said there was one letter from a neighbor, Dennis Sider, of 214 W Hyman
and was satisfied with the elevations if the neighbors were satisfied and he
suggested underground parking. Gagnon said the underground parking on a 3600
square foot lot was not practical.
LJ Erspamer asked if the parking people were coming today. Ben Gagnon replied
that he hadn't heard from them so he can only reflect from the DRC.
Bert Myrin asked if they were waiving the parking requirement. Ben Gagnon
replied that it is but it is certainly in P&Z's power to set a condition to make the
right of way for parking. Gagnon said that in the PUD Final Development Plan in
the dimensional requirements you would be putting a zero next to required on
street parking; the table of dimensional standards is in the original memo. The
Parking Department and the City would want to retain the head in parking so that
you wouldn't be able to access the lot from that point from the east and from the
north staff saying that you would be eliminating on street parking in order to create
an access onto the property to park plus in two different places the land use code
discourages access off of a public street to onsite parking; you could proceed with
that from an alley or private road and in this case there is no such option for this
property. Myrin asked if the parking that is on the right of way is that
memorialized or do we just ignore that it's there in this application. Gagnon
replied technically speaking it would remain what it is, it would be in the public
right of way with head in parking as established now. Gagnon said a
recommendation could be made to make it clearer, maybe painting stripes and that
could be passed onto engineering but technically speaking it's not part of this
application aside from the PUD Dimensional Requirement.
LJ Erspamer asked if this was zoned parking so people that live there could park
on the street with stickers; could the City say people could park on that area with
special stickers. Gagnon responded that's not Parking Department policy; you can
pass on a recommendation to Parking. Erspamer stated that he understood how
difficult that would be.
Cliff Weiss said there was now at grade patio space for the first floor units
although it should be extended to the west end of the property and is this reflected
in this on page 2 or not. Ben Gagnon said that they thought it made sense to
extend the patio all the way to the edge. Weiss asked about the 3 pictures on page
3 of the memo that you liked so much that this project conform to; the 7th and
Hopkins yellow hardy-plank doesn't make it in his book. Gagnon replied that it
was subjective and was a tough standard to get arms around as individuals and it
3
City Plannine & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -February 02 2010
was compatibility with enhancement of the visual character of the City and that's a
pretty subjective standard. Gagnon said that staff gets together on a weekly basis
and reach consensus on recommendations and the consensus was that it didn't
seem to rise to the level of the standard that they like to see and a couple of staff
members said a couple of photos that might illustrate a standard of originality or a
standard that they were looking for. Weiss said at the last meeting the P&Z
concern was snow and snow coming down off of the roof and not so much with
aesthetics. Gagnon said that they started with a box and it is definitely better but
felt like the underlying form couldn't really be any more gussied up and agree it is
subjective. LJ Erspamer asked if this was a higher standard than what was on that
block now. Gagnon replied yes.
Brian Speck said that sometimes we see something that doesn't come under
architectural review standards but it's economical but the burden will be on the
individuals and people. Speck said this looks like an economical project.
Peter Fornell, applicant, stated that he was very proud of the fact that he was
planning on building employee housing and wants this to be a product of success
for those people who move into it and the employee housing program in general is
a marvelous program. Fornell said that a flaw is take downs in free market
buildings and then there's an employee housing unit sitting there and we call that a
category 1 or 2 and that person who wins that unit can only make $30,000.00 or
$40,000.00 a year and get it for $100,000.00 and then the association wants to go
in a do an exterior remodel of the building and is a $150,000.00 per owner
association fee and we just put that person in bankruptcy; an unintended
consequence of employee housing and a bad one. Fornell said at the Aspen
Highlands he knew a lot of people that won 3 bedroom units for $175,000.00 and
their association fees were $700.00 a month and there are a lot of problems with
the associations out there.
Fornell said there were a lot of different ideas that we can have for the design of
the structure and there's a lot of different opinions that can be for what's right and
wrong for the location design wise but we have to make sure we are building a
building that the people that move into it can afford to live in it. Fornell said the 3
photographs on page 3 showed the top left building with the possibility of snow
build up in the middle and then freezes and the bottom photo with the flat roof was
prone to leaking in Aspen. Fornell said what did they want to put there looks nice
and serves the people that we are trying to help. Fornell said that he personally
feels that they have a quality project and was sensitive to people's opinions but he
4
Cit~Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - February 02, 2010
didn't think this was so objectionable that it was worth sending back through the
process again.
Cliff Weiss asked if he would address the snow issue. Peter Fornell stated the roof
hangs over further. Jeffrey Halferty said that the 8plex was a nice strong
recommendation from staff and consensus from P&Z breaking up the units
creating individual roofs, individual decks, and dormer elements to help identify
the usage. Halferty said they have extended a porch element on both sides for the
entry element to connect; there's already an overhang from each deck. Halferty
said they have increased the length of the eave line out. Halferty stated they were
planning on using some snow breaks on some of the long pitches and guttering as
well as heat tape elements. Fornell said that they are using the shingles that the
county asked to use to replace the wood shake shingles; they look like wood shake
but they are a longer lasting product and a quality product too; we actually used
them on a single family home and they are attractively used throughout the city
and county. Halferty said they do great with ice and snow and they are a recycled
content.
LJ Erspamer asked if they added dormers. Fornell replied they did add dormers.
Erspamer asked what changes did you make to create the dimensional; it's not as
flat as looking building. Halferty said they added a dormer element and added
planter boxes.
Bert Myrin asked if it was a zero setback on the west side. Fornell replied that he
hoped to hear from the neighbors on that because there was a bit of a choice in how
that would exist because there is some concern that it is against the open space on
the west side; so here on the east side were are off of the lot line. Gagnon said that
there was 29 feet of space between the zero setback and that was city land; it
connects to the Midland Trail and that creates a buffer so staff was not as
concerned about zero setback. Myrin voiced concern for city open space or land
and no known future for that property, if that were built on for affordable housing
or something then we have a zero setback against that if it was used for a park;
they were sort of encroaching on city property. Gagnon said that there were no
plans to build on that and this piece was such a small piece and it was not on the
list to build on. Fornell stated that piece of land was land locked so there was no
possible off street access to it; that was probably the most important thing. Gagnon
said this was open space part of the Midland Trail zoned public.
Stan Gibbs said one of the criteria for PUD is in the architectural use of natural
heating ability; he said Shadow Mountain was a formidable opponent in this regard
5
City Plannine & Zonine Meeting -Minutes -February 02 2010
but can you talk about your ideas about that; what materials and designs might be
used to maximize that. Peter Fornell said that the skylights were changed to
dormers but did not contemplate the materials; regarding how the building will be
heated will be a centralized gas furnace and it will not be individually electric
heated units; there is a mechanical room set in the basement to facilitate all of that
so it uses economic energies and scaled for the building.
Public Comments:
1. Jordie Gerber, public, stated that he lived exactly across the street and he
welcomed this addition to the neighborhood visually, architecturally, off
street parking and was a win win for the neighborhood.
2. Ann Mullins, public, said that the neighborhood had a meeting at Michael's
house with 10 people representing 8 residences and her comments were from
that neighborhood meeting. Mullins said there were 6 questions: the group
supported developing the property into affordable housing; the group
supported 1 space per unit; the group supported zero lot line on the west
with 5 yes, 1 abstention and 1 no; the group supported the zero lot line on
the south side with a condition that the developer provide year round
screening at the lot line on city property; the group did not support installing
sidewalks along Second Street and Hyman Avenue as shown in the site plan;
and the group supported off street curb cut parking basically the historic
pattern in the neighborhood. Mullins said there was not sufficient parking in
the neighborhood to build an 8 unit building without parking.
3. Ann Mullins, speaking on her own behalf, said she did not agree with the
zero lot lines on either side.
4. Michael Behrendt, public, said the neighbor most impacted by the
movement was to the west and is Jay Kuhne and he salutes the project and
has no objection to the footprint. Behrendt said sidewalks to nowhere and
because of the embankment from the right of way there was no place to put
snow.
Stan Gibbs closed the public hearing.
Commissioners Discussion:
Cliff Weiss said the city wants more affordable housing in the neighborhood then
the city has to anti-up more assigned parking not just off street for anybody. Weiss
said that he was not thrilled architecturally with the dormers to just add light to a
vaulted ceiling adds a lot of mass to this building. Weiss said he was confused
about the balconies over doorways; there was a secondary shelter for those
doorways and then a balcony above that seemed clunky.
6
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - February 02, 2010
Bert Myrin asked if the sidewalk on the north side connected with the building.
Fornell replied that it was a separate walkway from the building. Myrin asked if
they were attached to that sidewalk. Fornell replied that he was responding to
engineering. Gagnon said the sidewalk was a recommendation from engineering
and community development doesn't feel as strongly about it. Gagnon said that it
makes sense when we see projects where there is a gap between existing
sidewalks. Myrin said that he still was concerned about the zero setbacks and
some screening if parks agreed to it. Myrin reiterated that he wanted to see
screening on the city property, no sidewalk on the north side and can't support
what staff doesn't support with the architecture.
LJ Erspamer said that he liked this design and the dormers and that it was a good
job dimensionally. Erspamer said he liked the screening idea. Erspamer that
parking there now is on public property, it's not on private property; he asked how
many spaces would be lost if parking were put on the north side of the building.
Erspamer said it was important to listen to the neighbors and parking was
important; he agreed with no sidewalk and the screening.
Jasmine Tygre stated that she is not having a problem with the architecture and
when a building is a big rectangle there's a limited amount that you can do with the
architecture in order to be able to get the maximum number of livable units on the
property and they have done a really good job with that. Tygre noticed one of the
biggest boxiest buildings in town (North of Nell Building) has become less ugly
because of the colors and treatments and textures that they have used but it's still a
big square rectangular monolith but it doesn't look as bad. Tygre commended the
applicant for the fact that they are putting up 8 affordable housing units right in
town, right adjacent to the trail and within easy walking distance of downtown.
Tygre said this provides tremendous community benefit and to quibble over
architectural style seems to her the wrong thing and there were very easy remedies
that would make it more attractive to the inhabitants and to the neighborhood as
well. Tygre said that she was conflicted about parking and it was about time that
the City get serious about cars and stop building everything to maximum
occupancy.
Michael Wampler said that everybody knew how he felt about the architecture on
this; it is a big box and he is kind of struggling with it but it is employee housing
and he was all for that. Wampler would like to bring back a little bit from the
1960s and 1970s and see the decks get bigger and make it more of an old school,
old style place that we all grew up with here 30 years ago. Wampler reiterated that
he would like to see massive decks. Fornell responded there was the one side patio
7
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -February 02 2010
that they attempted to address the issue. Wampler suggested a place where they
could have an 8 unit party with a big grill but outside of that he said that he would
probably vote for it.
Brian Speck stated that he liked that they were addressing employee housing.
Speck asked for the building to be softened up a little but supported this project.
Fomell said that they were using some stacked rock at the base and a stucco finish
above that and then wood on the second level.
Jim DeFrancia shared Cliffls concern about the balconies and supported the
affordable housing project.
Weiss asked about the screening of the trail because he rides that trail 4 times a day
and he did not want the trail to become a tunnel. Weiss said there were a number
of homes right there and it really was not a problem but what becomes a problem
are the walls when you are riding a bike and there are mirrors up to see around the
corners. Fomell suggested some scrub oak or shrubs not tall trees. Gagnon said
that if there was a condition P&Z would be asking the Parks Department what they
could do along those lines and ultimately it would be a Council decision.
Stan Gibbs said the most important thing was the housing being provided by this
project. Gibbs said that he would like to see the building moved to the east,
whatever amount it could be moved to the east. Fomell said that the building
could be centered slightly and the patio could be to the lot line. Gibbs said the
patio would not be used like the city open space as a gathering place with a little
bit of privacy; he wanted the building moved to the east to split the difference
between the 2 lot lines because he did not think that patio would be used. Gibbs
said the city is going to have to do the buffer and P&Z could make that a
recommendation in the resolution. Gibbs said that the parking was a big deal to
him and he thinks the situation is there is no parking for this building; it is all
public parking that is used by the people that happen to live there so P&Z will not
make the situation worse with zero parking because there is already zero parking
and the question is can we make it work better for the city. Gibbs said if those
parking spaces on the east are still available and they will probably be used by the
people that live there but he would like to see some spaces on the north side of the
building as well. Gibbs said you do gain more by having head in parking and the
city would have to agree to do that so we are coming back to the City for important
anti-ups to get this affordable housing. Gagnon said that P&Z could make a
recommendation between here and City Council that staff and the parking
department and engineering department and the applicant work together to see if
8
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -February 02 2010
they can maximize the parking in the area considering parallel, head-in or slightly
head in so that when staff and the applicant go to Council we can have some
options to bring to them. Gibbs said P&Z can always make it a condition because
Council can do whatever they want anyhow.
Weiss said that he was on the verge of making a motion to continue this to another
date because he wasn't sure that he wanted to defer the parking and he wanted the
City to weigh in on this a little bit before he can vote on it. Weiss said that was a
critical issue. Weiss said the city staff hasn't identified anything in the architecture
and would like to give the applicant the time to fix some of those minor issues and
he was concerned that there would be a lot of recommendations and then it was out
of P&Z.
MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to continue this application on 301 W Hyman to a
date certain, seconded by Bert Myrin. Roll call vote: Wampler, no; Speck, no;
Erspamer, no; Myrin, yes; DeFrancia, no; Weiss, yes; Gibbs, no. Does not pass.
Discussion of the motion to continue: LJ Erspamer stated that this process takes
forever and he felt bad for the applicant; this is too much time. Erspamer said that
he knew what engineering was going to say, forget the parking. Erspamer said as
citizens we are going to demand that any of these development projects that creates
more units that they provide parking.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved that the Planning & Zoning Commission finds
for 301 W Hyman the amendment to the zoning map meets required standards of
review and recommends City Council approve the final PUD Development Plan
and Subdivision and approval of Growth Management for affordable housing with
recommendations to include screening on City property, conditioned upon
removing the sidewalk on the north side and adding as marry head in parking
spaces on the north side as can be accommodate and amend the placement of the
building to center the property as much as possible, and recommend that the
architectural features be fleshed out by staff including the dormers and balconies.
Seconded by Michael Wampler; roll call vote: Speck, yes; Erspamer, yes; Myrin,
yes; Weiss, yes; Wampler, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Gibbs, yes. APPROVED 7-0.
Michael Behrendt said that traditionally existing off street parking has been
recognized by the City like they are grandfathered; he said that he has a temporary
easement that the City can take back at any time for the public but have issued for
all that have applied temporary easements.
9
City Planning & Zoning Meetine -Minutes -February 02 2010
PUBLIC HEARING:
217/219 S Third St - Rezonin
Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing. Notice was provided. Jennifer Phelan
stated that the request before P&Z was submitted by YLP West Inc represented by
Suzanne Foster. Phelan said the request is with regard to the property commonly
known as 217 and 219 South Third Street to rezone the property from moderate
density residential R-15 to medium density residential R-6. Phelan said that
currently the 9, 942 square foot lot contains a chalet style duplex.
Phelan said the staff presentational covered permitted uses, dimensional standards,
neighborhood character. Permitted and conditional uses of the R-15 and the R-6
zone districts permit the same permitted uses, which are uses by right and also
almost the same conditional uses, which are uses that have to go through a public
hearing process to be approved in the zone district. Phelan said the only difference
in the two zone districts is that the R-15 zone allows for agricultural uses as a
conditional use; that is the only difference in uses in the two zone districts.
Permitted uses in both zone districts are primarily residential allowing for single
family dwellings, duplex dwellings and also two detached residential dwellings.
Phelan said with regards to dimensional standards, the applicant is wishing to
develop the property with two detached residences. The existing R-15 lot is
considered anon-conforming lot with regard to size because the minimum lot size
in this zone is 15,000 square feet and this is just about 9500 square feet. The
property is developed with a legally established duplex. Phelan said if the property
is redeveloped in this zone district the applicant is allowed to keep that density on
the lot; they just need to meet the minimum setback standards, heights and floor
area allowances for a single family home but the density is allowed to remain.
Phelan said the rezoning to R-6 the minimum lot size is 9000 square feet so this
would create a conforming lot and the zoning with the minimum lot size would
allow for a single family home, a duplex or two detached residences, which is what
the applicant is interested in.
Phelan said with regards to setbacks and height; height in both zone districts is the
same, 25 feet. The minimum setbacks for the rear and side for developing a duplex
or two detached residences on this lot are the same at 10 feet. The front yard
setback in the R-6 zone district is a minimum of 10 foot verses 25 feet in the R-15
zone. Floor area is very similar also currently the allowable floor area in the R-15
zone district whether a single family house is developed on this property or a
duplex is redeveloped on this property is 4,145 square feet is the maximum that
10
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -February 02, 2010
could be allowed on this site. Phelan said with the R-6 zone for a duplex or two
detached residences are developed it's about 9 square feet less at 4,136 square feet.
If in the R-6 zone district a single family home was developed it's actually quite a
bit lower and that is shown in the memo.
Phelan said there were very similar development allowances; the biggest difference
was whether a duplex is allowed on the lot or two detached residences; attached
versus detached.
Phelan said with regard to neighborhood character and the subject property to the
south and to the west the property is surrounded by city owned property that's
zoned Public. The Midland Trail is on the south side of this property; to the east
you have R-6 zoning, which includes a number of single family homes and the St.
Moritz Lodge; to the north across the alley you have 3 properties that are zoned R-
15. Phelan said in the neighborhood the lot range from 3,000 to approximately
18,000 square feet; in general the neighborhood contains single family, duplex,
multifamily units and lodging. Phelan noted that other properties are also non-
conformingbecause none of them meet the minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet
in the neighborhood and it tends to be a denser neighborhood.
Phelan said that if the property is rezoned to R-6 staff feels that it is more
compatible; it meets the minimum lot size requirements of the R-6 zone district
rather than the R-15. This property is part of the original town site and is within
walking distance of the Core.
Phelan said that staff feels that this complies with the land use code, it meets the
elements of the AACP, it's compatible with the surrounding land uses, it will not
make a traffic generation issues since a duplex is already there and that's the
maximum density permitted on that site and it would not adversely affect the
natural environment. Staff recommends the application be permitted in a
recommendation from R-15 to R-6 be granted. Phelan entered a map into the
record as Exhibit D and goes over lot sizes and what's on the property.
Jasmine Tygre said the P&Z in the past had taken a stand that these non-
conformities were likely to eventually go away and that would be a good thing but
there is no official policy. Tygre asked if there was an official policy on the
benefits of eliminating non-conformities. Phelan replied no; there is a big
difference between having a grandfathered something versus a lot that has a non-
conforming with regard to density; if you look at the neighborhood pattern where
you have smaller lots and density the R-6 would actually fit for this property.
11
City Plannin¢ & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - February 02 2010
Tygre asked if this would actually lift the non-conformity. Phelan replied yes it
would create a conforming lot.
LJ Erspamer asked Jennifer to point out the other R-61ots in the neighborhood.
Phelan replied that the staff memo page 5 the color zone district map showed
anything in the darker yellow. Cliff Weiss asked about specific lot sizes in relation
to house sizes. Phelan replied they varied by the lot size. Michael Wampler asked
if the applicant came with the zoning change or did community development
suggest it. Phelan replied the applicant came and requested it. Stan Gibbs asked
the square footage of the current duplex. Phelan replied that she didn't know what
the current duplex was. Bert Myrin asked if the Third Street side would be the
front. Phelan replied the Third Street side would be the front. Gibbs asked if the
alleyway has not been vacated at all. Phelan replied that it has not and she would
check on the unimproved portion of that alleyway. Gibbs asked if anything that
was built closer to the alleyway would have an alleyway address. Phelan answered
no it would have a Third Street Address. Weiss asked the lot width difference
between R-15 and R-6. Phelan responded that it currently doesn't matter because
for R-15 it would be considered part of the non-conformity. Wampler said
whether we approve the lot rezone or not she can still do a duplex or single family
whichever way P&Z goes. Phelan replied that was right if it stayed as R-15, the
allowable floor area, whether you do a duplex or a single family is 4,145 square
feet. Phelan said the only change is if you rezone as R-6 the floor area a single
home would have 3, 716 square feet and if you do either a duplex or 2 detached on
the lot in R-6 it would go down about 9 square feet to 4,136 square feet. Gibbs
said they were not asking for a lot split it was a simply a rezoning. Weiss asked
the motivation was from going from one zone to another.
Suzanne Foster, applicant, stated that the motivation was they have a little boy that
is going to be 6 on Friday and when he was born they decided that they wanted to
leave the east coast and move out somewhere to have more nature. Foster said
pretty much right away they started coming out to Aspen and had been here several
years before and they love everything about Aspen. Foster said that they looked at
properties and identified this property because it had historic designation potential,
which meant that you could possibly lot split it and make two smaller masses of
the structure, one of which they would like to live in. The motivation is to have 2
smaller structures instead of having one large structure; they want a small house
and want to raise their son here. Foster said that she was okay with a half of a
duplex and if they don't get the rezoning they will build a duplex and keep half of
it and somebody else will live in the other half. Forster said it seemed more
consistent with the neighborhood since it was basically the same amount of
12
City Planning & Zoning Meeting- Minutes -February 02, 2010
building footprint; you only have so much square footage so you are just separating
it out instead of having it have to be connected. Forster said that Jennifer was
pretty clear. Foster said there was not a determination of FAR for this property yet
because there were some manmade slope questions. Foster said if they get the
maximum it's going to be about 2200 square feet per structure. Foster said that
with the R-15 zone the front yard setback was 25 feet and 10 feet rear yard and that
would impact the neighbors across the alley; so she would like to line up with that
10 foot front yard setback to get a nice streetscape for the existing Third Street
setbacks.
Cliff Weiss asked if the 2200 square feet was FAR that included basement, decks
and garage. Foster replied that the FAR for this property was about 4140 square
feet total that would be divided between the 2 structures. Forster said the little
models were pretty much to scale of what a structure might look like; either it
would be 2 separate or 1 attached. Gibbs reminded the commission that P&Z had
a very narrow scope of rezoning and it wasn't really germane at this point and P&Z
needs to decide whether this property is being rezoned according to the code.
Gibbs asked the commission to focus on the rezoning.
Stan Gibbs opened the public testimony. Jennifer Phelan said that the letters
received were Exhibit E.
Public Comments:
1. Mita Barton called Jennifer Phelan opposing the rezoning.
2. Jake Vickery, architect and consultant with the neighbors, stated that he
added a rebuttal statement that was the reason for creating the R-15 and
not undermining it for changing zoning to R-6. Vickery said it was on
the periphery of the urban growth boundary and the base of Shadow
Mountain and the R-15 was meant to be a mitigating lower density
transition zone from the higher density. Vickery said that he didn't see
any compelling reason from the public's interest to rezone this
whatsoever. Vickery said that you have to look at the ramifications in
zoning of what a person can or cannot do on that property because they
are going to have different potential impacts then what they would have
had if the zoning remained the same. Vickery said what was being
proposed there is in direct conflict with section 26.410.040, which is the
residential design standards; this section requires that each house have a
relationship to the street, a principal window, porch and a one story mass.
13
Cit Plannin & Zonin Meetin -Minutes - Februa 02 2010
3. Jordie Gerber, public, said this rezoning was only self-serving for one
person; he said the parameters of the building were the same and it
doesn't benefit the public. Gerber opposed this rezoning.
4. Paul Young, public, handed out a packet and asked that P&Z take a
minute to look it over. Stan Gibbs replied that if the City had received
this ahead of time it would have been part of the packet; he asked Paul
Young to give his testimony on it. Young said that Suzanne Foster
bought this parcel of land knowing it was zoned R-15; the opposing
neighbors and he was one of them asked only for Foster to go forward
under R-15 zoning and build what is allowable without variances,
rezoning, exc. Young said that Mr. Vickery in his 3 minutes provided
that this application as it pertains to the standards of review and the
Aspen Design Standards that this application has shortcomings and is
inconsistent with those two documents. Young reiterated that the R-15
zone is a buffer of low density between the Midland Trail and there was a
letter from the Midland Trail Board that opposes this within that path.
Young said that he supports only one structure with the front entrance
facing Third Street. Young said that simply stated 2 detached dwellings
on this small lot calls for denial of an up zone R-6.
5. David Bentley, public, lives across the alley from this proposed project
and said that there was a lot of traffic congestion.
6. Cheryl Goldenberg, public, stated she lived at 430 West Hopkins that
they have an R-6 lot with a duplex on it and it went through the Historic
Preservation which Mrs. Foster wanted a lot of things that the rest of the
neighborhood didn't have and Goldenberg wanted a guarantee that all the
exceptions that go with this property would go with all the other R-6
properties.
7. Steve Goldenberg, public, stated that they live in a duplex and it has been
lived in by locals for 25 years. Goldenberg said he didn't like the way
the process was working and said the closest neighbors that were most
impacted were against this rezoning; he was opposed to the up-zoning.
8. Angela Young, public, stated that she lived at 413 West Hopkins and the
community development department with HPC has worked with Mrs.
Foster tirelessly for over a year for a menu of options and special
considerations. Young said at the end of that process it is still was not
enough and despite the pleas of all of the neighbors and City Council for
her to compromise; she chose not to. Young said she is now back asking
for a rezone to get the same special considerations; this rezone absolutely
benefits no one but Mrs. Foster. Mrs. Young asked that P&Z deny this
application for an up-zone.
14
CityPlannin~ & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -February 02, 2010
Stan Gibbs closed the public hearing. Jennifer Phelan clarified this property is
allowed to have 2 dwelling units on it; the biggest difference is whether it's
attached or whether it's detached. Phelan said the density is not being up-zoned to
do a high density and if you are technical about it the floor area is less in R-6 than
in R-15.
Jennifer Phelan said that with regards to special considerations for an applicant if
Ms. Foster was developing this property at R-15 or R-6 and did not want to meet
the required yard setbacks her option is to go to a public hearing before the Board
of Adjustment and request a dimensional variance in the minimum setbacks that's
available to any property in the City of Aspen.
Jim DeFrancia said that he hears what Jennifer is saying that you can build 2
dwelling units and the rest of the neighborhood is R-15 he asked what's the public
benefit in changing to R-6. Phelan responded that right across the street is R-6;
across from the applicant on Third Street. DeFrancia asked if the R-6 zone gave
more flexibility. Phelan replied that you can have 2 detached units rather than 2
attached units and the setback was 10 feet between the two buildings so you could
actually break up the mass.
Cliff Weiss said that he was confused by some of the public comments. Weiss said
that the minimum rear yard setback was 10 foot, no change between the 2 zones so
the applicant was not asking for a variance when it comes against the Midland
Trail or that buffer. Phelan said that she spoke to the Parks Department because of
the rezoning and because of the Midland Trail; when she explained that the
setbacks were the same Parks had no comments on it. Weiss said that the FAR
really doesn't change and if anything there is 10 less square feet; this was really all
about giving her a little flexibility to have 2 detached units. Phelan said they were
similar zone districts so staff didn't have strong feelings of recommending denial
and the break- up of the mass was a better option. Weiss said there were just a
couple pockets of this R-15 left. Phelan said that there were a couple of pockets
and none meet the minimum lot size for being an R-15 zoned lot.
Bert Myrin asked if the green space on the map on page 5 was parks. Phelan
responded that it was City owned property.
Jim DeFrancia asked if this was just a rezoning request; he asked could the owner
of the property not submit a rezoning request concurrent with a specific
development plan. Phelan said they were not required to. DeFrancia said that they
15
Cit Plannin & Zonin Meetin -Minutes - Februa 02 2010
could, which would address in detail some of the concerns that have been
expressed.
MOTION: L.I Erspamer moved to extend the meeting to 7: I Spm; Brian Speck
seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
Mike Wampler thanked the public for coming and it shows that you are passionate
about your neighborhood; he said the fact that you got signatures speaks volumes.
Wampler said that every time P&Z get hit with something like this there is some
kind of motive by the applicant and he said he was going to listen to the public and
this just doesn't pass the test for him.
Jasmine Tygre asked if the rezoning went through would the applicant then have to
go through any other further review processes to develop the property. Phelan
said that they would need to submit a building permit application; there has been
some discussion on the site if there are natural steep slopes or manmade slopes on
the property there could be a reduction in floor area but the setbacks would be the
same.
DeFrancia said that he was somewhere in Mike's camp and he didn't care to
speculate on either the applicant's motivations or what might occur in the rezoning
but there has been ample expression of concern about the character of the
development that might occur and it seems that all parties would be better satisfied
if a rezoning request were accompanied with a specific development plan.
Bert Myrin said the resolution required code standards and the final whereas was
that it was consistent with the AACP. Myrin says the current AACP says the
government needs some improvement and that seems pretty clear that the
relationship is not there and he probably will not vote for the approval.
LJ Erspamer asked if duplexes could be split up. Phelan replied that duplexes were
required to have a common wall of a certain length above grade. Erspamer
thanked the applicant and respected the neighbors for coming forth. Erspamer said
as Stan said this was only one thing to look at which was a zoning review and he
wasn't sure of the character of the neighborhood. Erspamer asked if this is denied
and recommended by community development do we have to site a specific ruling
why we vote against it. Jim True replied no, it was discretionary action on your
part. True said that it was non-conforming property and she's asking that it be
rezoned to the conforming zone district. Erspamer asked if there were other non-
conforming lots. Phelan replied there were non-conforming.
16
Cit,~ Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -February 02, 2010
Jasmine Tygre said that she didn't know why the density kept coming up when the
density did not change.
Weiss asked what was going on with the manmade versus natural slope. Jennifer
Phelan said the allowable floor area would be reduced if steep slopes are present.
The determination of whether the property contains steep slopes period and if they
are natural or manmade has not been determined; so included in the packet is the
maximum allowable floor area if it was a completely flat property and the 25%
reduction if there were lots of steep slopes on it.
Cliff Weiss said it was odd to him that this has come to P&Z and there's this major
grey area if it's manmade or not and exactly what can be developed and yet P&Z
has to determine whether or not it can be rezoned. Weiss said that this is a whole
new element that he is perplexed by that that determination hasn't been specific to
this particular lot and here P&Z was looking at a rezoning; he said that the cart and
the horse got a little mixed. Phelan replied that determination of steep slopes was
submitted and handled at building permit; that's when staff looks at the surveying
information, maybe geotechnical information; so what you are looking at is what
can be the maximum density on this property, which whether it is R-15 or R-6 are
two dwelling units and then again the maximum floor area that would be permitted
on this property. Phelan said you know the maximum and it could potentially be
less.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to recommend to City Council that the
application for 217/219 S Third Street be denied with direction to the applicant to
consider resubmission for rezoning concurrent with submission of a specific
development plan that would address the expressed concerns; seconded by Bert
Myrin. Roll call vote: Erspamer, yes; Wampler, yes; Speck, yes; Weiss, yes;
Myrin, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Gibbs, no. Motion to deny the recommendation to
City Council was approved 6-1.
Discussion of the above motion prior to vote: Cliff Weiss said that a rejection
means that they cannot reapply. Jennifer Phelan said that this was a
recommendation to City Council. Bert Myrin said that R-15 was sort of the
periphery of the city limits and why not zone all these properties R-6. Jennifer
Phelan replied sure but the periphery 100 years ago and 2010 still make the
argument that this is in walking distance to the urban core and the original town
site and the lots may not have been appropriately zoned at the time they were
zoned. Bert Myrin asked if there should be one zone. Jennifer Phelan replied that
17
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -February 02 2010
R-15 on Cemetery Lane with 15,000 square foot lots was quite appropriate but
when you are talking about no minimum lot size in an R-15 zone district and look
at the surrounding density there might have been a problem when they originally
zoned this property. LJ Erspamer asked a procedural question you would link this
with a building application. Jim DeFrancia said a development application. LJ
Erspamer asked if that was appropriate for P&Z to do. Jim True responded that it
was a recommendation. Cliff Weiss said the neighborhood was organized up in
arms and it was the unknown that everyone is afraid of and he would weigh in
behind Jim on his motion.
Suzanne Foster asked if there was a plan then P&Z would approve the R-6 zone.
Cliff Weiss replied that there would be less neighborhood objection; it is the
unknown that's bothering everyone. Jim DeFrancia said that Cliff has stated it
correctly; he thought it was the issue of the unknown.
Bert Myrin asked if there was a process to track things that there were issues like
this and set a calendar to address them.
Adjourned at 7:15 pm.
ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
18