Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20110201 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 01, 2011 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 3 BMC Rezoning — recommend to rezone 37925 Hwy 82 Part of an annexation Application 3 Misc Code Amendment — historic lot split 5 1 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 01, 2011 Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting Tuesday February 01, 2011 to order. P &Z members excused were Jasmine Tygre and Michael Wampler. P &Z Commissioners in attendance were Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin, LJ Erspamer, Jim DeFrancia and Stan Gibbs. Staff in attendance Jim True, Special City Counsel; Chris Bendon, Community Development Director; Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservationist; Barry Crook, Manager's Department; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments: Chris Bendon spoke about the meeting with ACRA concerning the Community Plan and he said it was a really good meeting; he said that ACRA was disappointed in the plan not representing them enough. Bendon said that ACRA needs to find their voice for the community. Jim DeFrancia said that ACRA wanted to make sure that businesses were important and they didn't come across as negative or discouraging. DeFrancia said that ACRA voiced concern for the detailed specificity that could be constraining their view and it being more of a policy guiding document than a regulation document. Stan Gibbs stated that Stage III was before P &Z so they couldn't take public comment on that issue unless it is a publically noticed meeting. Jim Smith said that he wanted to get this done this year. Chris Bendon said that they have been talking about scheduling of other cases and the progress that they have on those applications. Chris Bendon stated that Ben Gagnon is leaving the City and will be doing some consulting work for the AACP. Jackie Lothian reminded the Commissioners that there was a special meeting next Tuesday, February 8 at the Library. MINUTES MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve the minutes of December 14 seconded by Bert Myrin. All in favor APPROVED. MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to approve the minutes of January 4` joint with HPC with the change on page 17 last paragraph to" Stan Gibbs did not want to elect the Chair and Vice -chair with only 4 members present; he postponed this action until the next regular P &Z Meeting "; seconded by Bert Myrin. All in favor, APPROVED. 2 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 01, 2011 Declarations of Conflicts of Interest None stated. PUBLIC HEARING: BMC Rezoning, recommendation to rezone 37925 Hwy 82 as part of an annexation application Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing on BMC rezoning recommendation as part of an annexation application. Chris Bendon said that we haven't done one of these in a few years; it is a legislative review that City Council does. Bendon said within 90 days of annexation into the city the city needs to provide the property with zoning; assigned to a zone district which is this commission's review tonight. Bendon distributed a map of the property to give a closer view of the large map that Chris Bendon had on display; the property was highlighted with orange and part of the property was along highway 82 and the airport to the west, the AABC, Annie Mitchell Affordable Housing and along the slope of Deer Hill to the east and south of the property. Bendon stated the property is known as BMC; it is actually Harbert Lumber now, a lumber yard and hardware store. If the City Council does annex the property Community Development would like to get a recommendation on the proper zoning for it; the closest zone district we have is SCI, Service /Commercial /Industrial; it allows for a lumber yard, it allows for a hardware store, it allows for a range of service and industrial uses that you would expect to see on a property like this. Bendon noted the property is 2 ''A acres so it is much Larger than a typical town site property so if you apply SCI zoning and apply the 2 to 1 FAR you would have an enormous potential for development; that would be inappropriate for this site. Bendon said staff was recommending SCI with a PUD Overlay; the PUD would essentially have the effect of freezing everything in place dimension wise; the existing building, the existing floor area, parking ratios would be what exists there today. Bendon said if there was an expansion of the existing uses or similar use within the SCI P &Z and Council would see it as a PUD Amendment. Bendon said it is expected at some point the city will want to redevelop this site as affordable housing, potentially a mixed use; you probably wouldn't see anything in the 3 -5 year timeframe; if the city does pursue it. Cliff Weiss asked how annexing the property accomplishes freezing. Bendon responded annexation doesn't do anything to freezing the property; the city has a responsibility to assign a zone district to it. Bendon said in addition to recommending it be rezoned SCI that it also have a PUD applied to it. The city as owner would have to come before P &Z and Council to talk about any changes to 3 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 01, 2011 the dimensions to the project are proposed in the future. LJ Erspamer asked if freeze the dimensions meant the building or the property lines; what dimensions are you freezing. Chris Bendon responded that the building, the floor area, the setbacks, the parking, the height and the property lines; nothing can change on this. Bendon said that there were 2 lots; there was a site improvement survey attached to the resolution. Erspamer asked if this was annexed was there anything to prevent the city from trading this property. Bendon replied there might be some limits because it is a city ownership that would require a vote. Jim True stated there were various obligations that the city would have to go through. Erspamer asked what the ABC was zoned. Bendon replied the County zoning was B -2 which would allow for a wide variety of uses. Bert Myrin asked if the city has the responsibility to collect property tax and is there an estimate of property taxes that the city collected. Bendon responded there wouldn't be a property tax; there would be a sales tax. Jim True said that annexation would affect the receipt of the sales tax because it would move it to the city. Bendon said the question before P &Z is not whether the city should annex the property; the question is what zone district should it be in if the city annexes the property. Stan Gibbs said that taxes collected were not part of the P &Z review. Myrin asked if it could be zoned as an AH PUD. Bendon replied it could be but it would be creating a non - conforming use. Myrin asked if it could continue in operation if they did that. Bendon answered it could. Myrin asked the downside to that. Bendon replied that it takes a little bit of a leap of faith and if we are all certain that is the appropriate zone district, then it would be fine; it is a little awkward to create a non - conforming use but you can do that through your resolution and then the City Council would just recognize the non - conforming use. Bendon said that we try to zone for what they currently are and not what they may be in the future. Myrin asked if the electric could be changed over like it was done at Burlingame. Bendon responded that he preferred it was done as a separate motion because you can't do rezoning with conditions. Myrin asked why do this now rather than down the road when all this comes up. Bendon said there was no applicant here to respond to that. Bendon said that if Council annexes this property it needs to be zoned within 90 days. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager, came from Council Chambers and stated that the City owns the property, it is currently generating retail sales and the City would like the sales tax into city coffers so why not annex the property and receive the benefit of the sales tax. Crook said eventually they will file a development application. Crook said the sales taxes were a couple of hundred thousand a year and currently they are receiving a small amount of use tax on materials bought in from another site. 4 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 01, 2011 Cliff Weiss said within the Aspen Area Community Plan there was a lot of conversation about SCI and loss of local business; we know this property is going to have multiuse with potential affordable housing and he would like to see the potential for SCI businesses there. Public Comments: 1. Toni Kronberg asked if this will include a transportation overlay. Bendon replied no. Kronberg spoke of the access points being reviewed by the county and the expansion of the airport and the entrance to Aspen starting at the airport and the gondola (Aspen aerial). Stan Gibbs closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to adopt Resolution 001, series 2011 BMC Rezoning recommendation; seconded by L. Erspamer. Roll call Myrin, yes; Weiss, yes; Erspamer, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Gibbs, yes. All in favor, APPROVED. PUBLIC HEARING: Misc. Code Amendments — Historic Lot Split Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing on miscellaneous code amendments, historic lot split. Amy Guthrie said the amendments were to the municipal code. Guthrie said this was related to historic lot splits; the city has had developed the historic preservation program since the 70s and in the 80s it included special benefits to landmarked sites. Guthrie said in the 90s the idea of allowing subdivision to allow separate ownership of the additional units was proposed. Guthrie stated there have been about 20 historic lot splits since the idea was adopted and there are about 2,000 parcels in Aspen with 300 designated parcels. This is a relatively small group of landmarks that are affected or interested in this kind of incentive but it seems to be successful in many cases to move additional developmental right off the historic building and move to a separate detached e structure. To remove language that requires the purpose of the lot split for the creation of a new single family home. Staff estimated there were about 6 lots in the Mixed Use Zone District that are possible candidates. Guthrie said they were proposing to allow the lot split in the C -1 Zone District, which is a relatively small zone district to the east and there were 4 historic properties; there would be more opportunities to create detached structures and separating ownership that HPC has found successful for preserving small buildings; the properties that might want to pursue this are all smaller miners cottages. Guthrie said that HPC unanimously 5 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 01, 2011 was in support and they were looking for a recommendation from P &Z and then this will go onto City Council. Cliff Weiss wanted to make sure that this targets the Main Street area only and cannot wander its way around to other zones. Guthrie replied that the subdivision section has standards for lot splits that says a lot split can only be for the purpose of creating a single family house and that would apply to any zone district where it is ever allowed. Weiss said he was afraid that mixed use could spread. Chris Bendon stated that Mixed Use was the entirety of Main Street west of the Jerome. Bendon said looking at the map there is the Commercial Core and then the C -1 and the next block is mixed use but he didn't think that there were any historic properties in that zone. Weiss asked if churches fall into mixed use. Bendon replied most of the churches were zoned residential; they tend to follow the zone that is around them. Guthrie said that there was nothing in the proposed amendment that is intended to change the allowed uses anywhere or the FAR, the density or anything about current development rights. Guthrie said it was more separation of ownership perhaps returning a property to a smaller lot size. LJ Erspamer asked if this would create further mass and scale or density. Guthrie no, it is not changing in what already can be built on a property, it simply allows someone who has 2 units on a site to split off and sell 1 of the 2 units. Erspamer asked what is the biggest size you can split the lot into. Guthrie responded the minimum lot size will be 3,000 in any of the zone districts; it is 6,000 in most of the residential zones to split it into 2 3,000 lots. Guthrie said that they would like to stick to the historical lot line splits but this will be discussed on a case by case basis. Erspamer asked if we were missing something here or are you pretty confident that we won't have a nightmare. Guthrie answered this code amendment isn't going to approve any specific project; it is a nightmare already on historic sites when you have a small cottage that is 600 to 700 square feet and you have the opportunity to add 4,000 square feet to it; staff was trying to find strategies to give people a sensitive additions and the lot split could help with that. Weiss said he had concerns about the C -1 Zone District with the 4 properties; those were tiny lots where Susie's is. Guthrie stated that there was no proposal and she guessed that those two lots were as they are now with 2 separate lots. Myrin said the historic task force had concerns about overdeveloping historic properties. Guthrie responded that some people think ever since the lot split began it creates more development or targets historic to re- develop and it was very generalized. 6 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 01, 2011 Public Comments: 1. Toni Kronberg had concerns about this because these were the last 3 remaining houses as cabins. Kronberg said that we were destroying the site in order to save the building as in the Given Institute. Kronberg said that Adam Walton's property has already lost its historical value from the back of it; it has been turned into a construction site. Stan Gibbs closed the public comments section of the hearing. Cliff Weiss asked what the C -1 FAR was right now. LJ Erspamer responded 2 '/z to 1 and for commercial 1 '/z to 1. Guthrie responded that we can't give you an exact number because the applicant will have choices of how they are going to combine and the lot split is just an additional one of those choices. Gibbs said that the only issues were places today you would have a delta between what you could do with the underlying zoning and what you could be allowed to create something and only be allowed to build a single family dwelling; with this change you would be able to build a Mixed Use Building. Gibbs said there were only a few places that would allow that change. Jim True said it was his understanding that a historic property in the C -1 Zone District has development rights that allows it to build additional massing on the property; it could do it now. True said that it could be rented or condominiumized so all this does is give up the ability to lot split; there is no difference in development; condominiumization from a legal ownership standpoint has to same legal effect as a lot split. Weiss said he wanted to back up; they had a conversation here where there is nothing related to FAR but there were a lot of grey areas that there could be a change in development. Jim True said only to the extent that garages are allowed but those development rights aren't increased here. Weiss asked about landing TDRs. Bendon replied that you can't land TDRs because they are historic. Jim DeFrancia said this was creating another possible use on the property in terms and it doesn't assure or guarantee that anything will happen; you still have to come through the process. Bert Myrin asked what would be allowed on the property on Main Street across from the Hickory House with these changes. Guthrie replied this was one more of the choices the property owners had to make. Bendon said keep in mind in doesn't necessarily change the underlying rights. 7 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 01, 2011 LJ Erspamer asked if anyone did not want to do it in the C -1 district. Stan Gibbs said that we don't have a motion yet so if someone wants to make a motion. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved Resolution #2 amending City Council certain amendments to the municipal code with the development rights not changing; seconded by LJ Erspamer. Roll call vote: Weiss, no; Myrin, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Erspamer, yes; Gibbs, yes. APPROVED 4 -1. Discussion prior to the vote: Stan Gibbs said from my perspective this accomplishes what was intended; more flexibility to owners of properties and potentially preserves the historic properties better. Gibbs said over development or abuses have to be reserved until the properties show up in front of a commission review. Cliff Weiss said that he could vote for half of this and if it is not separated then he will vote no. Myrin said that he would clarify that the development right don't change; that would be his recommendation to Council that the development rights don't change. MOTION: Cliff Weiss would amend that the mixed use purpose of creating a new single family home that would be separate to extend the lot split from the C -1 (striking Section 1 #4a); Bert Myrin seconded. Roll call: DeFrancia, no; Erspamer, no; Myrin, yes; Weiss, yes; Gibbs, no. DENIED 3 -2. Discussion on amendment made by Cliff Weiss. Cliff Weiss the resolution as it is written encompasses all of the C -1 Zone District and views that as dangerous; he doesn't mind Main Street but doesn't like C -1 as a whole. Approintment of chair and vice chair MOTION: Jim DeFrancia nominated the present slate and to approve Resolution #3, Stan Gibbs — chair; LJ Erspamer — vice chair; seconded by Bert Myrin; Chair 3 votes for Stan Gibbs; 1 vote for LJ Erspamer; 1 vote for Bert Myrin. MOTION: Bert Myrin nominated the same thing in reverse LJ Erspamer — chair; Stan Gibbs — vice chair; LJ Erspamer seconded; Vice chair 1 for vote Stan Gibbs; LJ Erspamer 4 votes. Adjourned at 6:40 pm G� ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 8