Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20110315 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 15, 2011 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 217/219 S Third, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map 2 404 Park 414 Park Circle, Final Planned Unit Development 8 1 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 15, 2011 Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting, Tuesday, March 15, 2011 to order at 4:34 in Sister Cities meeting Room. P &Z member excused was Jasmine Tygre and Jim DeFrancia. P &Z Commissioners in attendance were Michael Wampler, Bert Myrin, LJ Erspamer and Stan Gibbs. Cliff Weiss arrived at 5:45. Staff in attendance Jim True, Special City Counsel; Sara Adams, Community Development; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Bert Myrin thanked Jackie for scanning the enormous packet. Myrin said that he was working on a memo for the 29 MINUTES MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes of March fit seconded by LJ Erspamer. All in favor APPROVED. Declarations of Conflicts of Interest None stated. PUBLIC HEARING: 217/219 South Third, Amendment to the Official Zone District Map Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing on 217/219 South Third, amendment to the official zone district map. Notice was provided. Jennifer Phelan said that she would provide an overview of the application, the commission can ask questions and the applicant has a chance to provide an overview, the commission can ask questions then the hearing will be open to the public. Phelan said the applicant was requesting rezoning of the property from Moderate Density R -15 to Medium Density Residential R -6. Currently the property contains a legally established duplex. Phelan said this isn't the first time that we have been here on this property; the process is the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to City Council and the Council is the final decision on this request to rezone the property. Phelan noted on February 22, 2010 the Planning & Zoning Commission heard the same request to rezone the property from R -15 to R- 6 and they made a recommendation of denial but in that resolution they made a recommendation of resubmitting for rezoning concurrent with a site specific development plan that would address the concerns of the neighbors. The applicant has since that hearing submitted schematic developments of that site both as a property zoned R -15 and R -6, Exhibit G in the packet, page 23 shows after demolition of the existing structure the duplex and the carriage house. Also 2 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 15, 2011 submitted is Exhibit H in the packet 60 showing 2 detached single family homes on the site. Phelan said the applicant was only seeking a recommendation for rezoning. Phelan said the scope of review for rezoning; the commission has adopted criteria in the land use code, Exhibit A, page 11 in the packet; the compatibility of surrounding zone districts; are there changed conditions within the neighborhood. Phelan said there was adopted criteria to be considered also in the memo is a comparison of the permitted uses under R -15 versus if it were R -6; it also includes dimensional requirements on the height allowed under either zone district, minimum setback from property lines; to assist and understand the differences between the R -15 and the R -6 zone district. This is not a venue to debate specifics of whether floor area is reduced by steep slopes or to which schematics meet site coverage requirements; this is the big picture what could happen in this project not the debatable issues. Is the schematic right with the floor area or a setback or lot coverage because those issues are reviewed and approved or disapproved at building permit. That all gets approved at building permit. Phelan said she would talk about three things: comparison of the uses in the zone district; dimensional standards of R -15 versus R -6; the schematics that were provided and end up with a recommendation to the commission. Page 3 of the staff memo is a table comparing R -15 and R -6; the permitted uses are identical and residential; conditional uses are identical except Agricultural uses in the R -15 zone district. Phelan said the subject lot is a 9,942 square foot lot with a legally established but non - conforming structure on it; currently in R -15 the lot size is too small to have a duplex on it but since it was legally established it is allowed to stay. Also currently under the R -15 zoning, if this duplex was demolished the applicant has the right within a year of demolishing the building to replace the duplex but on a single family home floor area. The difference on an R -6 lot the minimum lot size would be met at 6,000 square feet for a single family home; you need 9,000 square feet for a duplex or you could do two detached residences on an R -6 lot. In either zone district you can build an accessory dwelling unit. Phelan noted on page 5 there was a table that talks about the comparison of building either a duplex or 2 detached residences on an R -15 or an R -6 lot. If there are steep slopes on this property the floor area is decreased by 25. Phelan said the applicant is proposing a private deed restriction to prohibit the development of an ADU or Carriage House. This is a private deal so the City does not want to get 3 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 15, 2011 involved in the deed restriction. Phelan said the neighborhood is a mix of single family, duplex and multi - family units and a lodge across the street from the subject property. The property across the street is zoned R -6 and there was a map on page 6 showing the different zone districts. The purpose statement for the R -6 zone district states that lands are generally limited to the original Aspen town site, which this is in; contains predominately detached and duplex residences, would only be allowed if this was rezoned and that it is within walking distance to the downtown core. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning; the rezoning would create a conforming lot. LJ Erspamer asked the maximum floor area on page 5. Jennifer Phelan replied that was the maximum and was based on the lot size included. Phelan said that you could land a TDR on the property, which would be an extra 250 square feet; the floor area is a net not a gross number because a lot of basement space is exempted. Erspamer asked if this was in a subdivision. Phelan replied no it is part of the original town site. Erspamer asked if R -15 was made to be a buffer between the mountain and the rest of the community. Phelan answered the zoning was pretty loose and you would see a lot of development and multi - family in this neighborhood so that the property was down zoned to prohibit the multi - family development to continue. Erspamer asked if they were spot zoning this property. Phelan replied they were not spot zoning this property; there is R -6 across the street and you would be creating a conforming lot. Bert Myrin asked if page 11 and 12 were the only 2 pages with the criteria to rely on. Phelan said that was the criteria and you need to make those decisions on the character of the neighborhood. Myrin said there was no recommendation of a lot split or discussion of one; is there any reason we wouldn't recommend a lot split to Council. Phelan replied they wouldn't be able to as R -6 because it is not a historical lot at 6.000 square feet per lot in that zone district. Suzanne Foster, applicant/owner, showed comparisons for R -15 and R -6 and the building department told her that what she has is a realistic build out for R -15 property. Jennifer Phelan said that all of the drawings appear to be exhibits in the packet; Exhibits G, H and I. Suzanne Foster replied they were all exhibits in the packet. Foster said the goal was to separate the mass on the property. Foster read the article about the Boomerang from the newspaper. Foster said that they share the goal in keeping the buildings smaller. Foster said under R -15 zoning we planned to build a 1200 square foot affordable housing, Carriage House, and they will receive a 600 square foot bonus for that; they have hired architects that show the carriage house and the reconstructed duplex. The addition of the carriage 4 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 15, 2011 house under R -15 accomplishes 3 very important goals: it mitigates for affordable housing; it fulfills the 10% detached mass requirement and they get a 600 square foot free - market bonus. Foster said if R -6 zoning is achieved there will be a net reduction of 10 feet of FAR, in addition we have stipulated that the land would carry a deed restriction for no carriage house and a deed restriction limiting building height in the rear of the building. There are plans to build a detached duplex with a minimum of 10 feet between the structures and this accomplishes these goals: a reduction of 1810 square feet for the parcel, 25 feet of open space between the neighbors house and shadow mountain, it fulfills the 10% detached mass requirement and it brings the parcel permanently into conformity. Foster distributed exhibits. Phelan said they were Exhibits M 1 -6. Forster addressed the Young's letter and Jake Vickery's letter. Forster said that the Young's have given the neighbors information based on their opinions and interpretations of the code in a way that has swayed them to voice opposition to the zoning change. In Exhibit 3B the 2 petitions that basically says is "opposition to the increased development of 2 separate homes, the reduced front yard setback, and increased impacts on the dead end alley and the Midland Trail ". From the plans submitted under R -6 they would accomplish the following goals: it would have the same side yard setbacks as R -15 but with less density and smaller structures; it would have a significantly decreased impact on the Midland Trail. R- 6 would decrease the developmental impact of one large duplex and one carriage house by creating 2 smaller structures and maintain a unified streetscape. R -6 rezoning actually supports all of the goals this petition wants to achieve. LJ Erspamer asked if Ms. Foster would memorialize this. Suzanne Foster replied yes, prior to going to City Council the attorney's would draft out a deed restriction. Foster said the answer would be no. Erspamer asked who owned the alley right -of- way. Foster replied the City owns it. Public Comments: 1. Jake Vickery, architect, said he was working with the Young's. This issue came through about a year ago with extensive public input, deliberation, presentation of facts, and the board voted 6 -1 for denial to City Council. Vickery said what has changed is that the applicant has done a lot of work and come forward with very nice drawings and are encouraged by that and would like to move this along to a positive. Vickery said the applicant is gaining significant value by being able to do 2 detached units. Vickery said they would like the applicant to increase the alley setback to 20 feet and add 5 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 15, 2011 some landscaping. Vickery said there has to be some public benefit to do the rezone. 2. Cheryl Goldenberg said they have a wonderful neighborhood and wanted to support the Young's and if they think this is better but she said that she was tired of developers coming into our neighborhood and wanting to change the zoning. Cheryl Goldenberg said she didn't want any zoning changes. 3. Angela Young said she lived at 413 West Hopkins and just as a procedural thing she was asked by 3 neighbors Scott Stewart, Rusty Scott and Tammie Scott, they were not procedurally noticed and they would have been here with their opposition had they been noticed. Angela Young said that it was not the neighbor's responsibility to provide a more profitable development project to Mrs. Foster. Young said the increased development with 2 separate construction times and the major concerns are the alley setback and rear yard setback. Young said at the last City Council meeting Mayor Ireland begged her to compromise with the neighbors and she was unwavering in her refusal to do so. 4. Steve Goldenberg said it was very important that these sketches be memorialized otherwise the zoning should remain. 5. Jody Edwards stated that he represented John Staten who couldn't be here tonight. Edwards said it was denied last time because of unknowns; this time you have some pretty pictures but you still have unknowns. The borings have not been done to where there are steep slopes. There has never been any public outreach with regards to the rezoning application. Edwards read from the court order page 251 in the Weinerstube case. Edwards said for those reasons we request you deny the application. 6. David Bentley said there is never 1 car per bedroom; this is the shadiest part of town and the snow is hard to remove. Bentley said don't change the zoning. 7. Peter Thomas said that he was counsel for the applicant Suzanne Foster; he was encouraged by Mr. Vickery's comments. Thomas said that they will have a reach out to the neighbors and it is important to understand that a site specific development plan has no place in a rezoning. Thomas said your discretion is constrained by what the code tells you have to consider and what you have to consider is what Jennifer pointed out on page 11 and 12 the code standards; it talks about making sure this patchwork of zoning that we have here is consistent and provides for orderly development with the code. This is really a simple application to create conformity. 8. Tita McCarthy said that she lived across Third Street and asked Mr. True to speak to this voluntary deed restriction. McCarthy asked if Mrs. Foster sold the property would this deed restriction hold in perpetuity. Jim True replied 6 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 15, 2011 that it was difficult to give legal opinions in this kind of context; staff does not recommend the City's participation in this proposed deed restriction; from a general standpoint an owner of a property can in perpetuity restrict their own property to this type of action. True said it wasn't necessarily appropriate to consider in a rezoning application. 9. Paul Young stated that he and his family lived at 401 East Hopkins directly across the alley from Mrs. Foster's land. Young said after the last P &Z meeting he felt like P &Z needed a better understanding as to why there is opposition to a rezone to R -6; while he disagreed with some of the things that he heard the R -15 was established to provide a buffer and a transition zone between the R -6 and the Midland Trail and the Shadow Mountain. To rezone the applicant's property is in direct conflict with the logic of our founding fathers; in the R -15 block the applicant's property is the only one that abuts the Midland Trail. Young suggested the setback to the alley and a sidewalk in the alley to the Third Street as it pertains to Unit B since it has an alley entrance. Stan Gibbs closed the public comments section of the hearing and opened the commissioner comments portion. Bert Myrin said that he has gone back to the land use code 26.104.020 talks about the purpose of the code. Myrin said his view was R -15 provides a transitional buffer between the R -6 and the edge of Shadow Mountain. Myrin said that he can't imagine trying to sell a property and have no idea what the zoning is going to be around it or as a property owner not being able to rely on the zoning around it. So he said he can't support the rezoning for those reasons. LJ Erspamer said the presentation was very thorough and detailed. Erspamer said that he was not in favor of changing the zoning however there may be some ideas from the public; there is symmetry of the zoning however it is a difficult lot. Erspamer asked Jim True if we can leave the zoning the same yet approve the setbacks. Jim True replied that you couldn't because this was a rezoning application; it is not a site specific development plan. Michael Wampler said he looked at this as a common sense point of view; this was a rezoning application. Wampler said that he had no problem with the zoning change. Stan Gibbs said that he voted no the last time but he believed this was an appropriate zoning and he said that he believed to make lots conforming in the city. 7 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 15, 2011 Gibbs said that he believed that R -6 would allow less development in the neighborhood and less coverage and it was consistent with the neighborhood. Gibbs said he didn't believe that it was part of a buffer area to the city; this neighborhood is sufficiently mixed up that we could go one way or the other. Gibbs said that he was going to vote for this rezoning. Gibbs said making something conforming was a good principal to uphold. MOTION: Michael Wampler moved to approve Resolution #008 -1 1 recommending the property commonly known as 217/291 South Third Street is rezoned from R -15 to R -6; seconded by Stan Gibbs. Roll call vote: Myrin, no; Erspamer, no; Wampler, yes; Gibbs, yes. No action 2 -2. Discussion prior to the vote: Erspamer proposed an amendment to the setback. Jim True responded that he did not think that was correct on a zoning change. Erspamer summarized that he could vote and liked what the public said about the 20 foot setback and the Unit B side memorialized and the public outreach. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Aspen Walk 404 Park/414 Park Circle Final PUD Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing on 404 Park 414 Park Circle. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to extend the meeting until 7:30; seconded by LJ Erspamer. APPROVED 3 -1 (Wampler, no). Sara Adams said this was the Aspen Walk Proposal for Park Avenue and 414 Park Circle; P &Z is asked to make a recommendation to City Council on Subdivision, final PUD Review. P &Z to review Growth Management Housing for free- market and deed restrict units and Growth Management for the development of Affordable and some Residential Design Standard Variances. Adams said the applicant went back to the drawing board and redesigned the skin of the buildings taking into account what P &Z mentioned in February; they have proposed flat roofs, added a street facing entrance for the free- market building, added where the entrance would be for the affordable housing building; added a parking space in the sub -grade garage for an affordable housing unit. Adams said French Balconies were added to all the affordable units and a detailed patio plan located at the rear. The Housing Board wanted to change the Affordable housing categories from 2 to 3; there is no change to the floor plans which means by changing the categories the size of the units net livable would be 20% under the requirement. Community Development is still concerned with the perceived mass 8 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 15, 2011 and the treatment of the building continues to read as a lodge use rather than a multi - family use and how that relates to the pedestrian scale. The lack of pathways from sidewalk to street facing entrances and one story elements were things that were required for multi - family buildings and aren't met in this proposal. Adams read one of the design statements that it was important not to close off the use of the front door of the house and living space; one story entryways provide an appropriate domestic scale for a private residence. And recognizing this as multi- family staff feels there could be a few more elements to comply with that purpose statement. Adams pointed out that the garden level housing unit that faces the street has windows and a sliding glass door but there is no walkway to the unit to make the affordable housing building a little more pedestrian friendly, a little more welcoming to meet that purpose statement in the design standards. The code requirement is to provide 7 street orientated entrances; right now there are 4 proposed entrance all on the free - market building and staff thinks the applicant could provide 2 more entrances one for the affordable housing and one for the free - market building. Adams said that would have a huge positive impact on the neighborhood, pedestrian scale, the streetscape and bring the project into closer compliance with the design standards and PUD criteria. Adams said the parking does exceed the code requirements but they want to know where the accessible spaces were located. Council had included the electric cars in the conceptual PUD but the Housing Board had an extensive discussion about the electric cars and they were concerned about the burden on the HOA with maintenance and how taking up 2 parking spaces would impact their HOA dues. Staff is recommending the electric car provision be eliminated from the Resolution. Adams stated raising the Categories from 2 to 3 creates sub - standard size units that the housing board can vary up to the 20% that the units are under. Staff was still concerned about the substandard unit sizes and the limited outdoor space. They think the applicant did a great job making the outdoor space seem much more exciting and usable but there is still limited outdoor space and the statement does not meet the AACP "that housing should emphasize quality construction and design even though it increases cost and lessens production and the AACP policy to promote a high quality of site planning and architecture to enhance the character and charm of Aspen." Adams said they recognize the benefit affordable housing provides to the community and the benefit that APCHA sees in gaining some new housing units as part of this development. 9 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 15, 2011 Michael Wampler asked Sara to explain one story element. Adams responded that it was essentially an architectural projection that is one story of height so you can relate to it as a pedestrian. Cliff Weiss said the units below grade and we talked about unit amenities and other than storage we focused on light. Adams agreed they focused on light, unit size, a space for this specific unit and access to the outdoors for this specific unit. Myrin asked to explain the change in housing categories and how that impacts changed and if they hadn't changed the categories would they meet the livability standards. Adams said that Stan will explain that. Adams said the floor plans have not changed for the Affordable Housing Building, just the categories. Stan Clauson representing the applicant utilized power point and stated what you were looking at in the center is this courtyard provided between units. Clauson said the affordable and free - market units share so many of the same features including the sub -grade units; they have worked with P &Z, APCHA and Council very hard. Council asked them to consider the electric cars and then the Transportation Department and APCHA who said that it might be a burden on the Homeowners Association. Clauson said they were under the 32 foot height limit and broke up the bulk and mass considerably and reduced the total development size. They maintained the 25 bedrooms and 17.5 off site FTEs, the total development almost 10,000 square feet less and the architecture was revised. The Housing Authority recommended the onsite units be categories 3 and 4; APCHA has experienced difficulties with Homeowners Associations as being able to afford the maintenance, the underground garage and other aspects of the building would lend itself more to a category 3 and 4 in terms of the homeowners association being able to do the maintenance. Housing asked for all the offsite units to be category 2 and none larger than 2 bedrooms. Clauson said they were prepared for the offsite unit credits would be attributable to category 2, which would satisfy what the housing authority has in mind. Clauson said the French Balconies add tremendous light and ventilation for the affordable housing units. Clauson said for the Free - Market and Affordable the sub -grade was 2 to 3 feet and as the units go around the building the garden level drops away. Clauson said the elevators were setback 15 feet and they have tried to create entrances that both meet the street. Looking at the units the second and third floors 10 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 15, 2011 were the same in each building. Clauson said the units were quite livable; the studios were 500 square feet. Tom Salmon was present from Minneapolis. Tom Salmon said the overriding theme was the private partnership with APCHA and when they came into the project was the ability to partner with APCHA and do something that allows this project to be a little different. Salmon said this project addressed one of the bigger needs of the community of bringing on line new affordable housing and taking a property that the housing authority has been redeveloped. Public Comment: 1. Cindy Houben, Sarah Garton and Judy Kohlberg were all with the Midland Park Homeowners. Cindy Houben said there was still work to be done with the landscaping and voiced concern about light because they keep their area pretty dark because they feel the night sky is important. 2. Sara Garton asked if the Elevator and stairwells would be lit all the time. Tom Salmon replied no they were planning on energy efficiency with motion detectors. Cindy Houben said quite frankly they might be worse going on and off all the time. Tom McCabe said they love the trees but trees inappropriately used can have a detrimental effect on the concrete and so the homeowners association has to go back in x number of years and make repairs to the damage done. McCabe said there was a well delineated streetscape. The parking garage adds to the expense that was why they were using category 2 for the offsite Employee units. Erspamer asked if they have already purchase the offsite credits. Clauson replied no. Erspamer asked if Club Purchasers could own free- market units; we can't dictate how people take ownership of properties, State Law. Erspamer said vacation clubs could purchase one. Erspamer asked Jennifer if there was a code for rooftop decks in the residential area. Jennifer Phelan replied there was no limitation on rooftop decks. Erspamer asked if there was a time limit of when somebody could be on that deck. Clauson replied no. Erspamer said he was sure that the homeowners will do something. Clauson said it would probably be after the homeowners form their HOA. Erspamer asked how many street parking places are you removing now because of this project. Clauson replied it was hard to say because all of the parking places are head in spaces and privatized; they are not legally privatized. Erspamer asked if there would be any guest parking. 11 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 15, 2011 Stan Gibbs asked how many affordable housing units were actually getting into this project now, onsite and offsite, the number of FTEs. Clauson replied you are getting 31.5 FTEs onsite, the code didn't measure by FTEs, and you are getting 25 bedrooms in the 12,000 square feet onsite. Clauson said offsite you are getting 17.5 FTEs, the Housing Board has asked that they be no larger than 2 bedroom units, which would be 8 to 11 units off site. MOTION: LJErspamer move to extend the meeting to 7:40 pm seconded by Michael Wampler. All in favor. Weiss said we have to continue the meeting to another date. Jennifer Phelan replied the date would be April 5 but the Lift One would take the first hour. Gibbs said that he was confused about changing a unit category but the unit size doesn't change. Tom McCabe used Burlingame as an example of units being identical but the categories would vary considerable. Weiss said he saw a lot of revised unit categories to 4 where are the 3s. Clauson replied there are no 3s. Weiss asked if the 3s were offsite. Clauson replied those were 2s offsite. Tom McCabe said that APCHA's partners were working towards a new signed APCHA agreement; they meet tomorrow night. Weiss asked to go to the north or west elevation and seeing those elevator towers it looks like a 4 story building. Weiss said that in all the 3 story affordable housing buildings we have there are no elevators. McCabe said that elevators were not required at that time; now the code requires elevators. Adams said that the reason the elevators in the free - market building were so much taller than the affordable housing building was because there was rooftop access that these elevators are providing in addition to the stairway corridors. Adams said the affordable housing building had a 4 to 5 foot over run required for elevators. Erspamer said if you didn't have rooftop access you wouldn't need those elevators. Weiss asked how high the affordable building was at the Tailings side. Weiss said that he was concerned about the light in the patio units and the elevators still bother him. Weiss said he can't live with the idea that second homeowners need 2 parking places; the people who live here year round need more. Weiss said that he was still uneasy with this project; yes it has a lot of public benefit and yes you are moving in the right direction but the big issues are still the big issues. Myrin said as the buildings get larger and larger lot line to lot line, it seems the impacts on neighbors get greater; we need to be aware of the high efficiency furnaces that pump out a high pitched sound right at the property line. Myrin said 12 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 15, 2011 the mechanical, the lighting and the outside spillover; if you have no yard does the yard become the neighbor's yard. Myrin would support staff's recommendation to come back with staff recommendations. Gibbs echoed a lot of his fellow commissioner concerns and it was appropriate to continue this hearing. Gibbs said the main thing that still bothers him about this project is the mass; even though the neighborhood has some big building he would agree with Sara that the building reads a little too much like a lodge. Gibbs reiterated that this building would seem better to place downtown in the lodge neighborhood rather than this neighborhood. Gibbs said the elevator on top could be lowered. MOTION: LJErspamer moved to continue the public hearing on Aspen Walk to April 5 Michael Wampler seconded. All in favor. Adjourned at 7:40 pm. daft AA. i. ckie Loth 7a , Deputy City Clerk 13