HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20110517 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 17, 2011
Comments 2
Minutes 2
Conflicts of Interest 2
217/219 South Third Street — Map amendment (rezoning) 2
518 West Main Street — Subdivision and related land use reviews 8
1
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 17, 2011
Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting, Tuesday, May 17, 2011 to order at 4:30 in
Sister Cities meeting Room. P &Z Commissioners in attendance were Michael
Wampler, Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin, LJ Erspamer and Stan Gibbs. Commissioners
excused were Jasmine Tygre and Jim DeFrancia. Staff in attendance Jim True,
Special Counsel; Sara Adams, Community Development; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy
Planning Director for the City; Reed Patterson, Municipal City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Jenifer Phelan asked who was attending the Special Meeting this Thursday, May
19 on the AACP.
MINUTES
LJ Erspamer asked on page 8 if the minutes could reflect the one free- market
elevator was left on the deck. Bert Myrin said on page 11 there was a B
component.
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes of April 05, 2011 seconded
by LJ Erspamer. All in favor, APPROVED.
Declarations of Conflicts of Interest
None stated.
PUBLIC HEARING:
217/219 South Third Street
Stan Gibbs opened the hearing on 217/219 South Third Street. Jennifer Phelan
explained that the reason that we were here again was at the March 15 hearing
there was public comment that someone did not receive notice within the 300 foot
requirement. Phelan said that upon review of the notice it was determined that the
notice was defective because they were using an old list of residents within 300
feet so the only way to correct this defect was a re- hearing so notice was resent so
anyone who has an interest in commenting has the ability to comment on this
application. Phelan said also there was a tie vote at the last hearing which is
considered a failed motion although this is a recommendation to City Council for
rezoning they would still like to see an action whether it is the form of an approval
or denial rather than a tie with no action being taken.
Phelan §aid that the memo had a summary which included the exhibits that were
included during the public hearing at the last hearing and all of the prior exhibits
that were associated with the March 15 memo and the minutes from the March
15 meeting. Jim True said that this was a new hearing because notice was
defective and the commission has heard this at the previous meeting that resulted
2
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 17, 2011
in a tie vote but actually over a year ago (February 2, 2010) you certainly can take
notice of what has been discussed previously but this is technically a new hearing
and you need to take comments from anybody that wishes to make comments
including the applicant and any members of the public.
Jennifer Phelan said there was a recommendation of denial at the February 2
2010 hearing; there was a recommendation of denial with the caveat on that
recommendation that the applicant consider coming back when the applicant could
provide additional schematics /designs to let the neighborhood understand what
could be developed on the property. Phelan said the request that we were still
considering is the potential rezoning of 217 and 219 South Third Street from
Moderate Density (R -15) to Medium Density (R -6). The property currently
contains a legally established duplex under the R -15 zone district and this can be
torn down and redeveloped with a duplex however if this were a vacant lot today
you would only be able to do a single family home. So the lot is not quite big
enough for the density on it. Phelan provided in the staff memo comparison with
regard to permitted uses as well as dimensional standards for the 2 different zone
districts and the development that is being proposed. Phelan said on page 4 of the
staff memo shows a table of what permitted and conditional uses are allowed in
this zone district and they are primarily residential and the biggest difference
between the 2 zone districts is that agricultural uses are permitted as a conditional
use in the R -15 zone district. Phelan said that you could build a single family
residence on this lot in either zone district and if it were zoned R -6 you would be
able to have 2 detached residences on the lot rather than just an attached duplex.
Phelan said there was basically a 9 square foot difference in floor area between the
2 zone districts.
Phelan stated the review criteria for rezoning is whether it is compatible with the
surrounding zones, effect on traffic generation, consistent with the community
character and whether there have been changed conditions. Staff's
recommendation said that it could be rezoned to R -6 and the basis for it was that
the neighborhood has a mix of single family, duplex, multifamily and lodge within
it. This property if re- developed whether it is R -6 or R -15 can hold a single family
house, a duplex or in the case of R -6 two detached residences and those uses were
prevalent within the neighborhood.
Phelan said that traffic generation should not increase. The rezoning request is
consistent with the community character. There was property on the 500 block of
Hopkins that was rezoned from R -15 to R -6 so it does show changed conditions in
3
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 17, 2011
the neighborhood so staff supports this rezoning and creates a conforming lot with
R -6 it would meet the minimum lot size and standards of review.
Cliff Weiss said that FAR for single family is either 3716 or with a reduction for
steep it is 2787 so he assumed that there was some portion of this lot on a slope.
Jennifer Phelan said that the memo showed what the floor area would be if the lot
was flat so it (FAR) would be determined at building permit. Phelan provided
Cliff with the breakdown of square footages of different lots on the surrounding
blocks and zoning.
Bert Myrin asked if the slope reduction between R -15 and R -6 was different.
Jennifer Phelan replied no it was the same calculation. Myrin asked about the
setback differences. Phelan replied the difference was the front yard; R -6 required
a 10 foot front yard setback and R -15 required a 25 foot front yard setback. Phelan
said what that means is that one could be pulled closer to the street and the other
could have the mass pushed back.
Peter Thomas, representative for the applicant, said that Suzanne Foster could not
attend the hearing. Thomas apologized for the mistake in the notices sent out for
the March 15 hearing. Thomas said the existing conditions was a legally
established duplex on this lot however it is a non - conforming lot under the existing
zoning and a non - conforming structure under the existing zoning. Thomas we are
trying to fix this by rezoning to eliminate these non - conformities; the R -6 zone
district will allow less floor area, not much at only 9 feet. Thomas read a Supreme
Court case on non - conformities. Thomas said the commission had some concerns
about the zoning around the property; they were before the commission and
council for a rezoning hearing. Thomas requested that P &Z vote to approve the
rezoning of this property.
Cliff Weiss asked what issues he was referring to. Peter Thomas replied that the
public would address most of those. Weiss said he wasn't sure what the issues and
true concerns were with the developers intent.
Stan Gibbs opened the public comments section of the hearing and asked the
public to confine comments to 3 minutes.
Public Comments:
1. Cheryl Goldenberg said that she lived in the neighborhood about 2 blocks
away and did not want to change the zoning here or in the neighborhood.
Cheryl Goldenberg said that there were a lot of unintended consequences to
4
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 17, 2011
changing the zoning; you don't know what you are getting and she wanted to
keep the laws the same.
2. Paul Young said that he and his family reside directly across the alley from
the proposed rezoning application. Paul Young stated under R -15 there was
a lot size of 30,000 square feet to build 2 detached homes; Mrs. Foster's lot
is 9,942 square feet and her lot area is 7,492 square feet, which is the
smallest lot area on their block. Paul Young said density as defined by the
American College Dictionary is 1. crowded condition 2. quantity per unit of
area at a point on a surface while the City of Aspen defines density as the
number of bedroom permitted in a zone district. Paul Young said going
from 1 structure to 2 structures is increased density with an increased level
of use resulting in a higher utilization; the present duplex has 4 bedrooms
and the applicant is proposing 9 bedrooms with only 4 onsite parking spaces.
3. Jake Vickery said that he represented the Youngs and the motion in 2010
was for denial and the City cannot go around changing all the non-
conformities in the City. Jake Vickery said they are supposed to be retiring
the non - conformities not legitimizing and he showed what the applicant can
do with R -15 with a generous front and rear yard setbacks. Jake Vickery
said they do not find a public benefit in what she wants to do.
4. Angela Young stated that her husband Paul and their 2 children reside at 413
West Hopkins Avenue and as staff noted in their memorandum there are
only 3 changes to the application. Angela Young said 1. the inclusion of a
new letter of opposition from Meta P Barton makes the statement "that the
zoning requirements should remain in place indefinitely ". Angela Young
asked why should we give special consideration to only one property in our
block with a rezone when it truly does not enhance or give back to the
neighborhood. Angela Young said there were still two unknowns and she
should develop what she bought and not rezone it.
5. Steve Goldenberg said that he lived about a half a block away and he has
been to 3 meetings about this property and each time someone on P &Z
asked Mrs. Foster to do outreach to the neighbors and they indicated they
would but they never have extended to anyone else.
6. Dan McCarty said that he was a neighbor of the area and the biggest
problem has been that Mrs. Forster has been before committees so many
numerous times that the neighbors are worn out with it. Dan McCarty said
every time she comes in it is a different plan or a different request and the
neighborhood doesn't know what she wants to do with the rezoning; the
neighborhood would like to see a denial until she comes up with a plan. Dan
McCarty asked P &Z to deny the application.
5
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 17, 2011
7. Tita McCarty said that she was an adjacent neighbor; she said from the last
meetings a change in zoning should not be granted to accommodate a certain
proposal.
8. Jody Edward said he represented John Staten who was a neighbor as well.
Jody Edwards said that spot zoning was when you rezone a piece of property
for the benefit of a particular land owner as opposed to more of an area wide
rezoning which is more of what the city can do. Jody Edwards said that this
was being done and internalizing the open space as opposed to having it on
the front yard and rear yard setbacks; the existing zoning requires the larger
setback on the front. Jody Edwards said not a whole lot has changed since
P &Z looked at last February, a year ago, and this past March P &Z was
requesting some specific type plans so you would know what was going to
happen on this property and we haven't seen that yet. Jody Edwards said the
neighbors were willing to take their chances with the existing zoning than
something they didn't know about. Jody Edwards requested the commission
deny this application for rezoning.
9. David Bentley said that this was too big and will have more congestion.
Stan Gibbs closed the public portion of the meeting and asked the commissioners
for discussion.
Cliff Weiss said that this was a zoning application and will return as a development
application. Jennifer Phelan replied no; a single family home or a duplex was
permitted on this lot whether it was R -15 or R -6, as long as they meet the
underlying zone district they would not be coming back.
Bert Myrin recapped the February 2010 meeting and vote resulting in denial and
what he was looking at today was page 14 and section G and I and he chose those
because they were his questions and were a conflict with the public interest and
whether it is consistent and compatible with the community character. Myrin said
for those reasons he could not support the rezoning tonight.
Michael Wampler thanked the public for coming and in addition to the legal
obligation it is for P &Z to listen to neighbors. Wampler said what he got from the
people here was that there would be no setbacks and the open space would benefit
only the 2 houses.
Jennifer Phelan said the rear yard setback is 10 feet in either zone district so you
are really only talking about the front yard setback.
6
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 17, 2011
LJ Erspamer supported what these gentlemen have stated. Erspamer said if City
Council wanted to change the zoning here let them do it but do it to all of the
neighborhood because he did not to have a checker board zoning.
Stan Gibbs asked LJ if he wanted to make an amendment to the resolution.
Jim True said this isn't an issue that involves spot zoning, contract zoning any of
that; this would be a legal action that would correct the non - conformity and he
didn't want the commission bogged down here. You could recommend to Council
to rezone the whole neighborhood if you wanted to do that.
LJ Erspamer replied that he did not want to do that.
Cliff Weiss agreed with Michael about the read from the neighbors and Jake gave
him a visual that he needed and he could see the fact that the 2 houses have been
spread apart from one another. Weiss said there was an unknown for what is
exactly going to be developed so he also has trouble and you wouldn't need a P &Z
if everybody was conforming. Weiss said he didn't see the public good in this
request for rezoning and he was concerned about the whole neighborhood and he
did not support this.
Erspamer asked when this was rezoned, the 1970s. Phelan replied that her
understanding was that this was based on the 1974 plan and she provided the
changes in the neighborhood over time.
Gibbs said that these applications were not a popularity contest and just because an
applicant was not favored doesn't mean that their arguments don't have merit.
Gibbs said he believed that it was important and has public benefit to make parcels
conforming in the city and the mistake was requiring an applicant to come in with
a detailed application when that was not the code requirement to make a rezoning.
Myrin reiterated that on page 14 G and I it is clear that it has to be compatible with
the community character and the public interest.
Gibbs said that you cannot control a city with no more rezoning. Stan Gibbs asked
if there was a motion to approve the application and not deny it. None stated.
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve Resolution #10, 2011 recommending
City Council disapprove a map amendment (rezoning) from R -15 to R -6 for 217
7
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 17, 2011
and 219 South Third Street; seconded by Michael Wampler. Roll call: Wampler,
yes; Weiss, yes; Myrin, yes; Erspamer, yes; Gibbs, no. Approved 4 -1
PUBLIC HEARING:
518 West Main Street — Subdivision and related land use reviews
Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing on 518 West Main. Sara Adams said the
following reviews were requested: growth management review for the
development of affordable housing; the establishment of affordable housing credit
for 24 FTEs and a recommendation of subdivision to City Council.
Sara Adams noted 518 West Main Street includes a historic landmark because it is
in the Main Street Historic District. Adams said it was a 7500 square foot lot and
there was a proposal to pick up the historic home and move it forward on the lot
towards the Mesa Store and construct 2 new detached buildings, 1 behind the
historic resource and 1 fronting Main Street next to the historic resource for a total
of 3 buildings on the lot. Adams said it is proposed to be 100% affordable housing
so we are talking about 11 units; category sizes were 2 and 3 included on page 160
of the packet. Adams said the development was within the requirements of the
zone district and this project was heard by the Historic Preservation Commission
because it is in the historic district and a contributing historic resource. HPC
granted conceptual approval and the minutes and resolution were included in the
packet. HPC also had purview over the parking requirement and reduced the
parking requirement from 11 spaces to 8 spaces on site all accessed off of the alley.
HPC also granted a side yard setback variance for 3 light wells that were on the
Ullr side of the property and reduced the size of the trash/utility service area on the
rear of the property and HPC reduced the height and the depth to keep the
development an appropriate distance from the historic resource. Adams said
Exhibit A of the memo talked about compliance with the AACP as part of your
subdivision review recommendation. Staff finds that overall the project is
compliant with the regulations in the land use code and staff is recommending
approval. The next review is with City Council for Subdivision Review and then
back to the Historic Preservation Commission where UPC will talk about
materials, landscaping, finesse the roof forms, window size and placement happen
at final review after City Council has granted a subdivision approval. Adams
supplied public notice to James R. True and the applicant, Peter Fomell will speak
next.
LJ Erspamer asked if P &Z had any review of the parking or it has been taken care
of by HPC. Sara Adams replied HPC reviewed it and wanted the applicant to
review parking with transportation.
8
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 17, 2011
Cliff Weiss said that the parking has to be reversed and he did not like the HPC
making land use decisions. Sara Adams said that HPC has specific criteria for a
waiver or reduction of parking requested for historic landmarks that weigh over
community goals and preserving the historic resource.
Bert Myrin asked if the review criteria for the credits could be explained a little
more. Sara Adams said the review criteria was on page 178 of the packet and it
was "C" and the review criteria were pretty objective to establish affordable
housing credits and P &Z was looking at whether or not the units are for the
purpose of mitigating some sort of affordable housing and looking for the number
of full time employees from APCHA; it was 24.0 FTEs and the draft resolution
includes the Housing Board approval. Adams stated the Certificates won't be
issued until the Certificates of Occupancy have been issued and there is a deed
restricted certificate.
Myrin asked for a quick overview of the growth management for affordable
housing criteria. Adams responded that growth management review for the
development of affordable housing is a little less objective; you are looking at
compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, the requirements of the mixed
use zone district, which the development meets the height regulations, it is under
the allowable floor area and is consistent with the conceptual HPC approval.
Adams said that was the overall plan for growth management.
Peter Fornell, applicant, hoped that they were on the way to a successful project for
affordable housing and are filling the category mix that has some absence in it;
that was the reason they were building this mix of housing. Fornell said the
recommendation for subdivision of those 11 units. Fornell said the Historic parcel
photograph on page 2 (158) of the memo shows there is more on the lot historically
than they are proposing today. Fornell said that they were going to no small
expense on keeping this historic piece. Fornell said that he was part of affordable
housing from living in it with his 2 daughters and the proposals he has done.
Bert Myrin asked if there was anything with density, mass, height that P &Z is
supposed to consider in the criteria. Sara Adams replied no it was not a PUD and
the project meets all the requirements of the zone district. Peter Fornell responded
that he was inside his height, inside the setbacks and density. Myrin asked what
they were supposed to glean off the model. Adams replied the compliance with the
Aspen Area Community Plan and design quality.
9
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 17, 2011
Stan Gibbs asked if GMQS was the final decision at P &Z. Sara Adams replied
Growth management was P &Z's final decision; the approval to establish
affordable housing credits and Subdivision were recommendations to Council.
Stan Gibbs opened the public comments section to the hearing.
Public Comments:
1. Paul Taddune stated he was present for the Christinia Lodge and his own
property at 323 West Main. Taddune said the HPC was concerned about
parking as was this commission. Taddune said there should be balance
between the density of the project and the parking required.
2. Amos Underwood said that he has lived on Bleeker just behind this property
for 5 years and he has never had a parking issue living there and parks his
truck, snowmobiles on a trailer and a bus.
3. Cheryl Goldenberg said this was a few blocks from her neighborhood but
she was concerned about the parking and didn't know if there was a need for
all of this employee housing and maybe there should be a completion bond
for this project.
4. Ariana Fratto said that she was currently living in employee housing and
was born here. Ariana Fratto voiced concern about emissions.
Stan Gibbs closed the public comments portion of the hearing.
Bert Myrin asked if there was a way to put the concern to review parking into the
resolution tonight. Jim True said that you could add comments. True said that
HPC did struggle with the parking issue.
Cliff Weiss said that he didn't have a problem discussing parking for this project
and for everything that might go along with it. Weiss said he was frustrated with
HPC and P &Z should have the purview to parking because they could hold this
project accountable for parking like they did Aspen Walk.
LJ Erspamer said that he was a parking nut and he would hold their feet to the fire
like Cliff wants to but it was HPC purview and they struggled with it.
Bert Myrin inquired if the Resolution could include "P &Z require one parking
space per unit ". Stan Gibbs asked staff what are the next steps for this and what
decisions need to be made after this point; more specifically does parking ever
come up again. Sara Adams responded parking will come up again at final HPC
where they are looking at how the applicant is proposing to mitigate the 3 parking
10
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 17, 2011
spaces that are not required to be on site; so there are 3 spaces that need to be
mitigated for through cash -in -lieu, some other off site mitigation method. Sara
Adams said that HPC would appreciate the feedback on those 3 parking spaces.
Cliff Weiss asked how much the cash -in -lieu was for the spaces. Sara Adams
replied $30,000.00 per space so $90,000.00; there were two issues a parking
reduction with the number of spaces on site or request a waiver of the cash -in -lieu
fees for the historic landmark as an incentive to do rehabilitation of the historic
resource. Peter Fornell said that he toyed with the parking issue and wants the best
thing to happen and they are limiting in the area that people cannot get a second
parking sticker for a second vehicle; so we are making these people second class
citizens to every neighbor in the zone district; any other person that lives in the
mixed use zone district can get 6 area parking stickers if they so desire and the 3
units that don't get a parking spaces get area stickers so that there will be 3
vehicles added to the side street parking. Stan Gibbs asked if they were doing it
through the covenants or HOA. Peter Fornell replied it was through the covenants
and final resolution and they are providing for 3 more spots but they will not be
onsite; they could be in the parking garage, they could be at Benedict Commons
but they will have a solution for 3 vehicles when he goes back to HPC for the final
review. Jim True said that you can't restrict homeowners or tenants with vehicles
from parking. Bert Myrin said that they could not restrict parking. Jim True said
that as the owner he could put covenants on his property and make some
requirements there but the City and APCHA can't make it a condition to restrict
parking.
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve Resolution #11, 2011 with conditions,
Growth Management Review for the Development of Affordable Housing, the
Establishment of Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits for 24 full time
equivalents and recommending that the City Council approve with conditions,
Subdivision Review for the redevelopment of 518 West Main Street and amending
the clerical error in the chart, Table 1, Unit #4 Category 3; Michael Wampler. Roll
call: Wampler, yes; Weiss, yes; Myrin, yes; Erspamer, yes; Gibbs, yes.
APPROVED 5 -0.
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to add a condition that the Planning & Zoning
Commission recommends future review of this project to retain the current housing
mix and require one onsite parking space per unit; seconded by LJErspamer. The
amendment passed 3 -2.
11
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — May 17, 2011
Discussion prior to vote: LJ asked if the categories were what housing put on the
project. Peter Fornell replied yes.
Bert Myrin said the key to his condition/motion was it was just a recommendation
so the conversation in the HPC minutes was not lost; he believed that many things
drop out and all you see is the approval.
Cliff Weiss said a compromise or a solution to this are the words "on site" because
he got from Peter that he had good intentions.
Adjourned at 7:00 pm.
"AL., cr,„,
inscribed by Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
12