HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20190219Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2019
1
Staff Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Commission Comments ................................................................................................................................ 2
Minutes ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
Public Comment not on the Agenda ............................................................................................................. 2
LOT 4 RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION – Design Variations ............................................................. 2
465 &557 NORTH MILL STREET REZONING ........................................................................................ 4
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2019
2
At 4:30 p.m.; Teraissa McGovern called the regular meeting to order with Commission Members Spencer
McKnight, Teraissa McGovern, Rally Dupps, Ryan Walterscheid, Skippy Mesirow and Ruth Carver
present. Also present were Andrea Bryan, Jim True and Linda Manning.
Staff Comments
Jennifer Phelan said the state conference is in Snowmass Village this fall. There is a Commissioner track.
She wants to see if anyone has ideas for topics you would like to learn more about. She will send out an
email. The conference is at the end of September.
Commission Comments
None.
Minutes
Mr. Dupps moved to approve the minutes from February 5, 2019; seconded by Ms. McGovern. All in
favor, motion carried.
Public Comment not on the Agenda
None.
LOT 4 RANGER STATION SUBDIVISION – Design Variations
Kevin Rayes, community development, stated this a residential design standard, RDS, variation request
for Lot 4. The property is located in the R6 zone. It is 11,655 square foot and located within the infill
area. On the northern part of the lot there is a 20 foot access easement. Since the lot is greater than 9,000
square foot it allows for the development of a single family and duplex or two detached duplexes. The
proposal is for two detached houses with a 10 foot separation. Unit A is proposed to face 8th Street. Unit
B is proposed to face the easement to the north. He showed renderings. He showed the site plan with the
setbacks. Unit A complies with all the RDS. Unit B is requesting seven variations including building
orientation, articulation of building mass, build to requirement, one story element, entry connection, entry
porch and principle window.
For building orientation, unit B is proposed to face the easement and the orientation standard states the
front façade shall be parallel to the street. On a corner lot both facades shall be parallel to the streets. It
does not comply. The orientation requirement is the most important request. All others are contingent
upon this one.
Next is the build to requirement, based on orientation of B - 60% of the front façade shall be within 5 feet
of the minimum setback. None of front façade is within.
Articulation of building mass. No greater than 50 feet in depth of front façade to rear wall. If we were to
orientate to 8th Street it would be just over 61 feet and not comply.
The last variations are related to aesthetes. Unit B incorporates all of these attributes. Since all are
orientated towards the easement they would require variations. In order to grant a variation from a RDS,
there are two criteria. They need to demonstrate that the variation would provide an alternate design
approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent standard as well as the
general intent statement and be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific
constraint. Staff finds the lot does have an unusual site specific constraint. In R6 a traditional lot was 30
by 100 feet, now it is 60 by 100. A lot with this dimension would allow for the construction of a single
family house. Some lots are even larger allowing for two single family homes. These lots do not mimic
typical lots. This lot has an abnormal configuration of 70 by 143. It is more narrow from the street than a
typical lot. The minimum side yard setback is 15 feet and 10 between the dwellings. Side by side
construction would be 30 feet total, very narrow. The proposal to orientate front to back is more
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2019
3
consistent with how the lot is configured. This would qualify for a site specific constraint. Staff
recommends approval of all the variations.
Mr. Walterscheid asked would you consider we look at the alley easement like a street. Ms. Phelan
replied yes. If you read our definition of alley it would fall under alley as a secondary access.
Mr. Dupps said we recently we looked at Lot 3. Staff memo was not in support. I’m imagining all lots
will be coming before us at some point. Ms. Phelan said there are three permits in. Lots 1 and 2 have not
come in for variations. They also follow the traditional townsite plotting. Mr. Dupps said it seems like
they have specific needs and wants. Staff did not support Lot 3 but supports this. Isn’t this a similar
situation. People knew buying the lot it wouldn’t support a duplex. Ms. Phelan said it goes to the lot
width. Right now, it is 70 feet wide. If it was more traditional it would be 100 feet wide.
Mr. McKnight asked how comfortable are you with the easement as a street. Ms. Phelan said we have
another lot by the Mortiz like this and on Francis Street as well. It is not unheard of but not super
common.
Applicant
Stan Clausson, representing the owners, said the land use code treats duplexes and two single family
homes as the same. The RDS would say if this were a duplex only one unit would need to meet the RDS.
No variations are requested for unit A. We looked at having the units side by side and a connected
duplex. It made sense to have the homes front to back as separate residences. For articulation of building
mass unit A meets that. Unit B meets it for maximum side wall depth in relationship to the access
easement. When it comes to the build to requirement, unit A meets it and unit B meets it with respect to
the access easement. When it comes to the one story element, there are those in both consisting of an
inset porch. The inset is related to the access easement. The intent of the RDS is to ensure a strong
connection between residences and street. Buildings provide articulation, preserve historic
neighborhoods scale and character and encourage physical and visual relationships to the streets and
residential structures. We think that this is the best solution for the site. It does reduce the perceived
mass relative to a duplex.
Joseph Spears S2 Architects, said the alley will feel like a secondary street.
Ms. McGovern asked why does the RDS treat detached single family differently. Ms. Phelan stated she is
not sure.
Mr. McKnight opened the public comment.
1. Elise Elliott, 610 north street, asked are you planning on paving the alley or will the city. Ms.
Phelan said the alley belongs to the homeowners. It is a private alley with minimum
improvement standards that have been worked out with engineers
2. Chris Bendon, neighbor. I support this. It is great architecture. This is terrific. You should
approve it as is.
Mr. McKnight closed the public comment.
Ms. Carver said she has no problem with this. She questioned who will plow the snow.
Mr. Dupps said he thinks it is fantastic. The architecture is beautiful. Lot 3 came here and we said no. It
had existing site conditions. Is this different. He wants to know if this is different. Ms. McGovern said
the increased lot size for Lot 3 could have had a design that met the RDS. The maximum side wall dept,
the house looked giant. I don’t think this one is depending much on the site specific except it is much
more narrow. It would look really silly with two buildings next to each other.
Mr. Mesirow moved to approve Resolution #3, Series of 2019 approving design variations for Lot 3
Ranger Station Subdivision; seconded by Ms. Carver. Roll call vote. Commissioner Carver, yes;
Mesirow, yes; Walterscheid, yes; Dupps, yes; McGovern, yes; McKnight, yes. Motion carried.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2019
4
465 &557 NORTH MILL STREET REZONING
Mr. McKnight said he has retained legal services from the legal advisor in the past. It will not affect me.
Mike Kraemer, community development, said this is a rezoning from SCI to MU. It is only a rezoning
application. There is no development or change of use. The process is two step. First is a P&Z
recommendation. The second step is City Council. This is a public hearing. Lot 1 is 1.06 acres. It is
currently developed with a 20,645 square foot structure. Lot 2 is .145 acres with 7,990 square foot
development. There are approximately 21 existing businesses on the property. All are conforming in the
SCI zone.
The purpose of SCI is to allow for uses not found in other zones including light industrial, manufacturing,
production, repair and similar services. This zone allows for heavy maintenance repair. The purpose of
MU is to allow for a mix of residential and commercial and provide different economic and residential
opportunism for more traditional commercial zones. It is a transition from more intense commercial areas
of the CC and C1 zones and residential and lodging zones surrounding Main Street. The purpose of the
SCI zone district and MU zone district are not the same and are not intended to be interchangeable.
MU zone does not exist near the subject properties and rezoning these properties would create an island
of MU zoning in this area. There are some overlap uses between SCI and MU. Service uses is an
allowed use in the MU zone district and that includes the ability to have a laundry and dry cleaning
service on the property. SCI specifically allows manufacturing and heavy maintenance r epair. MU does
not allow these uses. MU allows office, multi family, single family duplex, specialty retail and lodging.
SCI does not. There is an overall concern from staff that certain allowed MU zone district uses may be
more desirable and potentially displace existing SCI uses. This is a statement that is reiterated in the 2018
commercial design guidelines.
The 2006 civic master plan contemplates SCI space renovation for underground parking, pedestrian
linkages, affordable housing and aesthetic improvements. The MU zone district proposal for the rezoning
does not contemplate a redevelop plan. MU allows for alternative uses that may not be consistent with
this plan.
Today, staff feels that existing SCI zoning is consistent with the 2012 AACP. It is not a regulatory
document but encourages a balanced commercial mix. SCI zoned lands are limited and loss of the zoning
is inconsistent with the AACP. Subject properties are within the 2018 commercial design guidelines river
approach area. The MU zoning is not compatible with this character area.
Staff recommends denial based on 26.310.90A - proposed rezoning is not compatible with the
surrounding zone district and land uses. It does not comply with LUC 26.310.090D -proposed rezoning is
inconsistent and not compatible with the character of the city and in harmony of the public interest and
intent of this title.
We are also asking P&Z to consider that this would represents a fundamental change from the purpose
and intent of the SCI zone district. This proposal represents a significant reduction of available SCI
zoned area within the City of Aspen. It creates non conforming uses on subject properties and in not in
context with the river approach character area. The proposal is inconsistent with the 2006 civic master
plan.
Mr. Mesirow asked if it were to happen what would happen to existing business that become non
conforming. Mr. Kraemer replied they would be legal non-conforming.
Ms. McGovern said the other SCI zone has uses that are not consistent with current zoning. Did it
change. Are they site specific. Ms. Phelan replied this was before both of us. When Obermeyer was first
looked at there were a number of uses that were there. A certain number of non conforming uses were
allowed to go back in. There is also NC in there. At one point free market was a conditional use there as
well.
Applicant
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2019
5
Chris Bendon, representing North Mill Street LLC, owned by Mark Hunt. Mr. Bendon stated this will
provide parity with other SCI properties. There are five properties in Aspen zoned SCI. Andrews
McFarlin, across the street, USPS and Obermeyer place and the lumber yard. Mr. Bendon reviewed these
properties.
We’ve looked at the surrounding area. There is office, residential, non profit, civic, retail, restaurant.
We’ve looked at several options to have some parity with other SCI, R6 and R30. They do not allow for
a mix of uses. There is RMF in the area. It doesn’t allow for a mix of uses, specifically commercial. We
looked at NC. The types of commercial allowed are more viable. Both the residential allowances are not
there. MU provides for a better array of commercial uses and allows for some degree of residential
development. This is the closest we thought to other SCI and the civic master plan.
For criteria, there are four of them. Is the amendment compatible with the surrounding zoning. We think
you can make a positive finding of this. Specifically, the river approach area. We see this as architectural
style, persuasion of building development, not uses. The second deals with demands on public facilities.
Staff found in favor of this. Once again, this deals with development. We see nothing that would change
the demand on this. Third is adverse impact on the natural environment. We don’t see any measurable
difference on this. Staff didn’t either. Lastly is if the proposal is consistent with community character
and in harmony with the public interest. Staff found against this. We think you can make a positive
finding. It asks for a great degree of latitude. The criteria is broad in its approach.
We are requesting the MU zone because we think it brings the property in closest proximity to
comparable SCI properties. It provides for mix of uses. It provides for an array of commercial uses that
are up to today’s market and provides for viable residential uses.
Mr. Dupps asked why. Chris Bryan, legal counsel, asked why did the city downzone SCI and only effect
this property. That made it more restrictive as to what could be done here. Ordinance 29 only affected
this property, not the other SCI properties Chris mentioned. The rezoning would be more suitable in light
of the downzoning that occurred. Just because those uses are there now doesn’t mean they will remain
there. Ms. McGovern said even if it makes the uses non conforming. Did the property owner purchase
this after the downzoning occured. Mr. Bryan replied after the downzoning occurred. There was a legal
challenge predating that. Ms. McGovern asked why are offices allowed on Andrews Mcfarlan and
Obermeyer. Ms. Phelan said there are certain uses permitted. Mr. Bendon said there were spaces that
were added in to the development. Ms. Phelan said she is not sure about Andrews Mcfarlan. Design
studio is a term in the code.
Mr. Mesirow said harmony with public interest would prohibit some things the community wants. One
outcome could be in harmony and one in not. How are we to look at this without knowing what the
future is. Mr. Bendon replied it asks you to make a judgement. The answer is not embedded in the
question. We think you can make a positive finding just looking at the two zone districts.
Mr. McKnight opened the public comment.
1. Elyse Elliott, 610 W North St. I urge you to deny the request. I’m concerned about the
neighborhood. I believe the small businesses in these buildings are essential to the community.
If they leave there is no other place they can move. Every town needs a laundromat. Where are
you going to take your scooter if it needs maintenance. Though not everybody uses these
businesses they are essential to a community. The MU zone will allow for housing. We don’t
need any high end town homes. The affordable housing units are not worth the trade offs.
2. Toni Kronberg said she supports the rezoning. While some of the businesses may become non
conforming they will still be allowed. Those two lots can definitely be improved. MU gives so
much more opportunity. Nothing is here forever. Think about how limiting the SCI really is.
Mr. McKnight closed the public comment.
Mr. Mesirow said if it were to be changed and the applicant came forward with a new development could
an existing business stay under a new development. Ms. Phelan said the non conforming section says if a
same type of use went in within a certain time frame the non conforming could stay. With a
redevelopment it would be pretty tricky with the time frame for a non conforming to come back in.
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 19, 2019
6
Mr. Waltersheid said in the MU along Main Street there are two gas stations and a car wash, are those non
conforming in the MU currently. Ms. Phelan replied they might be a service use.
Ms. Carver said she lives in a MU district. My neighborhood looks nothing like SCI. My problem with
this is we have no idea what will happen. There could be private homes, a row of townhouses. There
could be anything. Yes, I agree the neighborhood needs to be improved. I trust Mark Hunt would do
that. I think MU would displace that type of neighborhood. It is a service neighborhood and a lot of
those businesses are important to our neighborhood. I would rather see a plan and the rezoning with it.
It is so open and something I cannot agree with at this point in time.
Ms. McGovern said MU specifically says transition area between CC and C1. This would create an
island. The uses allowed in MU are different enough that it isn’t consistent with the neighborhood. SCI
specifically says to support locally serving businesses. MU doesn’t say that anywhere. I would be
concerned approving a rezone on this side of the round about getting rid of the uses that are there. It is
important to have these services.
Mr. Mesirow said he is not supportive either. Given the change will have loses for the community with
businesses that will not land anywhere. He would like to see a plan. I have misgivings with SCI too.
Mr. Walterscheid said he is more on the fence. MU is between CC, C, the residential and lodging. If the
site is going to be developed you will need free market surrounding it. I think this is an island anyway.
The stuff going on around it falls in MU. I don’t think you will see a redevelopment unless there are
assurances. If it stays as SCI I don’t think you will see redevelopment. There is MU going up Mill
Street. I don’t see it as an outrageous ask. They will have to come in for an approval to have anything
built.
Mr. Dupps said I appreciate what Ryan is saying. My problem is I just don’t see enough information. If
we had a building or a use I could respond. It is too broad for me at this time to vote in favor.
Mr. McKnight said making these changes goes in the face of the AACP. This is the last spot in town
providing services. I will be a no as well.
Ms. McGovern moved to recommend denial of Resolution #4, Series of 2018 for the rezoning of 465 and
557 North Mill Street; seconded by Mr. Mesirow. Roll call vote. Commissioners Dupps, yes;
McGovern, yes; Mesirow, yes; Carver, yes; Walterscheid, no; McKnight, yes. Motion carried.
At 6:00 p.m. Ms. Carver moved to adjourn; seconded by Ms. McGovern. All in favor, motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk