Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20130611 Regular Meeting Planning&Zoning Commission June 11, 2013 Chairman U Erspamer called the meeting to order at 4:30 with Walterscheid, Goode, Weiss, Myrin, DeFrancia,Tygre, and Gibbs present. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 1. Weiss told the Commission he is going to attend a Council meeting and bring up the number of code amendments recommended in the AACP; hopefully the new Council will pick up efforts for code amendments. Several other board members said they would attend with Weiss. 2. Myrin thanked staff for the community development department update. Jessica Garrow told the Board at the work session June 25,they will be reviewing lodge policies and trying to get direction on amending the code or working with outside organizations. Ms. Garrow said she will forward the Council packet and background information to P&Z. 3. Erspamer told the Board their code books are not up to date and the Board can get copies at the community development department or online at the clerk's page. 4. Erspamer asked about review or commenting on a project that is in front of HPC. Weiss suggested joint meetings on some projects. Myrin stated he would support working out a process for referrals. MINUTES—May 21, 2013 The Board agreed to approve these at the next meeting. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Jim DeFrancia said he is working with the Aspen Alps and will recuse himself. Debbie Quinn, assistant city attorney, noted the conflict of interest section states city officials may not appear on behalf of an applicant in front of the board of which they are a member. 700 UTE AVENUE ASPEN ALPS PUD AMENDMENT AND SUBDIVISION Debbie Quinn, assistant city attorney, said the appropriate mailing and publication has been done. Jessica Garrow, community development department,told the Board there is no development proposed in this application; it is to memorialize the existing conditions of the Aspen Alps. Ms. Garrow said the request is for PUD, rezoning and subdivision. P&Z is the recommending body; Council is final approval. Ms. Garrow showed the property, which is 8 different parcels, 2 of which are vacant. Parcel 6 is a large parcel, originally part of the Moses lot split. The Winter building is where tennis courts, parking garage and affordable housing are located. The 777 Ute at the Aspen Alps was approved and built in 1992 and is not part of this application. Ms. Garrow pointed out the various Aspen Alps building and their location on the site; the 300, 400 and 500 buildings have access off the Aspen Alps road off Ute Avenue. 1 Regular Meeting Planning &Zoning Commission June 11, 2013 The Aspen Alps was developed from 1962 through 2002 and was the first condominium in Colorado before modern subdivision regulations. There are 73 residential multi-family units with the ability to short term; no units have housed a local working resident. There are 3 affordable housing units in the Winter building developed in 2002; the deed restriction was never filed and the applicant has committed to doing so as part of this application. There 16 offsite parking space for the 100 building on the Sky hotel property and all other parking is within the site. Ms. Garrow pointed out this property is zoned lodge with some of it having a PUD designation,the lack of total PUD designation may have been a staff error in 2001,and parcels 1 through 8 should have had a PUD designation so this application includes a rezoning in order to make it clear there is one PUD for the entire Aspen Alps property. Ms. Garrow said the utility easements will be updated; a new subdivision will be established to make the descriptions clearer. The proposal is to establish the existing dimensions as conforming; there are a lot of non-conformities on the site compared to what is permitted under the Lodge zone district,there are more units than would be allowed under the existing code. Any improvements after this application would be required to submit a new application; there is no ability to change configurations. Ms. Garrow told the Board there has been a long standing agreement with 525 South Original street for one of the parking spaces so the resolution should note there are 15 offsite parking spaces for the 100 building. Ms. Garrow stated staff finds this proposal complies with all criteria for PUD, subdivision and rezoning and staff recommends approval of the application. Weiss asked why the current floor area for building 2 is 24,100 square feet and the allowed dimension in the lodge zone.district is 29,950 square feet and would not approving this allow 5,800 square feet of development. Ms. Garrow said this approval does not memorialize what would be allowed under existing code; it memorializes what exists today, building 2 will be 24,100 square feet. Ms.Tygre asked if the overall square footage on the site would allow additional development in a new building. Ms. Garrow said that would be a new land use application. Ms.Tygre asked if there is enough land available. Ms. Garrow said any development will come through a new land use process and on certain parcels there may be room for new buildings; staff did not calculate what could be built because that is not the application in front of P&Z. Ms. Garrow noted any PUD approval by P&Z locks in the dimensions by what is presented;this request will say what exists on the site today is what is allowed; any change from that would require land use review. Myrin asked about vested rights. Ms.Garrow said any project that goes through review gets a 3-year vested; however,there is no development proposed for this site; the dimensions are being established and stay in perpetuity until a future amendment. Weiss asked if the individual unit sizes are being locked in by this proposal. Ms. Garrow answered the P&Z resolution locks in the range for dimensions; the final PUD documents will include unit by unit showing how large each unit is. The site specific approval will make the buildings and units conforming. Ms. Garrow told the P&Z,the water supply is sufficient for the existing development but any new proposal would require upgrading the water lines to deal with capacity issues. Ms. Garrow noted locking the units and buildings in to what is existing clarifies what is there and what is allowed. Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, told the Boards they had to do surveys and title work on all the properties and boundaries and the application documents what is there today. Vann said some of the buildings at the Aspen Alps are almost 50 years old; some units have been remodeled. Vann stated the units at Aspen Alps were legally created but due to ensuing changes in the land use code,they are referred to as non-conforming structures. These are not a non-conforming use and are allowed to 2 Regular Meeting Planning &Zoning Commission June 11, 2013 continue. This approval will memorialize what is there today. Vann told the Board this is not a subdivided parcel and the applicants want to file a plat to memorialize the existing parcels, clean up the easements; a PUD document that states what the dimensional requirements are,the review processes necessary for any future improvements. Vann said memorializing what is there gives the applicant greater flexibility to deal with the older buildings and would make the building permit process simpler. Vann noted this is a depreciating asset and is a vital component of the community's lodging inventory. Myrin asked why go through this approval process in advance rather than waiting for an actual application. Vann said the master homeowner's association is trying to get in front of future issues. Vann pointed out the land use code has been amended to disincentivize residential uses in the lodge zone; heights and FAR have been lowered. The Aspen Alps was conforming when built and it could not be built today under the current regulations. This application is to find a way to facilitate retaining this part of the lodging market. Ms.Tygre said one purpose of a PUD is to cluster buildings on a site and this approval would not allow that. Vann said the existing buildings are pretty much in the location they would go and the ability to tear all down and move it around is fairly limited. There are too many owners to gain consensus on tearing all the buildings down and starting over. There are areas where development is prohibited; there are areas that using the land area to increase floor area is prohibited. Erspamer asked about the statement that the reduction for steep slopes shall not exceed 25%and is that a change from 20%. Vann stated in a PUD one is required to reduce the allowable lot area for FAR calculation for steep slopes at the maximum of 25%. Erspamer opened the public hearing. Susan Gaines,Aspen Alps resident,told the Board she does not rent her unit and she is concerned that the actual square footage of her unit is larger than is on record and if this is memorialized, it would not be good for her and the assessment for her unit is not accurate. Ms. Gaines asked P&Z not to approve this request. Vann told P&Z the applicants used the county recorded maps and field verified the figures; used the building permit plans to update the square footage. Vann said they were not able to verified Ms. Gaines unit and would be glad to rectify that. Vann noted floor area is different than gross area; things like stairwells do not count in floor area. Michael Marek, unit 113 Aspen Alps, told P&Z there are homeowners who are confused as to why this application was promulgated. Marek said no one has been polled about redevelopment and redevelopment is not an issue and questioned the money spent by the homeowner's board to come up with a PUD application without any development proposals. Joan Marek stated she does not understand the purpose of this PUD application;the questions P&Z is asking are the same that some of the homeowners have. Sarah Jane Morrell, unit 114, also questioned the purpose of P&Z approving the PUD without other benefit to the city. Ms. Garrow said part of the benefits for the city is getting utilities into proper easements. The information on what exists at the Aspen Alps and when owners come in, it is cost and time for the city staff and for owners to see if their proposal is allowed. Richard Auhll, Alps owner,told P&Z in 2012 Board of Managers received an 11 page document on 3 suggested proposals to redevelop the Aspen Alps so this proposal has caused concern with homeowners that a redevelopment will come in with after this step is approved. 3 Regular Meeting Planning&Zoning Commission June 11, 2013 Connie Harvey, Alps owner, told P&Z the owners, without a vote,were asked to send proxies to the Alps planning committee without understanding what the point is. Ms. Harvey said she does not feel this is a good idea. Paul Taddune told P&Z he is working with some of the homeowners and this appeared to be a routine application and a memorialization of what exists; however,there may be impacts on the homeowners, like a reduction in FAR. The homeowners should be given a chance to review this and see how it may affect each individual's circumstances. Erspamer closed the public hearing. Ms. Garrow reminded P&Z that the homeowner's associations are not part of this review and there are criteria in the packet related to PUD, rezoning and subdivision and the two, homeowner association issues and land-use criteria, are separate. Ms.Darrow clarified if there is a non-purposeful destruction and a building needs to be redone, if the building is non-conforming, it can be rebuilt exactly as it was. If there is a purposeful destruction and the building is non-conforming, it has to be rebuilt complying with underlying zoning, except for density. One reason to do this PUD is to clarify exactly what exists on the site and will make the buildings conforming. Ms. Garrow said the Winter building was approved in 2001 and at that time staff requested the applicants apply a PUD to the property; however, because the way the ordinance was written,that was not accomplished and the PUD only covered part of the project. Applying a PUD to the entire parcel has been the intent for the last dozen years. Jennifer Phelan, community development department, said it is important for staff and for applicants to have a base line of what exists on a property and what would be permitted. The Aspen Alps has a partial PUD with unclear boundaries, buildings that may or may not meet the height limit. Weiss asked about combining units. Ms. Garrow said that would require a land use application and P&Z review, regardless of whether this PUD passes or not. Ms.Tygre said if this is approved, the Alps or homeowners could come in and process a land use application for more units or for another building. Ms. Garrow said at anytime the owners could request amending their dimensional requirements. Ms. Tygre said a concern to P&Z members is the future requests, not necessarily this PUD, and the dimensional limits can be overturned. Ms. Garrow reiterated these buildings were built according to the codes in place and they are legally established non-conforming buildings in terms of most of the dimensional requirements. P&Z has to look at the review criteria and determine if this request to memorialize what is there meets the criteria. Ms. Garrow reminded P&Z that the nature of PUDs is that they are site specific; this is a unique situation and probably no other property in Aspen is half covered by a PUD. The rezoning is to clarify what was intended 12 years ago. Ms. Garrow said most land use applications in front of P&Z are for new development,the applicants are asking to vary dimensions of a building that does-not exist. This application is for existing buildings; the default is today—what exists, regardless of whether there is a PUD. P&Z needs to evaluate this application based on the criteria in front of them. Ms. Garrow said if P&Z feels what is there now is inappropriate, does not fit with the neighborhood, does not fit the context of the area and if there were to be a totally new application, P&Z could say it has to comply with the underlying lodge district,that could be the recommendation. Weiss moved to extend the meeting until 7:30 to finish this item; seconded by Goode. All in favor, with the exception of Ms.Tygre. Motion carried. 4 Regular Meeting Planning&Zoning Commission June 11, 2013 Erspamer requested the minutes regarding the intent of the PUD approval for the Alps as referred to by staff. Weiss said P&Z cannot enforce or weigh in on homeowner's association rules. P&Z reviews how this application compares to the code. Myrin said he is not comfortable approving this application based on table 4 existing non-conformities as one of the criteria is that the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide; according to that table, none of density or unit sizes or heights would fit the dimensional requirements of the code. The code requires P&Z to use the underlying zone district as a guide and this does not match the PUD. Weiss stated the request is to memorialize something that cannot be changed without further land use review. Walterscheid suggested leaving the property as is rather than speculate what might come back as a future land use application. Ms.Tygre agreed P&Z could establish what exists on the property without making it a PUD. There is a baseline and it does not need to be memorialized in the form of a PUD. Gibbs stated the new development issue is not germane to this application. Gibbs agreed with staff there are good reasons to apply this PUD and staff has pointed out in order to deal with the Alps property in the future, it needs to be regularized and put into one coherent parcel with known dimensions and standards. Walterscheid said he does not see the necessity to change what the dimensional requirements are. Goode said although he can see staff's reasons for this proposal he can also support the P&Z members who are questioning this approval. Vann said PUD is a complex section of the city's code and if the applicants were coming in with a new development resembling what exists on site, P&Z would be correct in saying this is so far out of bounds it would not meet the requirements of the PUD section. Vann reiterated the buildings can be torn down and replaced as they exist and new structures or buildings voluntarily torn down must meet the underlying zoning dimensional requirements. One can replace existing non-conformities subject to special review approval based on the criteria if it is appropriate in the location; if it is consistent with surrounding development. The Alps is a non-conforming structure which the applicants could propose to demolish, request special review approval to put it back the way it is and if the P&Z were not inclined to give special review approval,the buildings will stand the way they are. Vann stated the idea of this is to address an aging complex and if a majority of homeowners wanted to do some work,this would remove some of the impediments. Vann said one has to assume what exists on the property is effectively the zoning; what exists today could not be built under today's code. Vann said the purpose of this application was to facilitate the Alps' ability to upgrade, maintain, reconfigure, replace and modernize their properties. Vann said the first direction from the homeowners was"do no harm";this application was to make things consistent. Tom Todd, representing the applicant,told Council there would probably be significant discussion at homeowners meetings before any plan is approved for submittal to the city. Todd said this application is a baseline and was spurred on by the city's lodging study and the finding that 2/3 of condominium owners at the Alps rent their units and how can upgrade of the units be encouraged. Myrin moved to approve Resolution#14, recommending City Council approve a PUD amendment, rezoning to PUD and subdivision for the property located at 700 Ute Avenue; seconded by Ms.Tygre. Myrin moved to amend, Ms.Tygre withdrew her second. Myrin moved to approve Resolution #14, recommending City Council approve a PUD amendment, rezoning to PUD and subdivision for the property located at 700 Ute Avenue that exhibit B is modified to include only the parking space column and the first two columns on the left; seconded by Ms.Tygre. 5 Regular Meeting Planning&Zoning Commission June 11, 2013 Myrin said his purpose is to leave the dimension and underlying zoning to what exists at the time of an application. Debbie Quinn, assistant city attorney, noted no dimensions are being established by this motion. Vann stated a PUD approval with no underlying zoning does not work. Gibbs moved to continue to June 18; seconded by Walterscheid. All in favor with the exception of Weiss, motion carried. Gibbs moved to adjourn at 7:30; seconded by Goode. All in favor, motion carried. Kathr Koch ` City Clerk 6