Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20220301Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 1, 2022 Page 1 of 3 Chairperson McGovern called the regular Planning and Zoning (P&Z) meeting for March 1st, 2022 to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Ruth Carver, Brittanie Rockhill, Sam Rose and Teraissa McGovern Commissioners not in attendance: Scott Marcoux and Spencer McKnight Staff in Attendance: Amy Simon, Planning Director Ben Anderson, Long-Range Planner Kevin Rayes, Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None STAFF COMMENTS None PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Rose motioned to approve the minutes for February 15, 2022 and was seconded by Ms. Carver. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call: Ms. Carver, yes; Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; and Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of four (4) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None PUBLIC HEARINGS Ms. McGovern asked if notice had been provided. Ms. Johnson responded proper notice had been provided for the application. Aspen Mini-Storage Property – 105 AABC – Recommendation to City Council for Annexation and Initial Zoning including a Planned Development Overlay Ms. McGovern then opened the hearing and turned the floor over to staff. Mr. Ben Anderson, Long-Range Planner, introduced the application team including Mr. Chris Everson, City of Aspen, Affordable Housing Project Manager, and Mr. Bob Schultz, Robert Schultz Consulting LLC. Mr. Anderson then reviewed the annexation process. He noted the property is adjacent to the lumberyard property. He stated the city purchased the property with intentions of annexing it into the city. He noted tonight’s hearing is first step in a larger process which he then reviewed. He stated P&Z’s participation in the process is to make a recommendation regarding the annexation and the initial zoning by ordinance from City Council. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 1, 2022 Page 2 of 3 Mr. Anderson explained the proposed underlying initial zoning as a Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/C/I) zone district with a planned development (PD) to memorialize existing site conditions and uses on the property. Mr. Schultz then introduced himself, Mr. Jason James, DHM Design, and Chris Everson, Project Manager for the lumberyard project. Mr. Schultz discussed the criteria for the annexation and initial zoning. He displayed the picture showing the location of the property. He also pointed out the location of the lumberyard property and noted it was annexed into the city in 2011. Mr. Schultz showed the location of the office and manager’s apartment onsite. He stated the application will allow those existing uses including the mini-storage, commercial parking, office and apartment to continue. He noted the parcel was not originally part of the Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC) and was separated in 1990 from the other two neighboring properties. Mr. Schultz displayed a site map showing the location of multiple properties owned by the city in the area. He stated the city has intentions to develop housing on this site related to the hearing in the future. He pointed out two other parcels. The two parcels directly next to it are the lumberyard parcels and the triangular shaped parcel on the Burlingame property. He then reviewed the applicable state and city criteria for annexation. He displayed a site map and discussed how it meets the state requirement of having at least one-sixth of the perimeter (435 FT) of the proposed annexation area be contiguous with the municipality. Mr. Schultz next discussed the city’s criteria. He displayed a map indicating the location of the property is well within the urban growth boundary. He stated because the property is only three acres in size, an annexation impact report is not required. He noted many of the criterion are not applicable to this project because there is no change in land use and no new development. He added the application details responses to the criterion. Mr. Schultz then discussed the initial zoning for the property. In discussions with staff, the SCI zone district was identified to be the most appropriate zone district and the PD overlay limits the uses to what already exists on the property. He displayed a map of the area and identified the zoning of the adjacent properties including SCI to the south, residential multi-family (RMF) on the Annie Mitchell property to the east, general commercial (B-2) on the AABC area to the north and affordable housing (AH) to the small property of housing to the north. He then displayed a table comparing the city’s SCI and PD with Pitkin County’s B-2 zone district standards as provided on page 75 in the agenda packet. He noted the current project does not maximize the available amount of potential SF or floor area in the county or city zoning. The PD limits the expansion of the project. Mr. Schultz discussed the zoning standards for the property are not really helpful because the uses have been in place for 20 years and there is no new use proposed. He described neighboring uses and the character of the area and believes the property meets the character of the area. Mr. Schultz stated the application and staff memo document compliance with the proposed zoning because the property will maintain consistent area uses; there are not changes to the existing development, architecture, and infrastructure; the uses will be limited to the PD and the property is not part of an HOA. He noted in the future, the city will probably return to the commission to discuss putting housing on the property and the necessary discussions will take place at that time. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 1, 2022 Page 3 of 3 He displayed the PD site plan which identify the uses. The city will continue to collect revenue from the storage units to offset the purchase price and the community will benefit from the available services. He closed stating the applicant agrees with staff’s recommendation. Ms. McGovern asked if the commissioners had questions for the applicant. There were none, so she asked the commission for discussion or a motion. Ms. Rockhill motioned to approve the resolution #007, Series 2022 to recommend approval for the annexation of the subject property within city limits to zone the property to the service commercial industrial SCI zone district with a plan development overlay into memorialize the existing dimensions and use of the property as the plan develop development. Ms. Carver seconded the motion. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call: Ms. Carver, yes; Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; and Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of four (4) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Ms. McGovern thanked everyone and closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. McGovern suggested delaying the discussion of board powers, duties and meeting procedures until all members are present and new board members are available. Mr. Rose agreed. Ms. McGovern asked if the group wanted to continue meeting virtual or begin meeting in person. Mr. Rose would prefer to stay virtual. Ms. Carver feels virtual is easy. She is going off the board, but she suggested waiting until the new board members are in place. Ms. Rockhill feels virtual is easier at this time. Ms. McGovern would prefer to stay virtual for the next couple of months. Ms. McGovern hoped there would be an update soon on the appointees to the commission. Ms. Johnson stated she sent out some materials for the discussion, but it will be resent once a date has been set. Ms. Carver stated she would like to see more city annexations. Ms. Rockhill motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Mr. Rose. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 5:03 pm. Cindy Klob, Records Manager