Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19960507PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1996 Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. with members Roger Hunt, Timothy Mooney, Robert Blaich, Marta Chaikovska, Steve Buettow, and (new member) Dave Johnston present. Excused was Jasmine Tygre. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Garton welcomed new member Dave Johnston to the Planning and Zoning Commission. STAFF COMMENTS Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director corrected an error on the agenda, Smuggler Mountain is a public meeting not a public hearing. There were no public comments' on items not on the agenda. MINUTES MOTION: Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of April 9, 1996, April 16, 1996 and April 23, 1996. Seconded by Blaich. All in favor, motion carries. Rocky Mountain Pie Company / Conditional Use (continued from 4/2/96) Proof of notice provided. Suzanne Wolff, Staff said this is a continued public hearing from 4/2/96, and was tabled because there were two restaurants operating in the same kitchen, Rocky Mountain Pie Company, owned by Jill Phillips and The Taco and Burrito Company. Wolff stated that the Planning Commission asked that Staff bring in both applications at the same time to discuss the two uses in the kitchen. Wolff stated that The Taco and Burrito Company is no longer in business at that location and Rocky Mountain Pie Company is the only restaurant use in the Mountain Chalet. There were no public comments'. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1996 MOTION: Hunt moved to approve the conditional use for a restaurant at the Mountain Chalet with the following conditions: 1) Any additional and/or future restaurant use at the Mountain Chalet will require a re-evaluation of employee generation for mitigation purposes by the Housing Office prior to issuance of a business license and/or any building permits. 2) All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Seconded by Blaich. Discussion: Mooney asked if the applicant had a liquor license. Jill Phillips, applicant stated that she did not but "you can lick the spoons". All in favor, motion carries. Zupancis Subdivision Bob Nevins, Staff asked that the application be tabled until proper notification has occurred. MOTION: Hunt moved to table action on the Zupancis Subdivision to June 18, 1996, so they are able to properly notice. Seconded by Blaich. All in favor, motion carries. Braden Duplex Conditional Use Steve Buettow stepped down. 2 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1996 Proof of notice provided David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney said the notice is proper and the board has jurisdiction to proceed Bob Nevins, Staff stated that the applicant, Ralph Braden is requesting conditional use approval to construct two ADU's and a stream margin review to develop a new duplex on the residential lot. Nevins said duplexes are permitted in the RMF Zone, the applicant proposes two ADU's with two free-market residences. Nevins stated that the building is located out of the 100 year floodplain. Nevins said there is an existing fence along the rear property line that encroaches into the vacated alley, Staff recommends that it be relocated or removed prior to the issuance of building permits. Garton asked how the applicant proposed to privatize the ADU' s. Scott Smith, Gibson-Reno Architects, representing the applicant said there is a separate South entry into the ADU off of a separate entry porch. Smith said the intent of the ADU is to provide housing in a caretaker situation, that is the reason the secondary door opening in the main house. Garton stated that P&Z determined, and have had this discussion with other applicants that in all situations we require the ADU to have a separate entrance and not be accessible from the main house to secure that the ADU will not become a guest room or used by the household. Smith said that ideally for the anticipated use of the ADU having the secondary door is very important, we were not aware that there were requirements that did not allow that. Garton stated that there are pre-app discussions and maybe Staff can communicate the sound attenuation, ect... Michaelson said that historically those comments have always come through Housing. Smith said that he is not sure why this application will not work with some type of indirect connection within the main residence whereas other applications would be allowed. Blaich responded that at a P&Z meeting a few weeks ago with Gibson- Reno we challenged the ADU because there was direct access to the ADU through the kitchen of the main house and as a condition of approval that was to be removed. 3 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1996 August Reno, architect, stated that he would like to challenge that, in the last three years, had three projects that all have that kind of connection. Reno said that his understanding with the Niesser residence, that Blaich referred to was an exterior entrance, which we did not have, was needed, he said it was not his knowledge they were to remove the interior door. Garton responded that was the representation at the meeting and that is how it was approved. Reno said that with ordinance 1, the intent was to provide these units but not necessarily force the homeowner to rent them out, he would like to know if there has been legislation that changes this. Garton responded that the Commission is interested in the name of the projects he (Auggie) referenced and that if he looked at the conditions and how they were approved, one of the conditions was, minutes dated 4/2/96, condition of approval ~ 7) The entrance to the ADUshall have direct access without having to enter the house. Michaelson read the definition of an ADU, "a separate dwelling unJL that is located within or attached to a principal residence having an entrance separate from the primary residence", the Housing Board has recommended, at least over the last year, that they want ADU's to have separate entrances. Michaelson stated that Auggie is right in that, farther in the code, the ADU standards are not explicit that those doorways have to be removed. Hunt said that he did not read that as excluding interior doorway access, it says "it must have exterior access", but as these are conditional use approval, the Commission has exceeded to the Housing recommendation that there not be an interior access. Chaikovska agreed that it does not preclude interior entrance, ADU's are used for the convenience of the owners with nannies or caretakers, if we are going to adopt a policy of"no interior entrances", it should be put in legislation. Chaikovska stated that the rules are not clear and to be fair to the public that section should be clarified. Blaich said that the interior connections give the owner the flexibility to have an ADU or use it for other purposes, if there is no door, there is no flexibility. Mooney stated that the obvious way around this is cash-in-lieu, or to design a quality living space to provide housing for someone working in this community. Mooney said this set-up appears to be another bedroom. 4 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1996 Smith responded that the intended use of the ADU may not be the ideal goal of the people concerned, but in the intended function of this unit, in terms of a nanny or caretaker, this way works best for that situation. Blaich said the question of privacy is not just physical barrier, but sound, a door will leak more sound than a wall, if it is an ADU than you do not need a door into the main house and if someone will be taking care of the house it is not a hardship to go outside and come in the other door. Nevins stated that the key is we need a wall for total separation of the ADU from the rest of the home. Ralph Braden, applicant said that this project was started in July of 1994, in a design review meeting the board asked us to remove the garages from the front and ask the neighbor (Queen Victoria) if their driveway could be used, that has taken over a year to negotiate and now have to build them a heated driveway, ect... Braden stated that in 1895, what the City thought was an alley, was deeded out from the City, we have been negotiating so they can keep the path down below. Braden said that when he started this project nobody wanted cash-in-lieu, now cash-in-lieu is preferred. Garton said the Commission is discouraged on ADU's as the reports come in as to how many are actually being rented, we are building larger homes and we do not know that we are housing people. Braden asked how much cash-in-lieu is. Michaelson responded that it works out to $19.17 per sq.fl. of the house. Garton said an ADU is a conditional use meaning that it is reviewed by this Commission to hope that it meets the intent of ordinance 1. Reno said that there are mixed signals, we want to know what the rules are, and we are willing to follow as long as they are written and expected. Reno stated that he thinks that if this unit becomes a caretaker, nanny unit, which is the intention, that they should be allowed to have an interior connection. Garton asked about the parking plan. Smith responded that the garages are two car and it will have a parking apron. Garton asked about the trail easement. Nevins responded that the trail easement is on the alley. Braden stated that the alley is dedicated back to the City. Nevins said that because of the width of the potential bikeway, they would like to have the entire alley as an easement due to the nature of the slope. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1996 There were no comments from the public. MOTION: Hunt moved to approve the conditional use for two studio, accessory dwelling units and the stream margin review for the proposed duplex at 926 East Hopkins Avenue with the following conditions: 1) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with the following: a) The applicant shall revise the architectural floor plans in order to create accessory dwelling units that are totally separate from the primary residences; b) The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restrictions to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval of the deed restrictions by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restrictions with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation submitted to the Planning Department. The deed restrictions shall state that the accessory units meet the housing guidelines for such units, meet the definition of Resident Occupied Units, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six (6) months or longer; and c) Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs. 2) The ADUs shall be clearly identified as separate dwelling units on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. 35 sound attenuation requirements. 3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning Department shall inspect the accessory dwelling units to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 6 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1996 4) All new surface utility needs and pedestals must be installed on-site. Curb and gutter shall be installed to City standards along East Hopkins Avenue. 5) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parks Department. Tree removal permits shall be required for the removal or relocation of any tree greater than 6" caliper. 6) No vegetation shall be manipulated outside of the building envelope, and the envelope boundary along the Roaring Fork River shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any building permits. 7) Silt fencing shall be used during construction to prevent runoff from disturbed soils from entering the river. Revegetation is required for any disturbed soil on the site. 8) If dedicating a trail easement along the river, the applicant shall contact the Parks Department to determine the appropriate location. 9) The applicant shall abandon the existing water line on the property if the new duplex is not constructed within six months after the existing residence is demolished. 10) All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Seconded by Blaich. Discussion: Chaikovska commented that she would not support the elimination of the door, she feels there is a need, in certain 7 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1996 situations and until the board reviews and legislates what exactly we want, she cannot support that particular condition. All in favor, motion carries. Steve Buettow abstained. Smuggler Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD and Rezoning Suzanne Wolff, Staff said this was tabled on 4/16/96 to allow staff to review the revised conceptual site plan and to address some issues raised by the Commission. Wolff stated that the number of buildings, units and sqft. of the project have all decreased since the original submission, the current proposal is 13 units, 12 one bedroom units and one (1) two bedroom unit in four buildings. Wolff said the units will be fully deed restricted and will be sold through the Housing office to qualified residents, the current proposal has pulled the building further from the northern property boundary, the structures have been reduced to four (4) from the original seven (7), staff feels that the scale is not excessive for that area, the applicant has modified entrances and porches on Spruce St. consistent with the intent of ordinance 30, nineteen parking spaces have been required on-site. Wolff said that the open space has been improved, 48.5% of the lot is covered by structures, a site specific traffic study will be required at final, Staff supports access on Race Street and RFTA is considering improvements in the area, Staff contends the project complies with the goals and policies of the AACP, and feels that the development is compatible with the land use, character and scale of the Smuggler Mountain neighborhood. Hunt stated that in the deliberations of the AACP the rational of distributing affordable housing throughout the community was because the Smuggler area was already maxed out. Hunt asked why we are placing more affordable housing in the Smuggler area. Michaelson responded that Staff went over the Housing element, the AACP and had several discussions trying to find a missing element, i.e. "this general area should not have any more affordable housing", we did not find that, you can look at a map in the AACP that states "these areas are appropriate for affordable housing", and a footnote reads but, "we do not want this map and these precise locations of potential affordable housing to stop the city from looking at other sites". Michaelson said that Staff was looking for something implied and had missed, they could not find a reference that was as specific of what was suggested. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1996 Buettow asked if the buildings would pass ordinance 30, in reference to its primary entrance. Wolff responded that ordinance 30 issues would be discussed during the final PUD application, Staff has made recommendations that would be consistent with ordinance 30. Ted Guy, applicant stated that the model is the same as presented two weeks ago with a little more detail. Garton asked if the applicant discussed with RFTA and the school district about the bus stop and pick-up of school children. David Guthrie, applicant responded that the school district asked that the road stay two lanes or smaller, not widened. Guy said that part of the Williams Ranch traffic study is some changes that are scheduled to occur at the intersection of South St. with Gibson and narrowing the drive into Smuggler to provide better traffic flow and additional stop signs. Hunt asked who he would see to prevent the access to Smuggler, one of the problems is there is no East end egress out of the trailer park, if there was a fire there would need to be two roads out of there and narrowing the road down to one would upset the safety efforts. Stan Clausen stated that Hunt would need to talk with the City Engineer. Tony Rutgers, public said they are having a lot of frustration trying to get through Staff and Housings intentions, the Housing action plan says "no one location, no one type of housing, no one sector can provide the opportunities needed to sustain this community", we know this neighborhood is going to grow, but we don't need it to grow at that rate. Ward Hauenstein, public said the Planning Departments report endorsing the project, this area was referred to as a "buffer" to the rest of the neighborhood, what is the definition of"buffer" and how can this density act as a "buffer" to the neighborhood. Hauenstein said this area is maxed out, and have housed a huge proportion of affordable housing in the town and the density in this area now, is denser than any where else in the valley, he asked who defined the Williams Addition as a transitional neighborhood and finally the applicant stated that they were willing to pay for the reingineering of the road, he said the applicant will not be paying for this, it will be passed along in the form increased subsidies and higher priced units when they go on the market. 9 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1996 Patty Simpson, public said the school busses pick up on Race Street (north side) in the mornings and are dropped off on the south side, today there were 28 children getting off the bus at that stop. Simpson said that if this little neighborhood needs larger busses or two busses and no other neighborhood needs that, it speaks for itself that we are overcrowded up there, this is way to dense for a very dangerous lined corner. Jon Busch, public said the Williams Addition was annexed separately from Centennial, the trailer court, from Hunter Creek and all the neighborhoods. Busch said the Williams Addition came before the City specifically to ask for R-6A zoning but was modified due to the larger lot sizes, the Planning office stated, at that time, to make the area multi-family because everything around there was already multiple family. Busch said this area is already overburdened and is not consistent with the AACP, the Parks master plan had identified this area as deficient in open space, the area is heavily overburdened. Robert Zupancis, public said he did not want his kids playing in the alley (Race St.) anymore with the cars pulling in and backing out of the parking area for this development. Zupancis stated this project saddens him because it signifies the end of a historical era of that neighborhood, do we really need more in this neighborhood. Silvia Davis, public said it occurred to her, not addressing specifics, are you creating the healthy mix you want, are you accomplishing "messy vitality", or are you creating a nice ghetto area where only the working people can live in sterile uniformity, she said the balance did not look or feel good and asked that the Commission look at the broader picture. Marcia Goshorn, public stated that she is here to speak in favor of the project, looking back on a co-housing project that she came before P&Z, 4 1/2 years ago. Goshorn said she heard a lot of the same comments about having "us" in the neighborhood up there, we were told that it was going to generate traffic, it would change the feel of what was around it, and that it wasn't appropriate for that neighborhood, people where going to be moving in and out, it is not going to be like that they will be purchasing these units and there is very little turnover rate in employee housing. Goshorn said that they found in there project people do not use their cars they walk into town, they take their bikes, there is a lot less traffic than there was before we were there (corner of Long Pine and Red Mountain Rd.). Goshorn stated that as far as Williams Addition is concerned, the only thing that is 10 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1996 their neighborhood is Williams Addition, so they are not part of the rest of the town? Gretchen Greenwood, public said Aspen is made up of neighborhoods broken down, she has never seen a neighborhood, when there is a public hearing, show up, when she had her public hearing for historic designation her entire neighborhood showed up, that is a unique situation. Greenwood stated that the rules for zoning changes; 1) the proposed development shall be consistent with the AACP, no one location should have to take on the burden of housing; 2) the proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area; there has been no turnover, it is a working neighborhood; 3) the proposed development shall not adversely afJkct the future development of the surrounding area; you know this is not the last project that will come through to Smuggler, what is going to happen is people are going to move down valley; there will be other opportunities for employee housing but there will not be other opportunities for neighborhoods like this; 4) whether the proposed amendments is consistent and compatible with community character in the City of Aspen; it is too big, too dense; 5) does it conflict with public interest; the Smuggler homeowners association and all of Williams Addition is against it. Diane Rutgers, public asked how much traffic is to much traffic, the quality of our lives is deteriorating because of the amount of cars, the reason the area fought so hard for the R-6 zoning is because of the integrity of the neighborhood and she would like to see there what it is zoned for. Rutgers stated that they have a contract with the City on zoning, we fought Williams Ranch and we do not know what the fallout is going to be on Williams Ranch, unfortunately there is only one access road in and one out. Rutgers said affordable housing is a big issue, it is a great project, but it is not in the right place. David Harris, public asked if the infill concept will ruin the future of the Williams Addition, is my little house going to be surrounded by high density projects like this one. Stephanie Costello, public stated that she comes in and out of Smuggler several times a week, there is no way to safely condense the intersection, RFTA wants to put on smaller gas powered busses not make them larger. Costello said this project feels that the whole neighborhood should redesign its lifestyle and its living to accommodate them, it is disappointing to think that one parcel could rezone the whole area. 11 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1996 David Brown, public stated that the community as a whole, currently, is trying to create affordable housing in a number of different neighborhoods. Brown said he is in favor of this project conceptually and at this stage it is less than the allowable density, he said, this is the type of project that will keep this neighborhood a local neighborhood. Brown said that he hoped, if this project is approved that they would not ostracize the new neighbors because they haven't been there 60 years, 30 years, or 20 years. In addition, he hoped that P&Z would recommend the approval of this project to City Council. Solveig Warming, public stated that she could not emphasize enough how dangerous intersection where Race Street enters South Street. Keith Howie, public said if the Smuggler or Williams Ranch was near the hospital would you be approving it, no, because no one wants housing in their backyard. Howie stated that he works in Aspen and cannot find affordable housing, the housing rate is so expensive, unless you have lived here 20 years, which he hasn't he cannot afford anything around here. Howie said he is in favor of any affordable housing project that will allow him to be a resident of Aspen. Bruce Barth, public stated that he agreed with Keith Howie. Charlie Tarver, public said first with the density vs. free market, what would be there if the zoning was not there, he feels the density would be even bigger if free market, second the problems associated with this town are caused by everyone of us who makes money in this town, as long as we generate our income from this tourist based economy we are the cause of the need for affordable housing. Tarver stated that he sympathized with the neighborhood, he said it is a small town and the problem will have to be solved as a community however, our towns biggest problem is the automobile, we should reduce the automobiles allowed in these neighborhoods. Garton closed public comments. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mooney stated that he has traditionally been in favor of AH, he does think there is a need for affordable housing. Mooney said this is a unique location, the project is designed very well, but because of the input tonight and the nature of Williams Addition he does not feel they have seen enough conceptual ideas. Mooney stated that 13 units in these categories does not work, a well designed AH project on that corner could work, he said it is the number of people who are walking out of the 12 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1996 project everyday, the number of kids, the number of cars that are on their way to Smuggler, from Centennial, to the trailer park, it is too busy, too dense. Mooney said that he would like to see some more alternatives, the current design does not fit the requirements for a zoning change, he is interested in the people who will move here in the future, but he is betting on the people who live here now. Chaikovska said she gets the impression that any development there would be nixed by the public, she is in favor of AH and in meetings like this it is always the majority that says no to affordable housing projects. Hunt said he agreed wholeheartedly with Tim Mooney, the AACP did state that "no neighborhood should have to take on all the affordable housing", one of the maj or problems with this is the number of cars on Race St. and the effect it has on Race St., from a residential point of view it is a street, from a development point of view it is an alley, if this were somewhere else he'd like the plan very much. Hunt said he favors affordable housing, if it stays with this density we should do something with the parking lot along the alley because it is not appropriate for this neighborhood. Hunt encouraged the applicant to re-look at RO and reduce the density. Blaich stated that he is in favor with AH, he has a lot of respect the neighbors position of this being a neighborhood. Blaich asked what will happen if this does not happen, would one or two monster homes go on the property, he doubts it but it could. Blaich said he does not think this project will ruin the neighborhood, he thinks there are a lot of people who would like to live in this town, he would like to see a project in this location that will not be a negative aspect for the neighborhood. Blaich stated that he feels the public safety problem is a very important issue that has to be dealt with. Johnston said being new to the process, he thinks density is an issue but he is by no means against affordable housing. Buettow stated that he has heard too often that this it too dense, what would happen if this project wasn't there, what is the allowable for the R-6 zone. Buettow said that 8580 sq.ft, are allowable, the R-6 zone can have 3 houses, 3 garages and 3 detached ADU's, and approximately 12 bedrooms. Buettow stated that what is proposed here is smaller in sq.ft, and one extra bedroom, then the question of do we want three second homes where they only live here 9 weeks a year instead of employee housing people who actually live and work here. 13 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1996 Buettow said there are more people and there would be more cars, if the alley is to be used as a street it should be enlarged to a regulated street. Garton said that she went through the AACP process, the plan asked that affordable housing be dispersed throughout the community, the concept of this design is excellent and if she could take this plan and put it on any other parcel in town it would be a given, but this area can not absorb anymore. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney stated that the Commission address which of the nine rezoning criteria you feel have not been met. Hunt asked if the applicants are willing to reconsider the design of this project. Guy responded that the Housing Authority does not want to see more RO units and have encouraged us along this path we have taken. Guy said that when Benedict Commons had their lottery, nearly 400 long term locals signed up to buy a home in Aspen, they were able to accommodate 30, there is a huge need in this community to provide other people than the larger families with unlimited incomes. Hunt said that there is so much open space taken up by housing the automobile, and asked if there is any other way to handle that without undergrounding. Hunt said the automobile in this density is one of the major problems. Chaikovska asked if the applicant would have built RO' s, or did were there mixed signals as to what the Housing Authority wanted. Guthrie responded that at the last Housing Authority meeting a full RO project was not received well. Guthrie stated that he did not see a need for $350,000 houses that are "affordable housing", in town when 75 people apply for one category 2 or 3 studio at West Hopkins. Blaich asked how many families live in this "neighborhood". The public responded, approximately 11 families. Blaich threw out the idea of possibly using the dead end on Walnut Street as parking. Guy responded that there is only one way to solve the parking problem, we identified it back in 1975 when we did the Light Rail study, we have to make it illegal for people to use their cars and until we as a community are ready to do that, there really isn't a solution. Guy said that by locating the property here, where it is very convenient to walk, bike or take the bus to town, will have the best success in 14 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1996 keeping people from using their cars and the majority of cars on this parcel are in covered parking. Nevins, Staff, stated that he lives in the West Hopkins project, there are 11 units with an existing platted alley, that project currently provides 6 covered parking spaces and 5 surface on the alley, there are 6 two-bedroom units, 2 three-bedroom units and 3 studio-loft apartments, that alley also shares common access with an office building on Main St., several multi-family projects to the East and several single-family units and an alley can accommodate automobiles that is what they are made for. Garton asked the applicant if they would like to continue this conceptual hearing. Guy responded that if this is not going to be acceptable, he needs to know sooner than later, this process could go on forever, and this is our third meeting. Guy asked that the Commission vote on the rezoning and PUD as separate issues. MOTION: Hunt moved to recommend to Council denial of rezoning of the Smuggler Affordable Housing project, 810 South Avenue, Lots 13, 14, 15 & 16, Block 3, Williams Addition for the following reasons: 1) The Commission finds that it is not consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan, specifically this project does seem to go against the concept of spreading the impact of affordable housing throughout the community and; 2) The Commission finds that it is not compatible with the surrounding zoning districts and land uses, considering the existing land use and neighborhood characteristics, specifically related to the Williams Addition and; 3) The Commission finds that the proposed amendment traffic generation and road safety is not positive and would tend to aggravate road safety, particularly with respect to Race Street although platted as an alley but characteristic of this neighborhood the alley has become a front street. Seconded by Mooney. Discussion: 15 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1996 Chaikovska asked if the Commission denies rezoning will we entertain any R-6 type buildings as opposed to an AH1/PUD. Michaelson said that is correct under this scenario. Chaikovska asked if we do rezone to AH1/PUD then others can come in or the applicant can redesign the project, are we foreclosing that by denying rezoning. Michaelson said that was the reason AH1/PUD was in the same project, not only were you looking at rezoning a piece of property to AH you were able to make determinations on mass & scale,/4 of units, it is not possible to like the PUD and deny rezoning. Hunt asked if he would need to add to his motion that the Commission is not recommending denial of AH zoning of this property. Hoefer stated that their motion would only apply to this application and would not affect future applicants. Garton stated that she takes a stronger stand and is voting to deny this application because she does not want to see further affordable housing go into the Smuggler neighborhood. Mooney said he feels we have given the applicant an alternative to re-conceptualize this project by having a mix of categories, including RO so there is an economic balance, the applicant stated that it would not work for them. Garton said she is not concerned about the profit, she is concerned about the density. Hoefer stated that there is nothing to prevent the applicant from reapplying in 6 months with the same idea, or a different idea. Motion carries 4-3 with members, Garton, Hunt, Mooney and Blaich voting yes and Chaikovska, Buettow and Johnston voting no. Tennis Townhomes Insubstantial PUD/Subdivision Amendment Amy Amidon, Staff said there were some concerns about the architecture and overall character of the project, it was taken to the Historic Preservation Commission who did a design review in 1990/91, they were shown a different design than Planning & Zoning, it was redesigned to be more in the Bauhaus 16 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1996 character of the Aspen Meadows. Amidon stated that standard 9, which seemed to be the meat of the issue, "create a change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting a further variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements", the design is now more in the architectural character of the surrounding buildings, but they do not directly imitate them and that is what we are looking for. Amidon noted that HPC recommended to P&Z that this is an insubstantial amendment, HPC would like to see the project again and placed two conditions on it; 1) they are concerned with the selected materials and landscaping treatments and; 2) they would like to see decks, balconies, cantilevered elements be more usable space than what is represented. Mooney stated that before the applicant goes further, he would like to disclose a possible conflict of interest, this project is being sold by the real estate company he is employed with, and said that he felt it was inappropriate to stay involved in this vote and stepped down. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Hunt said that the design was not a critical factor in his original vote, it was the use not the design, he would recommend this is an insubstantial amendment with HPC in the loop. Buettow stated that he would not support this as an insubstantial PUD. Blaich said there are positive steps taken and he will put his trust in HPC to protect the equity of this historical property. Garton stated that she is happy that HPC is in the loop for the integrity of the campus and is willing to recommend to Staff this is an insubstantial amendment. Stan Clausen, Community Development Director stated that he asked for the advisory recommendation, the code provides that the Director may make a determination to whether there is a substantial or insubstantial amendment, in this case, knowing that P&Z worked very hard on the Aspen Meadows, he felt uncomfortable taking this on exclusively because of the considerations that came forth over many meetings. Clausen has asked the Planning & Zoning Commission for an advisory recommendation as to whether he should sign off on this as a substantial or an insubstantial amendment, this will have HPC review. 17 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1996 MOTION: Hunt moved to advise the Community Development Director that Planning & Zoning finds this is an insubstantial amendment to the SPA and recommend that he continue on present course keeping the Historic Preservation Commission in the loop. Seconded by Johnston. Motion carries 4-2 with members Garton, Hunt, Blaich, Johnston voting yes, Buettow and Chaikovska voting no and Mooney abstained. ADU Regulations (information item only) Michaelson handed out a memo on some conceptual ideas he has framed based on the multiple discussions about ADU' s, he addressed several issues such as, low utilization rates of units for working residents, sub-standard units from a livability stand point, and finally the burden that may be placed on a neighborhood to have to absorb off-site parking. Michaelson asked that the Commission review this and bring feedback to the next meeting on 5/14/96. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Amy G. Schmid, Deputy Clerk 18 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 7, 1996 MINUTES .............................................................................................................. 1 Rocky Mountain Pie Company / Conditional Use ................................................... 1 Zupancis Subdivision .............................................................................................. 2 Braden Duplex Conditional Use .............................................................................. 2 Smuggler Affordable Housing Conceptual PUD and Rezoning .............................. 8 Tennis Townhomes Insubstantial PUD/Subdivision Amendment ......................... 16 ADU Regulations (information item only) ............................................................ 18 19