Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20000815 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 Bob Blaich opened the regular meeting at 4:30 p.m. with Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Steven Buettow, Tim Mooney, Ron Erickson, Roger Haneman and Charles Vresilovic present. City staff in attendance: Ed Sadler, Asset Manager; Chris Bendon, Fred Jarman, Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS Roger Hunt asked about compliance with the sound parameters from the runway and highway affecting noise on the housing. He noted that those top (MAA) units would be impacted by the noise because CDOT changed the grade of the road. Hunt stated that aircraft take-offs would vibrate anything in that line of sight. Hunt wanted to be assured of these mitigation issues prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Hunt voiced concern about the reopening of Old Stage Road and people crossing the highway at that point. Chris Bendon stated that there was a clause in the CO (certificate of occupancy) for a noise inspection; the final inspection called for the noise report. Joyce Ohlson stated that the Burlingame project was being contemplated as a possible COWOP project. Joyce Ohlson noted that 220 Puppy Smith Street will be submitted to City Council on August 28th to determine the eligibility of the project for a COWOP process. She said there was no specific development proposal for it, so this would be a good test of the process. Ohlson said on August 22nd the Engineering Department would present an entire city Aspen Mountain Drainage Plan Report. Ohlson noted an August 294 work session on running effective meetings and participating in effective meetings. Ohlson noted a September 5th meeting involving the Planning Commission, Historic Preservation Committee, Housing in a joint meeting with Council to review all the work done on the housing size guidelines. Ohlson asked the Housing Office for a report on the status of the ADU's and mentioned there was an enforcement officer. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Jasmine Tygre stated that she would step-down from the 610 East Hyman review. PUBLIC HEARING: LTR ZONE DISTRICT/GMOS CODE AMENDMENTS Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. David Hoefer stated that notice was provided. Chris Bendon reminded the Board that the Aspen Mountain PUD received conceptual approval for Lot #3 and Lot #5. Bendon pointed out one code ~-~' amendment was to the LTR, which had a peculiar single-family house development ~. ~.~ under the use and dimensional requirements. The code read that the lot had to be exactly 6,000 square feet; the PUD regulations stated that only dimensional 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 requirements could be varied. This amendment would contemplate the change in use requirements to a dimensional requirement, which would allow for the dimensions of the lot. Bendon stated the second amendment was to the Growth Management Section of the Code, which would allow for the conversion of reconstruction credits. The applicant hopes to convert the residential units into lodge units. Bendon said that there would be a scoring procedure involved with Council review. He stated the criteria were based upon the change in use review for additional employees. The application must be compatible with the character of the surrounding area, provide adequate parking and be in compliance with the AACP. Jasmine Tygre stated that as part of the Aspen Mountain PUD there was a need to modify the dimensional requirements; she questioned the code applying to all LTR. Bendon said if the use were eliminated, then no house would be allowed on any parcel that was less than 6,000 square feet. Tygre asked if there was a right involved and not necessarily part of the PUD to this as an LTR. Sunny Vann, applicant planner, said that LTR now limits the lot size to 6,000 square feet as well, and an applicant could apply under the PUD process to ask for a larger lot. Joyce Ohlson stated that the lot size was taken out of the use section and replaced in the dimensional standards section of the code. Tygre stated that dimensional requirement was in there for a reason. Bendon replied that a single-family development would not necessarily be desired on any size parcel in the LTR Zone District. Bendon stated that there should be a certain vitality of not having everything the same in every neighborhood. Tygre asked if this would encourage the conversion of the small lodges into single-family homes; she questioned the approach. Varm responded that it only changes in which section of the code the language was placed. Ron Erickson asked about the 2 lodge units of residential conversion credit. John Sarpa responded that it was part of 150 residential credits that were unused from the hotel. Sarpa stated they had originally asked for 2x/2 credits but ended up with 2. Varm said that 150 hotel units were agreed upon with City Council andto use the unused residential credits at two to one ratio. Roger Hunt asked for clarification that under minimum lot area per dwelling unit, ifa duplex was now 6,000 square feet. Bendon stated that was correct because a duplex was 6,000 square feet. Vann said that this addressed some of the existing problems in the LTR Zone District. No public comments. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 Erickson stated that philosophically he had a problem with changing the land use code for the benefit of one applicant. He did not agree with the two to one conversion factor; he said allocating the 150 hotel units with a PUD finally put it all together. He said the broader issue was with the land use code and he said that he would like to see residential housing in the LTR Zone District as a conditional use. He said that he did not oppose the two changes, but did not want to change the code, which was the only way that this could be accomplished. Hunt recalled the LTR Zone was primarily for lodge and questioned the 6,000 square foot min/max lot because there was no successful way to control anything under a conditional use. Varm explained that this application had to be submitted prior to December with the final GMQS competition completed. Bendon suggested that the Commissioners judge what was before them tonight, and pass it forward onto Council as the conditional use with their comments. Blaich stated that he wants this to move ahead tonight with recommendations from the Commission. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt Resolution #00-37 recommending to City Council the amendment of the text of the Land Use Code, Section 26.710.190 and 26.470.070, finding that criteria have been met. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Erickson, yes; Haneman, yes; Tygre, no; Blaich, yes; Buettow, yes; Mooney, yes; Hunt, yes. APPROVED 6-1. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to add to P&Z Resolution #00- and recommend to City Council that P&Z found no benefit in not just exchanging the 34 units for the 150 units directly. Ron Erickson second. Erickson, yes; Haneman, yes; Tygre, yes; Blaich, yes; Buettow, yes; Mooney, yes; Hunt, yes. APPROVED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 YELLOW BRICK SCHOOL FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) / CODE AMENDMENTS / REZONING Bob Blalch opened the public hearing. David Hoe£er stated that the notice was provided and the Commission has jurisdiction to proceed. Fred Jarman introduced Ed Sadler, Asset Manager, representative for the project. Jarman said that the 3 issues were: (D Rezone from R-6 (Medium-Density Residential) to PUB (Public); (~ A code amendment to allow 3 new permitted uses: Daycare Centers, Non-Profit Organizations (for cultural purposes and other non- profit purposes) and Private Schools and the ® Final PUD plan. Jarman provided the history of the building and the uses throughout the years. He noted that current residents were CORE, The Gay/Lesbian Fund, The Waldorf School, The Early Learning Center, Managed PlayGroup and Kid's Club. He said the proposal was to essentially convert the basement into office use space for non- profits. Jarman said that the DRC suggested a traffic study, sprinkler systems and replacing sewer lines; these were added as conditions of approval but not required. Roger Haneman asked if it was specific when amending the zone to add Non-Profit Facilities. He mentioned that some non-profits were very successful and for the City to subsidize them was not appropriate. Blaich agreed. Roger Hunt asked if it could be linked to a community service organization. Sadler stated that Non-Profit was the only legal description that they had. Ron Erickson noted that non-profits only did not have to show no profit for tax purposes but lined their pockets with the profits. Hoefer stated that was a Land Use issue and not an administrative decision. Erickson stated that this was for the good of the community goals as a whole. Sieven Buettow said'the change was problematic because he felt the main use was for kids and this would open the building up to lots of other people and uses which don't have anything to do with kids. He felt the R-6 was a better zone district because then the monitoring could be easily accomplished. Sadler replied that the City was sensitive to potential tenants. Sadler stated that after the City remodels the building, they intended it to be self-supporting; the tenants would pay for any improvements now that the building was fixed-up. Sadler said that The Early Learning Center had just as much to say who went into the basement spaces so they would pick uses conducive to children. Joyce Ohlson stated that part of the PUD process was to limit the non-profit use to the basement area to and to preserve the other portion of the building for children. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 15. 2000 Jarman read the definition of a non-profit organization into the record. A non- profit organization is an entity which has received a favorable determination from the United States Internal Revenue Service regarding a tax-exempt status as incorporated, Colorado provides Statute C of S Corporations and Associations are included. Tim Mooney asked if there were definitions for cultural, educational and civic. Ohlson replied that would be part of the purpose statement of the PUD and general but not specific to what'was allowed in the uses. Nick McGrath, attorney, stated that he did a lot of non-profit work and many 501C3 charities were disallowed from non-profit status because they were not incorporated. He noted that some those entities were very important and should not be excluded from the non-profits status. Jasmine Tygre asked who would be judging the applications for the non-profits. Ohlson responded that Council decided whether an essential public facility could be located in the basement spaces and if it provided Growth Management mitigation under the code. Tygre asked if a non-profit that rented space in this building had to mitigate for their employees. Erickson stated that was a new use of 3,000 square feet. Glenn Horn, project planner, stated that Growth Management was based upon a change in use in space being created; this was not a change in use. Blaich said that this point should be well taken about the employee mitigation or at least evaluated. Horn said that was under the purview of Council and would be assessed for what the Growth Management exemption was. Blaich said the Parks Plan was an expensive one and did not want to have any affordable housing be excluded from consideration of this site. Horn said that any change to the site would require a PUD amendment. Ohlson stated that affordable housing was a conditional use in the public zone district. Hoefer noted that would not be precluded in this zone district. Blaich did not want to trade-offthe park plan for affordable housing in the future. Mooney asked if community or locally serving could be included in the definition for non-profits that it originated in Aspen. No public comments. Buettow asked if the kids would be protected from offices being placed in the areas designed for kids, which were on the first floor, and that all other offices be limited to the basement space. Hoefer replied that a priory could be placed on those offices for kids'organizations upon turnover of those office spaces on the first 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 floon Erickson noted that there was a vote, which stipulated that this building would be used as a daycare center purchased with daycare funds. Hoefer responded that staff would research if a vote were taken or stated that way, then this issue did not have to be addressed. Fred Jarman stated that he would notify P&Z of the action taken. Scott, Parks Department, presented the plan with 4 essential design elements: full- court basketball court, green-space turn quad, large playground and a semi- public/private space used by the daycare providers during the day and after it would become a public park. There wOuld be fencing on the inside with hedges facing the outside (street side). Erickson asked what happened to the Bleeker Street parking spaces. They would be removed; they were in the right-of-way. Mooney asked about lighting and hours of oPeration. Scott replied there would be no lighting in the park. Blaich stated a problem with tying the proposal together with the park is that this area needs to be considered for in-fill affordable housing. He said that he felt the park would preclude the future potential for AH. Hunt asked if the Yellow Brick building itself ever been looked at structurally for the possible addition of a second floor. Sadler replied that he did not know that answer. Ohlson said that this space was targeted as a potential site for in-fill. Mooney voiced concern over parking impacts not being addressed at this stage. Erickson agreed that this was reviewed as a City project and not private matter, which would be reviewed in depth. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to recommend approval of P&Z ResolUtion #00-38 to City Council Yellow Brick School Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)/COde Amendments/Rezoning, 215 North Garmish Street, Block 57, township of Aspen as part of the rezoning to Public (PUB), priority on the first level be given to children's uses, finding that the criteria have been met. Roger Haneman second. Roll call vote: Erickson, yes; Haneman, yes; Tygre, yes; Blaich, no; Buettow, yes; Mooney, yes; Hunt, yes. APPROVED 6-1. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved that prior to the City development of the park area, Yellow BriCk SchOol Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)/Code Amendments/Rezoning, 215 North Garmish Street, the in- fill report be reviewed by City Council. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 7-0. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 Erickson noted that DEPP removed 6 parking spaces and took much public scrutiny for it and now 15 parking spaces were just removed. Ohlson replied that was not under the Commission's authority because that is a growth management issue, which was not under review tonight. PUBLIC HEARING: SANDUNES, 815 WEST MAIN STREET, STREAM MARGIN REVIEW~ ADU, & DESIGN APPEALS COMMITTEE VARIANCES David Hoefer stated that the notice was not posted properly therefore the ADU and variances could not have action taken tonight, but the Stream Margin Review could go forward. Jasmine Tygre stated that she did not like taking parts of an entire project to consider on a piece-meal review. Hoefer stated that the public hearing would have to be re-noticed. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the Sandunes, 815 West Main Street, Stream Margin Review, ADU & Design Appeals Committee Variances to September 5, 2000. Roger Haneman second. APPROVED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 610 EAST HYMAN, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR SIZE OF TRASH-UTILITY AREA VARIANCE Bob Blaich opened the hearing. David Hoefer stated that this was not a public hearing but rather a public meeting. Jasmine Tygre stepped down. Nick McGrath, attorney for Carol Ann Jacobson, Marty Flug and the Fishers, stated that his clients never received notice and he questioned the code on this issue. He said that he or his clients have not had time to review this application and woUld like an extension. Charles Curmiffe, architect, stated that he spoke to all of the owners and was only asking for a small variance in the trash area. Cunniffe stated that there was an inadequate trash area and the issue was not whether or not he could build a garage. McGrath asked that the neighbors be granted due process with the opportunity to be heard because there was no public notice posted. Hoefer stated that with fundamental fairness due to the ambiguousness of the Land Use Code, he suggested continuing the meeting. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public meeting/hearing to September 5, 2000 regarding 610 East Hyman, Special Review for size of Trash-Utility Area Variance because of controversy regarding the hearing type. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 7-0. Mooney requested that staff provide some elevation drawings for the next meeting in order to review the application. Joyce Ohlson stated that the notice would be posted and published. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Transcribed by Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2000 COMMISSIONER. STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS ...................................... 1 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .......................................... 1 LTR ZONE DISTRICT/GMOS CODE AMENDMENTS ..................................1 YELLOW BRICK SCHOOL FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) / CODE AMENDMENTS / REZONING ..... ~ ............................................ 4 SANDUNES, 815 WEST MAIN STREET, STREAM MARGIN REVIEW, ADU. & DESIGN APPEALS COMMITTEE VARIANCES .............................. 7 610 EAST HYMAN, SPECIAL REVIEW FOR SIZE OF TRASH-UTILITY AREA VARIANCE ................................................................................................. 7 9