Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20001205ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5~ 2000 Bob Blaich, chairman, opened the regular Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting at 4:30 p.m. in the Sister Cities Meeting Room with Jasmine Tygre, Ron Erickson, Eric Cohen and Roger Haneman present. Steven Buettow and Charles Vreslovic were excused. City staff in attendance: Joyce Ohlson and Nick Lelack, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER~ STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Ron Erickson asked about the follow-up on the MAA. Erickson also mentioned the rules and regulations that were brought up to set up ground rules to post at the meetings. Joyce Ohlson requested email addresses from the commissioners. Ohlson commented that she would like to work through the discussion issues from the last meeting. Nick Lelack said that there were notes on the Cemetery Lane Character Plan and requested any other issues that the commission could think of to add to the list. Toni Kronberg, public, stated that in the next couple of months the Iselin PUD had issues of major concern to the community:(!) To build the right pool complex for the community and resort; (~) Guarantee 2 sheets of ice in the community to meet the dmand; ® More in-fill housing; (~) The schools have out-grown the bus barn site. Kronberg stated that 4 pieces of land could solve the goals: Iselin Park, the school's bus-barn site campus, existing ice area in town and the site between RFTA and the county land where Highway 82 merges. Kronberg stated that she would prepare a packet with number aVailable for funding that could make all these goals happen at the same time. KrOnberg stressed that if the wrong project were placed on the wrong piece of land it will not serve the future of our community. Ben Hall, public, stated that the he thought that Cemetery Lane would be discussed tonight. Blaich rephed that it would not be discussed or voted on anything regarding Cemetery Lane tonight. Casey Clarke, public, asked when the next proposal for Cemetery Lane would happen. Joyce Ohlson responded that there were 2 major projects being worked on regarding Cemetery Lane: one was the House Size Ordinance that was going to City Council for second reading on December 18th and second was the Cemetery Lane Character Plan, which was still in the planning stages. Clarke stated that there was not enough input from the public on the House Size. Blaich answered that P&Z did not have any jurisdiction over Council. ASPEN PLANNING& ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. PUBLIC HEARING: HOTEL ASPEN PUD Bob Blaich opened the public heating for continuation. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the HotelAspen PUD until January 16, 2001. Jasmine Tygre seconded. APPROVED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: SAVANNAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP CONCEPTUAL PUD REVIEW ,~ REZONING -: OVERVIEW PRESENTATION Bob Blaich, P&Z Chairman, opened the Savannah Limited Parmership PUD Review and Rezoning. Nick Lelack, Community Development Planner, introduced Sunny Vann, the applicant planner and John Sarpa, the representative. Lelack said that notice was not necessary for tonight but Savannah mailed notices. Lelack stated that this was a conceptual review to identify the key issues and continue the public meeting to January 16, 2001, which will be the public heating. Lelack noted that within one year of the conceptual approval the final plans had to be submitted for approval to the city (it was a 4 step process). John Sarpa discussed the mix and location of the affordable housing to fit into the community. Sunny Vann utilized maps and drawings to show the location of the parcels: the Barbee Property- Parcel 1, Parcel 2 - the parking lot parcel and Parcel 3 - Mine Dump Apartments. Juan Street separated parcels 1 & 2 and Parcels 2 & 3 were separated by a platted but undevelOped alley. Vann said that Parcel 1 was zoned LTR with a small single-family residence. Parcel 2 was zoned R-15 (the parking lot for the base of Lift One A) and encumbered with a long-term lease for the benefit of the SKICO; SKICO subleases to local raft companies in the summer for parking. Vann said that the development rights were summarized in the memo: Parcel 1 received 5 free-market units and 9 affordable housing units; Parcel 2 received 3 free,market units and3 affordable housing units and Parcel 3 received 6 free- market units and 5 affordable housing units. The demolition of the Mine Dumps will require 50% of the existing bedrooms; the amount of what's being replaced exceeded the number required; the amount of square footage exceeded the minimum required. Savannah elected to provide 12 additional affordable housing units, although they were not required under the code, on Parcels 1 &2. Each parcel could depend upon it's own volition but they were combined under the 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5~ 2000 ,-- PUD. Vann said that there was no shortage of parking; he explained the various lots above and below grade. Subdivision review was required and rezoning was being accopmlished. Augie Reno explained that the affordable housing and free-market units related to one another. The buildings were stepped back to minimize the massing with a combination of wood siding and ,wood shingle. Ron Erickson asked if the pocket park would be designated as a park. Vann replied that it would be restricted as a park and maintained by the homeowners association as a park but not conveyed in fee to the city. Erickson asked if currently there was parking on Juan Street. Varm replied that the Juan Street affordable housing parked there when it was available; it wasn't always cleared of snow in the winter. Erickson asked if the loss of the Juan Street parking was calculated into their parking plan. Vann replied that they would incorporate it into the parking plan and explained the land forms that would have to be changed. Erickson asked the length of the vested rights. Vann responded that they were vested by state statute for 3 years. Reno noted that there were substantial grade changes in the property. Ohlson stated that tonight's meeting was an overview and to use this meeting as an opportunity for the commission and the public to identify issues to be addressed at a later time. The commission asked for schematics with the grade changes and had questions regarding heights, density, size~ scale, massing, volume, traffic, site access, emergency access, parking, code reqmrements, architectural style, EPA, engineenng, landscape, view planes (wall effect), affordable housing and free- market housing. Yasmine DePagter, public, asked about the construction phasing. Mary Ellen Sheridan, public, stated that she was a resident/owner of Lift One; she asked about mitigation with trees. Sheridan asked about the process of the meeting to register comments. Sheridan stated that these new buildings would take the views from Lift One away; she askedifthe buildings couldbe moved. She asked for a couple of units less on the employee housing since the area was so dense. Martha Madsen, public, asked if there was a trail easement in the neighborhood. Sarpa replied that they did not know of one, Lelack said that was a question for the Parks Department. Vann said that there was a trail on the adjoining Barbee property. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5~ 2000 Jim Ellis, public, asked about the height in relation to Shadow Mountain Condos. Sarpa responded that the highest lot was below but at the next meeting they would provide the drawings with elevations. Ellis requested a copy of the site plan. Walter Wilson, public, stated that he represented a Lift One owner and asked for.a copy of the site plan. Lelack responded that he should come to the community development office. Wilson said that the 2-foot decorative thing was either drawn out of scale or larger. Reno responded that it was approximately a 3 by 3 foot element located almost in the middle of the roof. David Ellis, public, stated that he wanted to reemphasize the evaluation of parking particularly on Juan Street. He commented on the neighborhood parking problem. Nick Owens, public, asked the current maximum height allowed with the current code, Lelack responded that in the LTR zone it was 22 feet to the midpoint, to encourage pitched roofs. Owens asked the distance from the north elevation of the garage doors to Lift One Condominiums. Reno replied that it was about 50 plus feet. Owens asked if they would put up stow poles. Sarpa replied that they would be placed. Charles Wolf, public, stated that he represented a Timber Ridge owner and asked about the parking issues on Dean Street. He said that 10 spaces would be lost. Patricia Simpson, public, said that she was a friend of Lift One; she asked about the park inthe center of the project being a passive park, Vann responded that it would be a passive park for the use of the families from the affordable housing: MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the public hearing for the Savannah Conceptual PUD and rezoning to January 16, 2001. Jasmine Tygre seconded. APPROVED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: WEST HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL PUD OVERVIEW PRESENATTION Bob Blaich opened the public meeting on West Hopkins Conceptual PUD. Nick Lelack stated that this was being continued to Januaw 2, 2001. Peter Gluck and Joe Wells were the applicants' representatives for the project. Joe Wells stated this was the Parlor Car site to orientate the commission to where the property was located. Wells said that it was 3 parcels (2 in the count)h of land under separate ownership at the base of Shadow MOuntain on axis with 5 Street. Previously, it was the Glendenning site and was purchased with the intent ora mix 4 ASPEN PLANNING& ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 use of flee-market and affordable housing. Parcel 1 was an 8,000 square foot piece located in the ci,ty limits; Parcel 2 was 45,000 square feet located entirely in the county and Parcel 3 was 1600 square feet. Both county parcels were proposed for annexation. There were 2 two-story buildings to be placed on the property and 4 free-market units with an existing trail easement. The smaller sliver of land was not in the application. This was a request for rezoning for AH through a PUD. Wells said that they have not done a lot of the planning because the applicant wanted feedback from the commission prior to going forward. Peter Gluck used the 1999 Housing Guidelines for the project. Wells said that the 2000 Guidelines changed the standards for an exemplary project; the sustainability issue and mix of affordable housing were being pursued. Wells said that the parking was also an issue for discussion. Wells said that this was an appropriate site for an in-fill project. Peter Gluck was the architect and parmer in the project; his company was the architect and construction builder of the project. Gluck stated that this project would show that good looking dense in-fill projects could be accomplished in town. The free-market units would be backed up against the hill. There was discussion of the unit mix and possibility of adding more units. Bob Blaich said that the sizes of the buildings fit in with the scale of the area as proposed. Ron Erickson said that the current proposal did not meet the 70/30 mix. Wells replied that they would have to add too many bedrooms to meet the 70/30 nfix and would not fit on the property. The architects illustrated the elevation sections included in the application booklet. The parking spaces were under the buildings. There was discussion of flat roofs vs. pitched roofs, to add ADUs or nOt and the fact that ADUs were not always used as intended. The threshold issues were parking, guest parking, landscape plan and utilization of land. Martha Madsen, public, 608 West Hopkins, stated that she has owned that eclectic building for 42 years. Madsen stated that she had issues with the annexation process and spot zoning around town. Madsen stated that the trail easement was unclear because of the old Railroad right-of-way and Nordic Trail placement. Madsen voiced concern for the wildlife and neighborhood character change with this project. Madsen said that she has tried to keep the density of her rental units down to 9-10 units and were allowed one car per unit. Madsen said that this project also posed a privacy issue for her. Blaich noted that something would be developed on this property and this project respected the environment. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to extend the meeting to 7:15. Roger Haneman seconded. APPROVED 5-0. Eric Cohen said that realistically the trail would have to orientate to the street although he also wanted to see a small walking trail go towards the top of the property. Joe Wells responded that he was working with the trails people. The commissioners complimented the applicant on the beautiful model. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the public hearing for the New West Hopkins Conceptual PUD to January 2, 2001. Jasmine ~[ygre seconded. APPROVED 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:15 pm, i~ie Lothian, I~ep~ty-City Cler COMMISSIONER, STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ..................................................................................... 1 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................................................................... 2 HOTEL ASPEN PUD ................................................................................................................................................. 2 SAVANNAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP CONCEPTUAL PUD REVIEW & REZONING - OVERVIEW PRESENTATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 WEST HOPKINS CONCEPTUAL PUD OVERVIEW PRESENATTION .......................................................... 4