The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutminutes.apz.20000425ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 25~ 2000 Bob Blaich opened the regular meeting at 4:35 p.m. held in City Council Chambers with Jasmine Tygre, Tim Mooney, Roger Haneman, Roger Hunt, Run Erickson and Charles Vresilovic present. Steven Buettow arrived at 5:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: John Worcester and David Hoe£er, City Attorneys; Chris Bendon, Nick Lelack, Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS The commissioners and staff reviewed the May. meeting schedule; due to lack of quorum the next P&Z meeting will be May 30't". Chris Bendon stated that he would provide information to the commissioners on 2 long-range planning issues. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE INITIAL ZONING Bob Blaich opened the continued public heating. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continne the pnblic hearing for the Aspen Highlands Village initial rezoning to June 6, 2000. Jasmine Tygre seconded. APPROVED 7-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (4/18/2000): UTE SUBDIVISION LOT 1, DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS VARIANCES Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing for Lotl, Ute Subdivision DRAC variances. David Hoefer stated that the notice was provided and distributed the design review criteria sheets. Nick Lelack stated that last week an 8040 Greenline Review was approved for this property. Lelack stated that there were 2 building envelopes with one in an avalanche zone. The structure was completely outside the avalanche zone and the criteria "C" was met in order to approve the request. Joe Wells explained that the steepness of the site did not allow the entry of the property at that point; the secondary mass was not possible because the house was pulled back. Joe Wells and Andy Wisnoski presented a model, drawings and 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2000 photos depicting the 25-foot height limit to the midpoint and stepping the 2 masses uphill as the solution to secondary mass. No public connnents. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve P&Z Resolution #00-24 acting as the Design Review Appeals Committee for the variances of secondary mass and the garage not at grade for Lot 1, Ute Park Subdivision for a new single-family dwelling with the inclusion of all prior approvals remaining in place. Roger Haneman seconded. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Mooney, yes; Tygre, yes; Erickson, yes; Haneman, yes; Hunt, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 660 SOUTH GALENA- DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS Bob Blaich opened the public heating. David Hoefer stated for the record that the proof of notice was provided and the commission had jurisdiction to proceed: Sarah Oates stated that the variance was from the secondary mass Residential Design Standards for a proposed single-family residence located at 660 South Galena. There was no vehicular access and staff recommended approval due to site constraints and fairness. Ted Guy representative for the applicants said that the house was modified from the original plans in 1999. Guy said it was a difficult site with 99 steps from the street. Jasmine Tygre asked if this maximum FAR was already established on a non- conforming lot. Oates replied that was correct. Tim Mooney asked where the parking was locatedi Guy replied that it was at the Tipple Lodge; there were 8 parking spaces held in common by the 3 lots, which was done at the time the subdivision was created. Mooney asked if there was an increase in parking to coincide with the increase in bedrooms. Oates stated that the per bedroom was not used as a measurement for parking spaces but rather that just 2 spaces were needed for each house. Steven Buettow inquired about the roofline being broken to cut down on the massing. Charles Vreslovic asked if the one story element was intended to be a pomh or enclosed area. Guy replied that it was a porch. Buettow said that the alternate solution for the roofline was acceptable. Ron Erickson said that adequate parking should be a condition of approval. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2000 Jasmine Tygre asked if the ADU was deed-restricted. Guy replied that the owner was considering not building the ADU and pay fees in lieu instead; the applicant would make that decision at the time ofhnilding pcrnut. MOTION:Roger Hunt moved to approve P&Z Resolution #00-23 acting as the Design Review Appeal Committee for the single family residence to be located at 660 South Galena finding that the review criteria have been met, that the roof over the breakfast living area will be dropped, there will be a provision for adequate parking, the access easement will have a legal description. Steven Buettow seconded. Roll call vote: Mooney, yes; Erickson, yes; Haneman, yes; Tygre, yes; Buettow, yes; Hunt, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 7-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT - GMQS EXEMPTION Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing for the Growth Management Quota System Exemption. David Ho&er stated that notice had been previously provided. Chris Bendon stated that the amendments being considered related to the number of category housing allotments and clarification to text relating to affordable housing regarding the administration of review. There were 2 versions of the recommendations for the commission to review and choose either Version "A" or Version "B". Bendon said that the county approved changes m their Land Use Code regarding the Affordable Housing changes; these changes needed to have a joint review of the Growth Management Quota System. Bendon noted that this was just a band aid solution until the Land Use Code was revamped. There was discussion of the underwriting review process, the Growth Management review process, allotments for affordable housing and the new COWOP process. No public comments. Joyce Ohlson asked John Worcester for clarification on the COWOP process. John Worcester stated that the COWOP project would be exempt from GMQS, but the task team could recommend criteria to Council. The commission voiced concern for the private sector not being able to bring forward any projects under the COWOP process. Bendon stated that the intent was to have a process for more projects to go forward without using the annual allotments by just using the whole allotment number and working off of it. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 25, 2000 MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to approve P&Z Resolution #00-18 Version "A' and recommend City Council amend the GMQS section of the Land Use Code. Ron Erickson seconded. Roll call vote: Buettow, no; Tygre, no; Hunt, no; Haneman, yes; Erickson, abstain; Mooney, no; Blaich, no. DENIED 5-1. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve P&Z Resolution #00-18 Version "B" and recommend City Council amend the Land Use Code, Section 1. ~A. to exempt the COWOP process and exceptional category affordable housing projects, taken off the ceiling of the number of units and finding the criteria pertaining to the text amendments have been met. Jasmine Tygre seconded. Roll call vote: Erickson, abstain; Mooney, yes; Haneman, yes; Tygre, yes; Buettow, no; Hunt, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 5-1. The commission requested clarification on the COWOP process and noted that the Growth Management was a problem area. Meeting adjourned. ~t/ackie Lothian, beputy City Clerk COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS ........................................... 1 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ................................................ 1 ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE INITIAL ZONING ............................................ 1 UTE SUBDIVISION LOT 1, DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS VARIANCES .......... 1 660 SOUTH GALENA- DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS ........................................ 2 CODE AMENDMENT - GMQS EXEMPTION ...................................................... 3 4