HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20020618ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JUNE 18, 2002
COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS ........................................ 2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2
MARQUSEE REZONING ........................................................................................ 3
216 EAST HALLAM CONDITIONAL USE ........................................................ 3
INNSBRUCK INN MINOR PUD, GMQS EXEMPTIOI',~ FOR LODGE
PRESERVATION and AFFORDABLE HOUSING ............................................... 9
PUBLIC NOTICING CODE AMENDMENTS ..................................................... 11
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JUNE 18~ 2002
Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning and Zoning meeting at 4:30 p.m. in
Sister Cities meeting room with Roger Haneman, Bert Myfin, Ruth Kruger, Ron
Erickson and Eric Cohen. Staff in attendance were: Joyce Ohlson, James, Lindt,
Amy Guthrie, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS
Roger Haneman asked about the covered patio space for Rustique. Joyce Ohlson
replied that she did not remember an enclosure in the application. Ruth Kruger
said that she thought that it was a just temporary for food and wine.
Bert Myrin provided the commission with copies of the letter he had written to
City Council regarding the Timeshare Ordinance.
Myrin asked if the applicants could submit packet information without the "fluff'
of plastic binders, etc. and just have paper and staples. Ohlson said that they have
just checked towards receiving information from applicants on digital formats to
save paper.
Ruth Kruger asked in view of the drought with fire danger, why were the streets
still being washed. Ohlson replied that there would be less watering. Kruger
stated that she thought it would be more important for the grass to remain green for
fire safety. Ohlson said that the City has a program to address those edges between
the urban and more rural settings to reduce fuels; Ohlson said if Ruth felt strongly
then she should either contact Phil Overyender or Council members. Myrin said
that watering the streets related to the PM-10 and air quality; the watering was
reduced to once a week.
Ron Erickson asked about the Aspen Mountain lawsuit. Ohlson replied that she
knew nothing about it. Kruger responded that was not official but there was an
injunction filed, which would begin the process to move forward rather than stand
still. Kruger said that there was involvement.
Erickson asked about Harley BaldWin. Amy Guthrie replied that be had until July
17th to submit plans to be approved; the code allowed a trellis in open space.
Erickson asked if the roof was to remain in place until then. Guthrie replied that
was true and that was why there was a court hearing.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Bert Myrin acknowledged that he lived a couple of houses over from the Frost
Property at 216 East Hallam. Jasmine Tygre asked if there were any other
commission members felt that Bert had a conflict with this. None were stated.
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, Minutes JUNE 18~ 2002
PUBLIC HEARING:
MARQUSEE REZONING
Jasn~ne Tygre opened the public hearing for the Marqusee Rezoning. Notice was
provided to the Clerks.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the Marqusee Rezoning
Public Hearing to August 6, 2002; seconded by Bert Myrin.
APPROVED 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
216 EAST HALLAM - CONDITIONAL USE
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the property 216 East Hallam. Start
Clauson, representative for the applicant, provided the public notice.
Joyce Ohlson stated that this was an application for a conditional use to allow for a
duplex in the R-6 medium density residential zone district. The property was
6,000 square feet in size and designated as a historic landmark. Ohlson noted that
in March of 2002 P&Z recommended the rezoning of a portion of the property; the
property was also known as the Mona Frost property or trust. Stan Clanson and
Camilla Auger represented the Frost Property LLC.
Ohlson stated that the front parcel was the subject of tonight's discussion. The
additional survey data shoWed the property at 6,000 square feet, which falls under
a legally conforming lot with the opportunity to request a duplex on this size lot.
The rezoning did not affect the front property. Ohlson said that there was a
proposed alley vacation that bisected the center of the properties; the alley went
nowhere, which was set for first reading at City Council next week. The use of the
driveway/trail was not meant for vehicular use but was part of the proposal to
remain with the historic pse of the driveway/trail as a driveway. Ohlson said that
there would be no parking on that driveway but rather parking in the vacated alley.
Ohlson said that the applicants would pave the driveway/trail to a standard, which
had been desired by other city agencies to make it a 14 foot paved surface with
shoulders connecting with the parking lot behind the Red Brick. Ohlson said that
the Fire Department wanted better circulation behind the Red Brick.
Ohlson stated that staff felt the criteria for conditional use had been met with the
Red Brick use across the street, the Methodist Church and other duplexes in the
neighborhood. Ohlson said there were no other adverse impacts because of the
conversion from a single family to a duplex; trip generation was between 4 to 6
trips a day because of the proximity to town it would probably be lower.
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JUNE 18, 2002
Ohlson said that the duplex development of this site attained conceptual approval
by HPC; HPC supported the use of the historic driveway so that there would not be
another curb cut on Hallam. There was no accessory dwelling unit proposed on
site; they would be required to pay cash-in-lieu. Ohlson said there were conditions
in the resolution addressing the public right-of-way and other city agencies
requirements. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use.
Amy Guthrie said that these were 2 legally separate properties and each by right
could have a single-family house; the conditional use added one more dwelling.
Guthrie said that 2 residences on this site were pretty much a given at this point; no
more FAR was gained by virtue of doing a duplex. The 6,000 square foot lot could
have a 3,240 square foot house; the same as a duplex. A duplex would not gain
any more floor area. Guthrie mentioned that the City received an award for the
new benefits package for historic preservation. HPC has been concerned for this
barn for many years and now someone came forward to rescue the building and
HPC felt it important to help them out with that by affording a second unit. HPC
felt that this was a great design and project.
Ohlson said that there were 5 types of actions happening all at once on this site:
rezoning, alley vacation, conditional use, license agreement for the easement and
improvements requirements. Ohlson noted that there were many processes for this
applicant; HPC looked at the architectural compatibility and P&Z looked at the
conditional use.
Bert Myrin asked if it were a single-family home relating to the FAR, could there
still be 8 bedrooms in the front half as a possibility. Amy Guthrie replied that the
number of bedrooms were not limited, only the square footage was limited.
Stan Clauson, planner for the applicant, stated that the property was in a unique
transitional neighborhood with residential and public uses; he said that this
property redevelopment was a difficult and sensitive issue. Clauson said that the
redevelopment could be done consistent with the code with a conditional use as a
historic resource. There were 5 standards to consider a conditional use: 1.)
consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan, with the intent of the zone
district and complies with all other applicable requirements; 2.) consistent and
compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of the
complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed
for development; 3.) the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the
proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts,
impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery,
noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; 4.) adequate public facilities
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JUNE 18, 2002
and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable
water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical
services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems and schools; 5.) commits
to meet the incremental need for increased employee generation.
Clauson stated that the applicant because of improvements to what was known as
Sheeley Boulevard and the enhanced trail met the 5 standards and the applicant
committed to supply affordable housing. Clauson restated that the code allows the
same square footage for a duplex as a single-family residence, 3240 square feet.
Clauson said that a single-family residence probably wouldn't look any different
than the duplex.
Bill Stirling, realtor, provided a map with color-coding for duplexes and
photographs of town (not provided for exhibits). Stirling described each lot with
the history. Stirling said that the intent and purpose of this buyer was to protect
this property and utilize the property under what the city allows.
Scott Lindenau, architect, explained the elevation drawings to show the mass and
scale of the property. Lindenau provided a model of the area showing the adjacent
properties as well as the proposed. Clauson stated that this would meet the
standards for the proximity to downtown and the residents would be permanent
residents not part-time ones.
Camilla Auger, representative of the Frost Trust LLC, stated that the design of this
project was to meet historic preservation as a priority. Auger said the new
elements were to be secondary to the historic elements, which were emphasized.
Auger said that improving the trail should provide a good view of the historic
elements.
Bert Myrin questioned some of the duplexes in Bill Stirling's photographs.
Stirling replied that they were not all duplexes but some were multiple uses.
Hal Dishler, public and attorney for the Amato's, stated that they were not anti-
development or anti-progress or anti-HPC; the Amato's lived next door and have
obvious concerns. Dishler said that the density of this development, although well
designed and attractive had substantial changes to what existed when the Amato's
went through their process. Dishler said the development depended upon the use
of a public trail to create two driveways to maximize the property. Dishler
suggested the driveway cross the front property to the back property for aCcess.
Dishler said that every rule was bent to achieve something On this property that
was inconsistent with the neighborhood pattern; the neighborhood pattern was not
on Main Street but this street. Dishler said that they were not here to question the
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JUNE 18; 2002
integrity of any process but this was a conditional use for a single-family house to
a duplex project. Dishler said that it was important to preserve historic
development but this was a private developer for the purpose of providing
economic return, which was a laudable goal but without public benefit.
Joseph Amato, public, stated that he and his wife Deborah owned 222 East Hallam
Street. Amato said that he had no problem with the restoration but had concern
with the mass and density. Amato said that there was no grass left anywhere
except in the fi:out of this property, which created several issues of concern with 12
bedrooms in the mass that would generate many cars. Amato cited the adjacent
area properties 'not as duplexes but single-family residences some with one-
bedroom apartments. Amato referred to the Historic Preservation Guidelines pages
2, 35, 88 and 135 regarding special relationships, parking variances, landscaping,
mass and scale compatible for the rehabilitation ora historic property. Amato said
that the 75-year old lilac bushes and large tree would be removed fi:om the
property and the new stnlcture would over-power the historic structure.
Charles Cunniffe, public, stated that preserving Mona's house was an excellent
project and there were many ways to do a project well; this approach may not be
the best. Cunniffe said that they were trying not to have the driveway on their own
property so you would think that there would be more open space on their property
but wasn't the case, they required more setbacks on the property to build this mass.
Cunniffe said that there were a 10t of design assumptions but there would be
another way to go back and rethink the setback variances so the application could
conform with the code rather than ask for more variances.
Mitch Haas, public, said that the questions on the process for the appropriateness
of the building and consistency of the HPC Guidelines were for HPC. Haas said
that what was before P&Z was the conditional use if a duplex was appropriate
here; the question was were 2 units appropriate here.
Charles Knight, public, provided background on the Amatos and himself being on
HPC in 1987. Knight said there were no visible signs of duplexes fi:om the back of
the Jerome to Mona's house; this was a historic asset and should be treated as such.
Knight said if an addition was necessary it should not destroy the streetscape.
Knight spoke about the moratorium placed on historic houses in the 1980's, which
he agreed with and this was an inappropriate redevelopment ora historic resource.
Phil Hodgson, public, said that he lived on North Monarch and questioned the
discrepancy on the surveys. Hodgson noted the Red Brick generated lots of kids in
the street and to add those 12 bedrooms would not be appropriate. Hodgson said
that he was against high density and in-fill.
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JUNE 18, 2002
Wiley Hodgson, public, said that the integrity of the barn was stressed by the
design and changing the direction of the barn. Wiley Hodgson said that the
structure was not very stable.
Garret Brandt, attorney for the applicant, stated that there has been research done
on the street issue and provided the background of State vacation laws when the
city deeded the property to the school district in 1953. Stan Clauson noted that a
map was included in the packet. Brandt said that in 1953 the alley behind the
Mona Frost property was not vacated because it would have landlocked the
triangular portion of private property; state law reaffirmed in 1976 or 1978 that a
municipality may not vacate a street if will totally land lock a parcel. Brandt said
that the city reserved a 30-foot strip known as Lot G as public right-of-way, which
was the intent and as a matter of state law have access to this property regardless of
anything else said or done.
Jasmine Tygre stated that without the city attorney she did not feel qualified to ask
questions. Brandt stated that there was a letter from John Worcester on the right-
of-way. Joyce Ohlson reiterated that the application was before the planning
commission for review and evaluation as a conditional use. Ohlson said that one
of the request being made to the City Council next week was the use of that public
right-of-way; should you approve the conditional use as a use of that property, that
approval would be null and void if in fact there was no legal approval of that right-
of-way by City Council. Tygre stated that the members of this commission were
not comfortable with the two different representations fi'om the applicant and the
neighbors concerning this vacation, which was critical in the commission's
evaluation of the conditional use.
Bill Stirling, public, stated that duplex use was technically and legally different
than multiple use; the effect was the same. Stirling said that multiple use meant
more than one use on a property, two families were using one property instead of
just one, which means two plus cars and more than two plus people. Stirling
explained his response when he was mayor in 1987 to the radical loss of duplexes,
four and five-plexes of free-market affordable housing; the moratorium stopped the
loss of all of those from the townsite with Ordinance #1 for mandatory contribution
to affordable housing and the RETT.
Stan Clauson said that the setback conformed to the neighbors but the overall
setback received a variance. Amy Guthrie said that they met the five-foot side
yard setbacks but were short on the combined setback requirement. Clauson read
the R-6 medium residential zone purpose statement, which was to contain
relatively dense settlements of predominately detached duplex residences within
walking distance of the center of the city.
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JUNE 18~ 2002
Camilla Auger said that they have tried to meet the infill objectives and the HPC
objectives. Auger stated that the historic structure was torn down on the lot next
door and replaced with a new structure; if this was done on the Frost property any
reconfiguration could occur without objections from the neighbors and one
solution to that would be for the neighbor to buy the Frost property and do what
they want to their satisfaction. Auger said that they have changed the design as far
back from the sidewalk so that the streetscape would be softened and the new part
would be as subservient as possible to the historic structure. Auger said that due to
the HPC commitment, if they were denied the flexibility within the same square
footage of a duplex, the design would not change.
Jasmine reiterated the role of the P&Z was for the conditional use application but
that did not mean that there wasn't concern for the parts of the application since
they were a land use planning board. Design, parking, density and HPC findings
were of concern.
Ron Erickson stated that it was laudable that everyone wanted to meet infill but
infill was not passed into legislature; he said that those objectives could not be
considered at this time. Erickson stated that there was access for this lot from the
street since they were not discussing the back lot. Erickson voiced concern for the
children in the neighborhood with the proposed density; he said that it did not meet
the criteria for a conditional use.
Eric Cohen asked if there was a current curb cut for the trail now. Ohlson replied
that there was a curb cut for the trail now and it would be widened and signed with
a goal to improve this trail. Cohen said that there was an impact with the increased
pedestrian circulation and added parking spaces. Amy Guthrie replied that there
were 2 spaces on the back parcel and 3 on the front parcel. Cohen stated concern
for increased pedestrian traffic with the traffic flow in the same area. Joyce Ohlson
said that there were many goals to be achieved here and the trail paving was
requested for greater usage by Parks and Recreation and allowed for fire trucks and
emergency vehicles to circulate around the Red Brick.
Ruth Kruger stated concern for the operation characteristics for the use of the
property. Clauson replied residential. Auger said that an ADU was required under
the city rules, sO the front property included an ADU. Kruger voiced concern for
the parking. Guthrie explained that there 5 on-site parking spaces.
Roger Haneman asked if the number of bedrooms were reduced would that help
the commissioners' concerns. Kruger replied that she had concern for the density
concerning the number of bedrooms. Erickson said the use of the road by cars
would multiPly exponentially because the original Mona Frost property was one
8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JUNE 18, 2002
car with a single-family residence. Erickson voiced concern for the dual use of
pedestrian and vehicular traffic on that trail: Haneman asked if this were denied
would the LLC be able to sell fractions of the property. Ohlson said that would be
allowed. Clauson said that if the access were decided by council, which was
scheduled for July 8th then P&Z could make a decision regarding the duplex.
Camilla Auger stated that them was currently a lot of vehicular as well as
pedestrian traffic on the trail and found no objection to limiting the number of
bedrooms to 3, if that was an issue. Auger said that with regard to the selling of
units in the LLC, they had no intention of doing that.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the public hearing to July
16, 2002 for the conditional use for the Mona Frost property located 216
East Hallam. Ruth Kruger seconded. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes;
Myrin, yes; Cohen, yes; Kruger, yes; Erickson, no; Tygre, no.
APPROVED 4-2.
Myrin expressed concern for criteria A, B & C not meeting the AACP, the
increased density, community goal for an ADU, making the trail more public use
friendly, preserving the streetscape, the number of bedrooms, and how to keep it as
local housing.
Cohen asked if this were a single-family dwelling would a driveway be placed on
the other side of the property. Guthrie relied that HPC Guidelines would not allow
another curb cut so there would not be another driveway possibility on the
property.
Erickson said that he wanted to know what HPC granted this applicant.
Tygre agree with Ron and said that information would have been helpful for the
commission in decision-making. Tygre requested that information for the
continued hearing. Tygre stated that she shared concerns for the interaction with
pedestrians and access for parking and landscaping.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to extend the P&Z meeting until 7:15
p.m.; seconded by Ron Erickson. ASPPROVED 4-2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
INNSBRUCK INN MINOR PUD, GMQS EXEMPTION FOR LODGE
PRESERVATION and AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Innsbruck Inn. Proof of notice
was provided. James Lindt explained that the application was submitted by
9
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JUNE 18, 2002
Innsbmck Holdings LLC to expand the Innsbruck Inn at 233 West Main Street.
The applicant requested a minor PUD approval as well as GMQS exemptions for
Lodge PreservatiOn and Affordable Housing; to expand the lodge by 4 lodge rooms
and 1 employee dwelling unit.
Lindt said that the Irmsbmck was on a 15,000 square foot site on the corner of
Second and Main Street, which contained 33 lodge rooms in the office zone with
lodge preservation overlay. Lindt provided elevation drawings. The employee
unit was 530 square feet of net livable space deed restricted as a category 2 unit
with the income and asset restrictions to be waived to accommodate seasonal
employees in the unit. The new lodge rooms were about 282 square feet each.
There were currently 6 off-street parking spaces off of Main Street and 12
additional head-in ones on the alley, which encroach about 6 feet into the public
right-of-way there fore staffwon't allow all 12 to count toward the off-street
parking requirements. Staff felt that the proximity of the lodge to the RFTA bus
and town would mitigate some concerns as well as the other parking mitigation
possibilities were a bicycle fleet, promoting the transit system at the time of room
bookings and providing free bus passes for employees.
Staff felt that the application met standards for a minor PUD as well as GMQS
exemptions for Lodge Preservation and affordable housing with the conditions set
forth in P&Z ResolUtion #02-20~
Mitch Haas, representative for the owners, stated that he worked closely with
James over the last few weeks to meet all of the criteria. Haas said it spoke
volumes that no neighbors were present; this application has been granted
conceptual approval from HPC. This was not a designated historic property but
was in the historic district.
No public comments.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve P&Z Resolution #20, series
2002, approving a GMQS Exemption for Lodge Preservation for four
Lodge Preservation Allotments to construct an additional four lodge
units, and recommending that City Council approve with conditions the
Minor Planned Unit Development, and a GMQS exemption for the
development on an Employee Housing Unit for the Innsbruck Inn
property located at 233 West Main Street (#2735,124'54'001). Ruth
Kruger seconded. APPROVED 6-0.
Erickson stated that the employee unit was subterranean and he recommended
cash-in-lieu instead of that unit belOw grade. Haas said that the employee
10
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JUNE 18, 2002
mitigation for cash-in-lieu was less than ½ an employee so this was probably a
better deal. Tygre said that the employee unit could have the wages adjusted to
meet with the rental rate for that category rather than an adjusted rent.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PUBLIC NOTICING CODE AMENDMENTS
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the code amendment for public
noticing. James Lindt provided the notice.
Lindt explained that the proposed code amendments would make the noticing the
same for almOst all land use public hearings; it would also make the noticing more
uniform and understandable. There would be a 15-day posting on the property and
mailing to property owners within 300 feet and 15-day publication in the
newspaper. Minor HPC and DRAC were not included in these actions. Tygre
asked for an example ora minor HPC review and asked who would determine that
review. Lindt replied that changing a window or an awning; the HPC officer and
community development director would both be involved in the decision of a
significant or minor HPC review. Tygre asked if the variances from residential
design standards would require the community development director's review.
Lindt replied that the staff would decide if the residential design standards were
met or they would have to apply to the planning & zoning commission with a 15-
day notice. Tygre stated that variances from residential design standards had a
larger impact and wanted to see more public noticing for those reviews; since these
were based on neighborhood compatibility but the people weren't notified. Ohlson
responded that part of staff had the same concerns.
Ron Erickson stated that the 300 foot noticing requirement was okay if you lived in
the West End but for noticing a large condominium complex it was very difficult
with that many units. Erickson said that the high-density multi-family residential
developments maybe could be left up to the management company. Lindt said that
DRAC would require the 15-day notice but no mailing. The commission wanted
the mailing to apply for DRAC also.
No public comments.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve P&Z Resolution #21, series
2002, recommending that City Council approve the Land Use Code
Amendments to standardize all public hearing noticing requirements,
with the residential design standard variances requiring 15-day posting
and 15-day legal noticing, with the exception of minor HPC and GMQS
applications; to include publishing notice in the newspaper, posting on
11
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JUNE 18, 2002
the property and mailing notice to property owners within 300 feet, at
least 15 days prior to the public hearing pursuant to Land Use Code
section 26.304.060(E)(3), Public Notice. Eric Cohen seconded.
APPROVED 6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 7:20p.m.
~kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
12