HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20020716ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16~ 2002 P3
COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS ....................................... 2
MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................. 2
216 EAST HALLAM - CONDITIONAL USE ........................................................ 2
LITTLE AJAX CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PUD ....................... 12
Board Reports .......................................................................................................... 12
P4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16, 2002
Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning and Zoning meeting at 4:30 p.m. ~n the
Sister Cities Meeting Room with Ruth Kruger, Bert Myrin, Ron Erickson and Eric
Cohen. Roger Haneman was excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer,
Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Community Development Director;
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ron Erickson asked if the bookstore on Hopkins (Quandrant Books) was a
demolition; he said that it was a change of use to a residence. Amy Guthrie replied
that she had not gone past to look at it; she said that the definition for demolition
was 50%. Erickson stated that it was more than 50%. Joyce Ohlson responded
that the zoning officer Sarah Oates ~vould look into the building permit.
Joyce Ohlson stated that the Harley Baldwin zoning violation was reported through
Sarah Oates, components of the structure were removed that were not in
compliance and a new application was submitted to HPC. Amy Guthrie replied
that she has not reviewed the new application. Guthrie said that they were in
compliance with the open space requirements with proposed minor modifications
to the building.
MINUTES
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes from June 18,
2002 and July 2, 2002. Ruth Kruger seconded. APPROVED 5-0.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Bert Myrin disclosed that he lived 2-3 houses east of 216 Hallam but did not have
any preconceived ideas about the project. David Hoefer stated that as long as the
case was not prejudged.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (06/18/02):
216 EAST HALLAaM - CONDITIONAL USE
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing. Tygre stated that there were
areas that P&Z had criteria on to evaluate the conditional use portion of the project.
Letters from Richard Johnson, Allergy Associates, Richard E Bump, William C.
and Joan E Light, Mr. Sutton and Mr. Amato were placed into the public record.
Joyce Ohlson provided the updated overview from the HPC and City Cotmcil
decisions. Council reviewed and approved the rezoning of the back parcel of the
Mona Frost parcels, which was currently SCI to be rezoned R-6; vacation of the
old historic remnant alley and use of 20 feet of city property for access to the
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16, 2002 P5
houses and back structures. The easement was not ro be paved but rather a weight
bearing capacity gravel to handle fire and emergency access was to be used.
Jasmine Tygre asked how the vacated land from the alley was allocated. Ohlson
replied that Colorado Statute divided the land equally but the accrued land did not
count for density or floor area.
Ohlson stated that the HPC granted final approval for the development of the
historic landmark. Amy Outhrie stated that the entire property was considered a
historic landmark; HPC reviewed the outside architecture of the structures and
were not concerned if the building were a duplex or not other than the incentive ro
help people with historic smtctures. Guthrie stated HPC granted variances for
combined side yard setbacks and a small Yariance on the other side yard on the to
the back lot where the barn was located, which was being rotated and restored with
a connecting piece and a new addition. Outhrie stated that on the front lot no
demolition on the old structure would be done, only new construction to the rear
and side of the building setback fi.om the historic portion with variances from 1
required parking space (2 in the garage and 1 in back), a combined front and rear
yard setback waiver o£$ feet and 500 square foot floor area bonus for an
exceptional historic preservation project. A Mary Hays 1950's photo was provided
of the property for a true restoration with trim and windows. Scott Lindenau
explained the redevelopment and provided a model of the property and the
neighboring properties. The materials used would be all natural.
Tygre asked the FAR of the duplex. Guthrie replied that it was 3,740 square feet
for the duplex. Star~ Clanson replied that the ham parcel was 2,509 square feet.
Ohlson reiterated the criteria for P&Z was a review of the proposed duplex on a
6,000 square foot R-6 lot with 5 criteria: 1.) Conditional use was consistent with
the purposes goals, standards and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan
and the intent of the zone district in which it was proposed. 2.) Consistent and
compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity or enhances the mixture of
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 affects; ~mpac;s on pedestrian and
vehicular circulation, parking, trash, delivery service, noise, vibrations and odor on
surroUnding properties. 4). Adequate public facilities to service the conditional use
such as roads, water, sewer, parks, police, emergency medical service, drainage
systems and schools. 5). Affordable Housing will be provided to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. Staff
made positive findings provided with the conditions in the resolution.
3
P6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16, 2002
Erickson asked if all 5 standards had to be applicable and met. Ohlson responded
that they were all applicable; some were more applicable than others.
Camilla Auger explained that she selected this project because it was a historic
preservation project with one of the highest preservation goals and for the
opportunity to enhance the trail and create a pocket park in the back to enhance the
neighborhood.
Auger said that the design was in contrast to the existing structure; if the duplex
were granted the duplex will have no effect on the square footage, the square
footage will be the same wither way. Auger said it will not change the design in
any way but gives more flexibility and more likely to have someone live in the
house as a resident of Aspen, which would be a benefit.
Clauson said that there were discrepancies in the Amato letter; there was only one
duplex requested on the front lot. There were 2 separate lots w/th 4 bedrooms
proposed for the single-family house in the rear lot, ~vhich was not under this
purview; on the front lot there were 3 bedrooms proposed for each side of the
duplex.. Clanson said that the scale drawings show the landscaping and existing
trees being preserved along with green areas and trail enhancement with a gravel
.surface for public use. Clauson said that the variances related more to the historic
preservation rather than the duplex. Clauson noted that some additional traffic
may result from two households rather than one, but that would not b,e inconsistent
with the neighborhood, which contained many duplex occupancies (map illustrated
yellow highlighting not included). Clauson said that there was only one duplex
proposed and the Frost family historically used the driveway. Clauson went
through the findings being consistent with the character of the neighborhood and
enhanced the character of the neighborhood in conjunction with the Red Brick.
The applicant committed to supply affordable housing in a manner consistent with
the code.
Paul Penn, public, stated that it was an exaggeration because all the yellow
highlighted sites were not duplexes on that map. Penn asked for clarification of the
duplexes or houses with ADUs. Ohlson responded that a residential structure that
contained a residence as well as an ADU does not a duplex according to the land
use code. Ohlson noted that an ADU was not considered a unit of density. Bert
Myrin said that the maps differed greatly.
Ron Erickson asked the HPC vote. Guthrie replied that it was unanimous in favor
of the project. Erickson asked who would be responsible for the park. Auger said
that they would landscape their portion of the property and connect the path with a
set of stone stairs and signage with a gift to the city. Ohlson noted that this park
was not part of this application but the applicant worked with parks on the
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16, 2002
[andscaping. Erickson asked what the parking requirements were if this were a
single-family dwelling. Guthrie responded that 2 spaces would be required for a
single-family residence.
Erickson asked how the residents would be more permanent than part-time if this
were a duplex. Auger responded that she said that it would be more likely to be
inhabited by someone who was a full-time resident if it were a duplex, since it
would be more affordable. Er/ckson noted that whatever happened today could
only be guaranteed for this point in time but not for 2 years down the line. Auger
agreed. Clauson responded that they all agreed that more affordable housing tends
re be more generally occupied by people that are local, whereas the very expensive
single-family large houses are occupied by a population that spends time here and
elsewhere.
Eric Cohen asked where the responsibility for payment for the path was held.
Ohlson replied that Council placed a condition that the applicant's would be
required to maintain, plow and built the path.
Erickson asked about signage for the easement. Ohlson answered that the
applicant would enter into a license agreement with the City of Aspen and the
condition regarding signage from City Council for the use of the driveway by the
applicant.
Myrin inquired about the yellow on the map across the street from the applicant.
Ohlson stated that the map from last week reflected that assessor's records with
multi-family but not necessarily duplexes or legal apartments. Guthrie said that
there may be errors where there were ADUs or multifamily units. Guthrie said that
there have been 3 other projects approved by P&Z on 3,000 square foot lots; she
noted that 3,000 square foot were common in the West End neighborhood.
Ruth Krueger asked where the trash was located in the structures. Clauson
responded that it was tn the garage.
Myrin asked the distance between the house and the trail. Guthrie replied that it
was 3 feet from the property line. Myrin asked if the planting would be in that 3
feet area or will it encroach into the easement. Auger responded that all of the
lilacs may not be preserved in that one spot but the planting will not encroach.
Tygre reiterated that the process was for P&Z to simply rule on whether a duplex
was acceptable rather than a single-family house. The dimensional requirements,
parking variances and setback variances were established through the HPC review,
which were not options for P&Z review.
5
P8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16, 2002
Ruth Kruger said that the only difference in the structure built would be an extra
kitchen and an extra parking spot if this were granted to be a duplex, all else would
remain the same the size, FAR and architectural design no matter what the zoning
was. Clauson said that the external structure would appear the same but the
interior would be an extra household.
Dr. Richard Johnson, public, stated that he and his wife have lived at 123 East
Hallam for over 20 summers; they bought their Aspen home because of the
historical nature. Johnson said that there were many original single-family
dwellings such as the Mona Frost house, which maintained the character of their
street with single-family dwellings. (Johnson distributed photos of the
neighborhood, not kept in the record).
Montage Johnson, public, stated appreciation for the commission's time and said
that she accepted the fact that the colored map may not be accurate (many of the
yellow sites were ADUs and not duplexes), Mrs. Johnson stated that she and her
husband have done historic restoration in 3 sites and that they were interested in
maintaining the National Registry for Historic Preservation and they were
concerned in this case.
Paul Penn, public, stated that he and his wife Susan lived at 134 East Bleeker
Street at the comer of Bleeker and Aspen. Penn said that they bought their house
in 1992, which was in about the same condition as the Frost house was today.
Penn said that with the help of HPC they remodeled and enlarged it in 1992-93 but
they investigated the zoning, historical guidelines, FAR and codes so they were
well prepared with very few surprises. Penn asked if a duplex was appropriate in
the neighborhood; he said the neighbors felt that it was an exception to the norm
for a duplex, there were some duplexes but there was an easy way to find out
which were duplexes and which were not by tax records. Penn stated that they
were encouraged to build the ADU and a qualified local worker continuously from
the day the occupancy permit was received has occupied it. Penn stated that they
were concerned about Aspen and did not mean to be contrary. Penn said that when
a property owner comes for a zoning change (as in a duplex) there was no benefit
to the society at large but the applicant had much to gain in property value by
rezoning. Penn said that in his experience the property value increases with up-
zoning and decrease the neighboring properties; he said that difference of increased
property value should be distributed to the neighboring property owners in cash.
Penn said that this method would remove the financial incentives of asking for a
rezoning.
Hal Dishler, public, stated that he represented Mr. Amato and appreciated the
comments from the homeowners. Dishler said that he counted 12 bedrooms and
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16, 2002
asked about the ADU, housing goals, density and parking. Dishler said that
density would be increased with this redevelopment and that there was a
compatibility issue with responses from the people in the audience tonight
regarding a duplex. Dishler said that the duplex would create greater density and
use with a negative effect on this immediate community. Dishler said this would
create an additional burden on the public serwces and create an additional safety
hazard. Dishler asked how this project would make this occupancy a local or
partly full nme and asked to review the economic plan for this project.
Bob Viera, public, stated he was representing Aspen Candage Company and read
the letter fi.om the Company, which did not support the redevelopment plan
because it did not fit into the historical character of the neighborhood.
Denise Diers, public, stated that she represented herself and lived in one of the
ADUs that was called a duplex; she also was the caretaker for the Kermit and
Jenny Sutton property at the west comer of Hal!am and Aspen. The Sutton's letter
was placed into the record earlier. There was concern for the additional traffic that
the duplex would generate because of the amount of children across the street,
there was concern for the carriages at the slow speed and the traffic from the
walking tours with the addition of this duplex. There was concern for the density
in the neighborhood with the properties built lot line to lot lines. Diers pointed out
her residence, an ADU on the map and the neighboring properties, which were not
duplexes. Diers stated that she was not anti-development and provided her
background as a real estate agent, political consultant with projects in town that she
helped develop. Diers stated that she loved the ambiance of the neighborhood and
asked P&Z to take a visual from the trail on to the carriage houses, which will be
obliterated by the new development. Diers stated that there was no neighborhood
benefit from the redevelopment of the path to Clark's and the additional density.
Suzannah Reid, public, stated that she was the chair of the HPC; she said that they
have worked very hard to develop incentives that help balance the benefit to the
community fi.om the property owner doing the restoration. Reid stated that there
was an important balance to achieve and in this case she believed the community
was getting a benefit from the work that was being done by this developer. Reid
said there were impacts on the neighbors but any project had a benefit to the
broader overall community for an appropriate as well preserved project as in this
case.
Jamie V. Hall, public, stated that she was a lifetime resident of Aspen and grew up
with Mrs. Frost as her Aspen grandmother. Hall stated that she was impressed
with what was presented for the renovation and restoration of this truly historic
building. Hall said that impacts to the neighbors were inevitable and cannot be
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16, 2002
diminished; she was please about the stairs down to Clark's. Hall said that the
whole project was preserving the overall integrity of the historical aspect of the lot.
Bill Stifling, public, stated that he was the real estate broker that sold the property
and he said that he was an old friend of Mona Frost that managed the property for
many years from 1995-2000 when Mona moved to Colorado Springs. Stirling said
that he did the best he could with what the trust allowed with a lack of resources
for restoration; it was the last tree Victorian without any restoration. Stirling stated
that the barn was about to fall down; he commented that the Amato's house was a
Victorian-style house not a restored one. Stifling stressed the HPC incentives were
hoped to be balanced decisions to benefit the purchaser and the biggest to the
town; he said that the photos from Mary Hays show how the house will look in the
restored state with the addition of a garage in back. Stirling said that if the duplex
were approved it would add to the diversity of the neighborhood, which provided a
greater chance for the long-term best interest of Aspen.
Helen Palmer, public, stated that she has known the Frost family and a little
creative zoning might be a good thing for Aspen and not a bad thing for the
immediate neighbors that have changed and have been sold. Palmer commented
that the West End was dark because the homes were not lived in very much of the
time and not loved like when you live in a house all the time.. Palmer said that this
was a chance for the neighborhood to be a little lively than it tends to be in most of
the West End at the moment. Palmer said that they see what happens ;vhen the
little miner's cottages were changed and bear no resemblance to what they used to
be with a bustle effect looming over them. Palmer said that saving the 100-year-
old lilacs and the Mary Hays photo showed the eyebrow treatment, xvhich was very
special with a chance to regain some of the past, Palmer stated that this was a very
good project for Aspen.
Clauson said that he had to clarify some things that ownership did not define a
duplex if it was a multifamily nature. Clauson said that if they erred in the
mapping they apologized but tried to consistently show where multifamily uses
existed. Clanson said that the purpose of the zone district was quite clear with
single-family and duplex uses. David Hoefer noted that in this zone district a
single-family house was a permitted use and a duplex was a conditional use but the
zoning did not change. Clauson said that the number of bedrooms show the final
form with 3 bedrooms. Scott Lindenau stated that the average number of
bedrooms in the West End was just under 5 per house.
Auger said that the references to the quaint little red brick school was really 31,000
square feet of mixed industrial use; she said that there was a gyrrmasium, TV and
radio stations with a large antenna and storage. Auger said that they were trying to
8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MinUtes JULy 16, 2002
make their project as nice as they can by adding greenery and a little park in
a~diti0n to preserving as much of the lilacs as they possibly can. Auger said that
they do believe that a duplex would contribute to the likelihood of local people
living there.
Erickson asked if they did not get approval for a duplex was the implication that
the properties would not be restored. Auger replied no that was not what they said;
she said there was no such comment. Guthrie noted that there were 2 historic
buildings that they were significantly altered or deteriorated; benefits were created
to try to assist with an incentive to have someone willing to take the step. Auger
said that the Package incentives make it possible to finance these historic
preservation projects otherwise they would be impossible; she said that by not
granting a duplex it would be a sever disadvantage. Auger stated that had she had
not anticipated this request to be a problem.
Eric Cohen said that it was the commission's purview to consider the 5 standards;
he said that standard "C" minimizeS the impacts on vehicular and pedestrian
circulation was not met by this project with the duplex and the pedestrian path as
conflicting and competing uses. Cohen said that it would have a negative impact
by encouraging the pedestrian use and increasing the vehicular use. COhen said
that he agreed with HPC on some of the other things.
Bert Myrin said that the criteria was not met because it did not fit the historical
character of the neighborhood, another duplex may take away from the Victorian
feel. Myrin said that the historic nature of the street did not appear more dense
than 100 years ago; he said unless this were an RO or ADU then he said the price
per square foot would not have a big difference. Myrin noted that this was the
immediate vicinity or neighborhood and it did not extend to Nick DeWolfe's
house. Myrin said that he agreed with Eric on the vehicular and pedestrian use; he
said that the driveway use would be more intensive use for a duplex than it would
be for a single-family home if the structure would be the same on the outside
regardless if it were a duplex or not.
Ruth Kruger said that she was torn with mixed feelings for the project. Kruger
applauded the HPC preservation program but she stated concern for the school and
traffic that maybe added to the path and driveway by a duplex. Kruger stated that
she supported anything that encouraged local people to live in Aspen and not move
down valley.
Ron Erickson stated that he agreed with what Ruth said but wasn't having trouble
with a decision. Erickson stated concern for the density with the children; he said
the review criteria met #1 but he did not feel that it met points "B" and "C", which
9
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16, 2002
were compatible to the immediate vicinity, location, design and operating
characteristics of the conditional use for adverse effects. Erickson said that this
building will be built the same size as a single-family, it puts P&Z in a box; he said
that he would be more inclined to approve a duplex if setbacks were adhered to and
the building were smaller.
Jasmine Tygre stated that the problems for her had to do with the size, dimensions
and setbacks, which were not the P&Z purview. Tygre said that generally
speaking additional density would be preferable, two 1800 square foot units.
Tygre stated concern for the waiver of parking and the impact on the neighborhood
was going to be severe. Tygre stated that if the FAR bonus wasn't gained and
there were fewer bedrooms there would be less impact on the neighborhood in
terms of density.
Myrin said that the parking may not be under the P&Z purview but it did come
under the neighborhood impacts.
Cohen said that it was ironic that by denying an application for a duplex you
increase the chance that it was a seldom used trophy home and loose out on some
sort of mitigation for employee housing to maintain the exact same size structure
and massing. Cohen said the neighbors would probably be disappointed because
this was the same outer box as a duplex or single-family home. Cohen said that he
did not think that there would be much difference in the traffic generated but he
wanted to find a way to separate the increased traffic with the pedestrian needs.
Cohen said that the project did not meet criteria "C" but he said that for every other
reason wanted to approve the application.
Auger said that there was a lot of discussion about a duplex resulting in more
traffic and she said that there were currently between 1 and 4 trucks and hour that
go to the Red Brick based upon her observation while working on the property.
Auger said with people living in the houses there would likely be less traffic.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to extend the meeting until 7:30 p.m.
Bert Myrin seconded. APPROVED 4-1.
Lindenau explained the design solution as compatible with the scale. Auger said
that the footage between the houses was dictated. Clauson said that if this were to
be a single-family house it would lend itself to having the housing mitigation
requirement met on site with an ADU. Clauson said even though an ADU would
not be considered a unit of density, there would be that additional family as part of
the ADU. Tygre noted that the ADU rules have changed to be a detached unit
above ground.
10
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16, 2002
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve Resolution #19, series of
2002, approving the conditional use for a duplex on a 6,000 square foot
lot in the R-6 Zone District with the conditions as contained in the
resolution. Ruth Kruger seconded. Roll call vote: Myrin, no; Kruger,
yes; Cohen, no; Erickson, no; Tygre, no. DENIED 4-1.
Discussion: Cohen asked the allowed vehicular use on the pedestrian path. Ohlson
stated said that there were very few limitations today, there were no signs posted so
it was seen as a way. Cohen said with the City Council decision and proposal on
the table there would be gravel; he asked if there would be any change in that
allowable use. Ohlson replied that the driveway would be signed for pedestrian
use and could be used as' it was used today. Auger stated that it was a throughway
called Sheeley Boulevard. Cohen said that if the driveway were only used for this
project and Red Brick use, then he would have a different view of the traffic
problems. Clauson and Auger stated that they could sign the driveway Authorized
Vehicles only. Myrin asked if this was a P&Z purview to change the use. Hoefer
said that it could be a condition of approval. Clauson commented that he originally
brought this project forward prior ro this applicant and at that time the Parks
Department thought a paved roadway was the best solution; clearly City Council
spoke in another direction and Parks was amenable to the new approach. Clauson
said that if this commission wanted to make a condition for signage that the Park
Department would find a solution to go forward with it. Auger said that having
worked with the Parks Department she thought that they would welcome it because
they were looking for a concept to limit traffic in amore appropriate manner, which
no one has thought of this and she though that everyone would be pleased by such
a suggestion. Erickson said that the problem with that condition was that it was
not enforceable; he said that they were asking to restrict the use of public land as a
condition for a change in use and he did not feel that they were compatible.
Erickson said that this was a public fight-of-way used by the Red Brick. Efickson
stated that he would change his motion if the applicant could build a duplex that
was under 3,000 square feet and only housed 8 people maximum, but this house
was too bug for the lot. Cohen said that wasn't what the issue was because that
had already been decided.
Tygre asked who chose the form of mitigation for the employee-housing
requirement. Ohlson replied that it was up to the housing authority.
Cohen stated that he couldn't vote for the motion as it stood unless the applicant
could get a change in use for that path so that it was restricted to pedestrian and
emergency vehicles with a special permit. Ohlson responded that the applicants
already had a license agreement to use the driveway. Cohen said if there were a
restriction on the motorized vehicular use on the now increased pedestrian byway,
11
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 16, 2002
he would be in. favor of it. Clauson said that they would welcome thaf~midition
and would work to try to implement it.
MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to include that the licensed area be
signed such that only emergency vehicles or authorized vehicles were
permitted use of the roadway with approval from the Parks
Department. Ruth Kruger seconded. Roll call vote: Myrin, no;
Kruger, yes; Cohen, yes; Erickson, no; Tygre, no. DENIED 3-2.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/02/02):
LITTLE AJAX CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PUD
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing and continued it to August 6t~.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing for the
Little Ajax COnsolidated Conceptual/Final PUD to August 6, 2002;
seconded by Eric Cohen. APPROVED 5-0.
The commission adjourned into a discussion of the Board Reports at 7:30 p.m.
Board Reports
Ruth Kruger and Bert Myrin reported on the COWOP.
thian, D~puty City Clerk
12