HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20020806ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes AUgUst 6, 2002
COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS ........................................ 2
MINUTES .................................................................... , ....... ,.., ....... ,..,...,.,.,..,..,,; 5
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ...
LITTLE AJAX CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PUD ......................... 5
OUTLOT B, MEADOWS SUBDIVISION REZONING
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 6, 2002
Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning and Zoning meeting at 4:30 p.m. in the
Sister Cities Meeting Room with Roger Haneman, Bert Myrin, Ron Erickson, Eric
Cohen and Ruth Kruger. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City
Attorney; Joyce Ohlson and James Lindt, Community Development Director;
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ron Erickson asked if the bookstore on Hopkins (Quandrant Books Building) was
a demolition; he said that P&Z approved a change of use to a residence not a
complete change of building. Joe Wells, public, stated that he asked the same
question and he was told that there was a determination that the building was not
historic. Jasmine Tygre noted that there was one wall, not even an entire wall
standing. James Lindt stated that the sub-grade walls surface area counted. The
commissioners questioned counting the sub-grade wails for demolition. Lindt said
that if it was over 50% they would have to mitigate for it. Joyce Ohlson stated that
the code was under revision for demolition. Tygre stated that this major
demolition probably would not have been approved; she asked what the procedure
from here was. Tygre requested that staff look into the criteria used for the
approval on that project.
Roger Haneman said that he was asked to look into the shed next to the Popcorn
Wagon.
Bert Myrin thanked Troy Rayburn for the email on the Burlingame COWOP.
Jasmine Tygre said that Troy asked if a P&Z member wanted to be part of the
COWOP for parcel D Burlingame, which was 15,000 square feet with the potential
of 30 affordable units. Tygre asked Troy for clarification on why the parcel was
being developed separately and who chose the developer and what criteria was
used. Tygre said that the entire issue confused her. Ohlson said that she did not
receive a copy of the memo; she said that normally council was brought the
information by community development. Ohlson said that she did not have any
information on the possibility of the parcel D, the front side of Deer Hill, being a
COWOP project.
Myrin said that he spoke to Leslie Lamont outside of the Obermeyer COWOP
process. David Hoefer responded that this was the disclosure. Myrin asked if
there was a distinction with speaking about the process in an adverse situation and
asked if this application would come before P&Z. Hoefer replied there was no
distinction and they did not know if it would come before P&Z.
Myrin said that storefront zoning was raised at the July 22nd Council meeting,
which went on for an hour and seemed pretty important at the time, he said that he
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ~ MinufeS ' XUgu~f 6~ 2002
felt that it was still important. Myrin said that the mayor encouraged staff to look
into separating that from the infill report to proceed forward on the storefront
zoning. David Hoefer noted that P&Z could not take a position on something that
would be voted on at a later date. Joyce Ohlson addressed the process side of the
implementation strategies for the infill Report; it was stll the city's goal to include
the storefront retail and office evaluation as part of in fill, a large group of code
amendments at the stafflevel in less that a couple of weeks. Ohlson stated that
there was no other directive from council to separate them. Ohlson said that there
was a thing called comprehensive planning and master planning, looking at the
entire picture as one. From a planning perspective evaluating land uses of an entire
area with the understanding in the context of how the whole works. Ohlson said
staff recommended leaving the infill as a whole and pulling out the one piece; they
have been working on the code language and should be ready for the Planning
Commission review in September.
Ron Erickson asked if there had been anything on the Mona Frost property. David
Hoefer replied that it was his understanding that there was no right to appeal to
City Council.
Ruth Kruger arrived. Kruger said that the retailers association asked her to pull the
downtown rezoning from the infill.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to request that City Council look at the
rezoning portion of the Infill Report and pull it aPart from the report
and direct staff to work on it in advance of the rest of the Infill Report.
Ron Erickson seconded. MOTION WITHDRAWN.
Discussion: Erickson stated that he spent two years on the Infill Committee
working on it; it should have been codified by now but hasn't because of other
problems. Erickson noted that this problem has been around for a long time and
the retail association people never attended any of those meetings to bring the
problem to the Committee. Erickson said that he was opposed to it and a good
public process was needed to be part of the comprehensive plan.
Bert Myrin said that the reason he felt that it should be separated was the resistance
to physical changes in structures, the height being a big one; the infill report does
address it but impacted the zoning of the ground floor issues. Myrin said the Infill
Report did not address the retail vs. real estate offices or timeshare. Myrin stated
that he attended several of the retailers meetings and they feel strongly that this has
impacted the city sales tax. Myrin said if this issue were separated then it could be
discussed on it's own merit rather than tied to a bunch of other things, because it
was such an important issue.
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 6, 2002
Eric Cohen said that he did not feel that it was in the P&Z purview to ask City
Council for that kind of separation in the report; Council has seen a lot of
sentiment on the topic. Cohen said he did not feel it was in their purview and that
it was a bit of a knee jerk reaction to a specific topic.
Jasmine Tygre said that she agreed with Eric that this was a procedural matter.
Tygre said that spot zoning for one particular applicant was not what was done but
rather a code amendment for the entire zone district had to be done with
implications on the whole district. Tygre said this was a similar situation With an
overall plan for downtown and the infill would affect that plan. Tygre said the
problem that they have been made aware of has had to do with timeshare more
than just general real estate, which it would be simple to include a requirement in
the timeshare legislation that timeshare projects of more than a certain size must
have their sales office on their own premises. Tygre said that would include a
more comprehensive planning process.
Roger Haneman said that Joyce's explanation of when the Infill Report would
come before this commission satisfied him.
Ruth Kruger asked if this could be addressed in a response manner rather than in
the entire Infill Report. Kruger said the retailers do have a valid concern about the
flow of retail in the downtown core and if it were pulled out then it may be worked
on quicker and solve some other issues. Ohlson responded that Chris Bendon was
scheduled to present the infill process for the code amendments and land uses for
the commercial core to the Planning Commission on September 3~. Ohlson said
that it could take a long time but it could bifurcate the various components of the
ordinance and separate out what was bogging it down. Kruger said with that in
mind she withdrew her motion and Erickson withdrew his second.
Myrin asked if the issue could be separated out in the ordinance brought before
them on September Bra.
Erickson asked if the timeshare ordinance passed City Council. Ohlson replied
that it had not. Erickson said that Jasmine's idea about the offices for timeshare
was a good one. Erickson said that the real estate community would be very
outspoken on this part of the infill.
Cohen noted that the lawsuit was settled and the hole in the ground could be
worked on again; he said that it will be interesting to see what happens with the
homeowners that were suing over the height.
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes AUgust 6, 2002
Joyce Ohlson entered the letter from Diana Van Deusen regarding the Oberrneyer
Rio Grande Place project into the record.
Public Comments:
Barry Gordon stated that the retailers association just started one month ago and
the response was quite well received from the last Council Meeting. Gordon said
that it wasn't only the retailers but also lodging, restaurateurs and everybody else
on the street. Gordon said that this was not about real estate or timeshare; this was
about anything was a non-retail shop or store should not be allowed in the
downtown core for two principal reasons: ® None of them (real estate offices take
up 30,000 square feet ofretaiI space) pay sales tax ® the shoPPing experience for
tourists has been diminished because the real estate offices have taken over the
retail space. Gordon said that many communities disallow real estate offices in
their commercial core. Gordon said that coupling a non-sales tax entity, which we
need the sales tax with the infill report that makes no mention of what he was
talking about. Gordon said that there was one general statement that refers to
nothing; he said that if the height restrictions have to do with the zoning change go
down then they go down with it. Gordon said this was a separate issue that was
hurting the city, the county and certainly the business people. Gordon said that the
handwriting was on the wall and he urged the commissioners to go and talk to their
constituents and hear what they have to say; he said that's what he does. Jasmine
Tygre said that his work with the downtown retailers was appreciated.
MINUTES
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve the minutes from July 16,
2002; seconded bY Ron Erickson. APPROVED 6-0.
DECLARATION OF CONFLIC.TS OF INTE~ST
Jasmine Tygre disclosed that she was invOlved with the sale of an adjaceTM
property to the Marqusee property. David Hoefer stated that as long as this case
was not prejudged, there was no conflict. Tygre stated that it did not.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/02/02& 07/16/02):
LITTLE AJAX CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL~FINAL pUD
Jasmine Tygre opened the cOntinUed public hearing; notice was provided at the
July 2na hearing. Joyce Ohlson explained that there were many components to the
various land use actions. The property was located at the 600 block of West
Hopkins, adjacent to the new Boomerang project. There was a letter from Donna
Fisher.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 6~ 2002
Ohlson noted that conceptual approval was received in 2001; the submittal
deadline was not met but the community development director approved the
conceptual/final to be combined. It was primarily an affordable housing project
with 11 affordable units (2 buildings) and 4 free-market units (1 building). Ohlson
said that the only change since conceptual were the proposed addition of 2 ADUs
as part of the free-market complex at each end; the ADUs don't meet the current
requirements because they are not detached but the planning commission can
accept the ADUs if they feel that they are appropriate for the location.
Ohlson said that the free-market units were up against the steeper parts of the
parcel with the parking requirements met. Ohlson stated that the access was the
same as at conceptual. There were 2 trails be continued across the property for
continuity with easements conveyed. The subdivision and lot line adjustment was
handled in the context of the PUD; the rear portion was actually in the county and
will be annexed contingent to approval. There will be a lot line shift between the
rear parcel and the front parcel to provide appropriate amounts of land to each of
the developments; it was expected that there would be two different associations
for parcels 1 and 2.
Ohlson said that the reason for continuation was because issues were raised
regarding environmental evaluations from CTL/Th°mPson and COlorado
Geological Survey. There were 4 issues fi:om the Engineering Geological report 1.
rock fall and potential rock slide so the structures are protected; 2. slope stability
during the time of construction; 3. undermining or subsidence with the potential for
mine shafts on the property; 4. mine waste.
Ohlson said that they would use Bruge fencing to protect the buildings fi:om
potential rock falls. Maintenance of the fence would have to be provided by the
homeowners association. Ohlson suggested from the report that further analysis on
the slope stability and the undermining or subsidence be provided by the applicant.
Ohlson said that there was a special review for the subdivision, special review for
parking, GMQS exemption because of the affordable housing and 2 ADUs, 8040
Greenline review and rezoning from conservation and R-15 to Affordable Housing
were set through the PUD. Staffrecommended approval with numerous conditions
as set in the resolution. Changes to the resolution include the title of the resolution
to include all the land Use items; Section 1, #3 add full structural before the last 2
words; #5 add and 5feet along the West side for a total of l2' after the word
property and before as; #8 add full structural before the last 2 words; #10 amend
the Maximum Height of the North Building to 24.1 feet, the South Building is 32
feet; 10 parking instead of 8; #11 deleted unless the ADUs were not accepted; #21
all Lot 5 deleted and replaced with Lot 1.
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMiSSiON ~ihUt~s AUgUSt~6, 2002
Joe Wells, planner for the project, introduced Charlie Kaplan the architect on the
project. Wells said that the geologic issue has been studied and Charlie Will go
over the issues. Charlie Kaplan stated that the subsidence issue was researched
with posthole tomography, 2 holes drilled with laser technology to search for voids
between the 2 holes. Kaplan said that ifa mineshaft were found it would be easy
to mitigate by excavating that void, filling with concrete and proceed. Kaplan
explained that first and foremost they were an architecture firm and they were
interested in affordable housing; they began with a couple of spec houses to
understand the building and sub-contractor environment here. Kaplan stated that
they approached the issues as architects, which includes the professional liability;
they are concerned about the mineshafts and geological issues also and best dealt
with at the time of construction. Kaplan said that the site would be insured for
cOnstruction with slope stabilization done by thc contractor wh° worked on
Highway 82 for temporary restraining structures, which was within the means of
the project. Kaplan said that the Bruge fencing (looks like a chain link fence) will
replace the original MSE wall (tiers of tires). The Bruge fencing was less
impactiVe to the environment and hillside; once the natural vegetation grows back
in through the fencing with annual maintenance. Tygre asked the height of the
Bruge fencing. Kaplan replied that it would be 6 feet but the MSE wall would
have been 6 feet with a lot of disturbance to the hillside for construction and
maintenance by heavy machinery. The Bruge fencing will require hand digging
and maintenance without heavy machinery. Tygre asked how visible it would be
from street level. Kaplan said that once the vegetation grew in and the housing was
in place, it would probably not be visible. Wells said that it was up in the trees and
vines could even be planted on the fencing.
Kaplan said that the only significant change in the architecture was the addition of
the 2 ADUs. Wells said that there was a suggestion at the P&Z level to investigate
the ADU possibility. Kaplan said that the ADUs could be inserted on the ends
without impacting the massing of the project with partially burying the back into
the slope but they were open at the front. Kaplan said that the ADUs would very
possibly get used as caretakers for the free-market complex but if the commission
wanted them taken out, that could happen. Tygre asked the size of the ADUs.
Kaplan replied that there were decent ADUs at 400-$00 square feet. Kaplan stated
that their experience with ADUs was that they were used.
Kaplan said that the Midland right-of-way Trail changed to alongside the road for a
nicer experience. Wells said that in addition the Nordic Trail was up above.
Kaplan stated that the facades were further developed to express 3 buildings
treating the affordable units with consistency of window cuts.
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 6, 2002
Wells said that there were mine tailing on site; CTL Thompson recommend that
those be retained on site; if there was a surplus of material after site excavation the
concept was to store and cap those materials on site.
Erickson asked about the size of the windows on the south side of the affordable
units being very small. Kaplan responded that the north unit addressed the street
with a lot of glass facing Hopkins and the internal courtyard had balconies so that
the units communicate with one another for a sense of community. Kaplan said the
rear units (south) face the public trail easement as does the free-market units to
create a friendly open aspect to the trail. Kaplan said that each unit had at least one
large window.
Myrin asked if there was an ADA requirement and access. Hoefer responded that
the project would have to comply with the ADA building department requirements.
Myrin asked why it did not come to P&Z for review. Ohlson replied that it was
more a structural and legal issue as part of the Uniform Building Code; the
Uniform Building Code was applied to every application for a building permit.
Wells responded that Denis Murray was communicating with them; there were 3
different codes to comply with, which weren't necessarily consistent with one
another. Myrin asked about tree removal. Wells replied that they were hoping to
save the ones in the comer but once the contamination was determined, it would
also determine the area of disturbance and they were working on a tree mitigation
plan. Kaplan stated that there was a landscape plan that outlined trees to be added;
street trees would be added.
Myrin asked the finished grade height or existing grade height for measurement.
Ohlson replied that the roof height be established from existing grade as noted in
condition # 16.
Erickson asked if there was only one trash removal site. Wells replied that there
were 3. Kaplan said that the free-market had 2 and the affordable had 1. Erickson
suggested that they rethink the trash, since there were more affordable units that
would be actually lived in. Erickson asked about the roof decks on the free-market
units. Kaplan replied that there were roof decks.
No public comments.
Myrin asked if the hole was dug and abandoned was there a way that the city could
recoup money from a bond. Ohlson replied through the Uniform Building Code
there were provisions to correct potentially hazardous situations. Myrin asked the
process if the hole was dug and something hazardous found, then theydisappear.
Ohlson said that an excavation permit would be based upon the UBC to allow them
8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 6' 2002
to proceed with the exploratory construction. Ohlson said that a condition could be
added to bring back the site to as near as pOssible prior to construction. Erickson
said that after Williams Ranch maybe a bond could be posted based upon the
estimated cost of restating the property to the natural state.
MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to approve P&Z ReSolution #22, series
2002, recommending City Council approve the Little AjaX Affordable
Housing with the conditions stated with the additional conditions: any
on site excavation does not proceed to building Construction then the
site needs to be returned as close as possible to the natural state. Ruth
Kruger seconded. Roll cal vote: Myrin, yes; Haneman, yes; Erickson,
yes; Kruger, yes;Cohen, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-0.
Discussion: Tygre said that because of the problems that the city and homeowners
of Williams Ranch had protection was needed. Ohlson said that a line item had to
added to their SubdiviSion ImprOVement Agreement for any excavations. David
Hoefer added that a time requirement should be included. Erickson said that there
should be a condition regarding the trail being restored. Tygre requested a copy of
the resOlution so P&Z could review it. Cohen noted that this was a difficult site to
built on and it would have been easy for a large trophy home as opposed to this
project with a lot of affordable housing and hoped that it became the project that it
looked like it will become. The commissioners agreed.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (06/18/02):
OUTLOT B, MEADOWS SUBDIVISION REZONING ..
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing; notice was provided
previously. James Lindt said that Charles Marqusee requested Outlot B, Meadows
SubdivisiOn be rezoned from academic with an SPA overlay to the R-15 zone
district. Outlot B was located south of New Meadows Road (in red on the map); it
was about 4,400 square feet and was not allowed any development rights. It was
given to the applicants as consideration for the constructiOn of New Meadows
Road. The applicant has concurrently applied for a lot line adjustment to merge
Outlot B to the lots directly south of it and an insubstantial SPA amendment to
remove Outlot B from the Meadows SPA. Staffbelieyed that there was a
community benefit to clean up the zoning in the area because this was an island
surrounded by Academic zone district. The Aspen Area Community Plan future
land use map indicated this as a residential parcel.
Lindt explained the land transfer from Outlot B to the 2 lots, which were non-
conforming, one would be brought into conformance with the addition of land.
The lot line adjustment must occur prior to council taking action on the rezoning.
9
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 6, 2002
The proposed rezoning and lot line adjustments will not add development rights
nor FAR to the parcels; a plat note would be placed on the lot line adjustment plat.
Staff recommended approval of the rezoning.
Joe Wells, representative for Mr. Marqusee, stated that this was before P&Z for
one reason because of the provisions in the code for multiple zone districts on a
parcel. Wells said that the Academic Zone District.was !nappropriate for this little
sliver of land in a residentia1 parcel. Wel!~ said the build Out on each parcel was
determined by the R-15 piece of Lot 1 owned by Marqusee and Lot 2 owned by
Julie Anthony not by any addition from this lot line adjustment.
Ron Erickson asked the current lot sizes and proposed increased lot sizes. Wells
replied that Lot 1 was about 7,000 square feet with the addition it would be
approximately 10,500 and Lot 2 was over 16,000 with the addition it would be
16,842 square feet. Erickson asked if the house on lot 2 could be added onto.
Lindt said that the lot was already non-conforming because of the setback to the lot
line therefore it would not be able to expand. Wells explained the history of the
property. Tygre asked where the driveway came into the property. Wells replied
that it pretty much went through the center of Lot 1 with the intention that the
driveway would be relocated to the south to serve both lots. Wells said that there
was about 2200 square feet of FAR available to the north of the driveway on Lot 1,
which was unaffected by this request. Lindt clarified that a good portion of Lot 1
and Lot 2 were from the vacated North Street, which was not counted towards
allowable FAR but it took on the zoning of the existing parcel.
Bert Myrin inquired about the final whereas clause in the resolution regarding the
importance for public health. David Hoefer stated that it was standard language in
zoning ordinances. Ohlson said that public health, safety and welfare were the
basis for zoning. Ohlson said to look at it in a more global perspective of cleaning
up the zoning in the residential area. Hoefer clarified to look at it generically that
all zoning was designed to promote public health, safety and welfare. Myrin said
that the transfer of land from one owner to another or the land was just a buffer
why rezone it. Lindt replied that it was a housekeeping issue to have the parcels in
the same zone district because it did not add any more developmental rights.
Erickson asked if Joe Wells represented Marqusee for the original variances for the
guesthouse. Wells replied that he did not; he said that he represented them during
the second of two vacations and Chuck Brandt represented all the owners that
applied for vacation once New Meadows Road was built.
Charles Collins, public, said that he lived in the general neighborhood; he
presented West End plans with the original racetrack, which was about five-eighths
10
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes AUguSt 6, 2002
of a mile. Collins said that this racetrack area was always to be open space from
the Institute but then 4 lots were designated from the Institute for the final SPA.
Collins said that if it was zoned academic then there should be documentation.
Collins said that the Institute sold that property to Mr. Marqusee; he said that was a
bad precedent to set. Collins said that the public was not noticed on this proposal.
Collins said that this should be zoned R-6 not R-15. Collins said that the new road
was not adequate and did not meet the city standards. Collins noted that there have
been a lot of changes over the last 10 years, which should be documented for the
change of ownership. Collins said that the SPA was established as a joint effort
between the city planning and private planning and it should be upheld.
Ramona Markalunas, public, stated that she lived across from the Physics
Buildings and that she was a former councilperson and P&Z member. Markalunas
stated that they were dividing 25,000 square feet and this seemed like a
manipulation to gain another building site. Markalunas said that the city purchased
land along Castle Creek and down the Roaring Fork for $2,000,000.00.
Markalunas said that they should have a more definitive plat before any decisions
were made to convey so called academic property, which was probably open
space, over to Mr. Marqusee.
Tygre said that she was on the commission when the SPA was approved; the 4 lots
were part of that SPA on the racetrack side of the property and had nothing to do
with Mr. Marqusee. Tygre said that Mr. Marqusee owned that property described
as Lots 1 and 2 at that time as well as the property on the other side with North
Street going through it.
Myrin asked if all the standards had to be applied. Lindt replied that was correct.
Myrin said that he did not see the change in ownership as a change in the
conditions as meeting the criteria.
Erickson said that he was on the Board of Adjustment when the property came
through for variances probably 15 years ago. Erickson said that there was a certain
amount of abuse in the process; they were not told the whole story or entirely the
correct story, which resulted in his questioning anything that Mr. Marqusee does
when it comes to land use. Erickson stated that it did not meet any of the criteria in
his point of view.
MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to extend the meeting to 7:15; seconded
by Ron Erickson. APPROVED 4-2. (Myrin & Erickson).
Lindt said for clarification that Outlot B was acknowledged as a separate lot in the
SPA agreement; the lots 7, 8, 9, 10 were zoned R-15 with an SPA overlay.
11
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 6~ 2002
Wells explained that was the legality of transferring the property to Mr. Marqusee.
Ohlson reiterated that there was no additional development ability by virtue of this
lot line adjustment or the rezoning.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve P&Z Resolution #24, series
2002, recommending that City Council approve the proposed zoning
application to allow Outiot B, of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision to be
rezoned to the Rq5 (moderate-Density Residential) Zone District. Ron
Erickson seconded. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Myrin, no; Cohen,
yes; Erickson, no; Kruger, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 4-2.
The commission adjourned into a discussion of the Board Reports at 7:15 p.m.
~ck~e Lothian/DepuTM City Clerk
12