Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20020917ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION September 17, 2002 Eric Cohen opened the regular Planning and Zoning meeting at 4:35 p.m. in Sister Cities with Ron Erickson, Bert Myrin, Ruth Kruger, Jack Johnson, Dylan Johns and Roger Haneman present. Jasmine Tygre was excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Ron Erickson said that he had asked to see the Truscott maintenance facility plans; he said that James responded that it was a maintenance facility on the plans. MINUTES MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the minutes from September 3, 2002; seconded by Bert Myrin. Myrin added that Charles Wolf from Cooper Bar & Restaurant commented that keeping the views form his restaurant was important to consider. APPROVED 5-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Bert Myrin restated that he had attended the retailers meetings. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: INFILL LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS Eric Cohen opened the continued public hearing on the Infill Land Use Code Amendments. David Hoefer noted that the public notice had been provided at the September 3rd hearing. Chris Bendon said that the return to vitality section of the Infill Report was the topic for this meeting. Bendon said that the infill group was initiated from issues in the Aspen Area Community Plan warning signs that the city was loosing some vitality and vibrancy, which made it a healthy community and popular destination resort. Some of those feelings came from lodge conversions, loss of local stores and businesses, fewer people walking around downtown, more empty second homes in the residential areas, converting storefronts on the mall to free-market housing units and the conversion of retail spaces to offices. The infill group noted that Aspen was still of compelling character with distinct neighborhoods, old buildings and much history; their aim was ro restore the vitality with the ability to enhance the existing qualities. The infill group's main report goals were to increase vitality and pedestrian engagement in commercial areas; increase residential density in the affordable housing opportunities; reduce development pressure on natural lands surrounding town; support a more diverse and sustainable local economy. One of the overall all premises was to create a development environment in which the private sector would be encouraged to provide these things if these were public goals. In order to reach these goals higher density and I ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION September 17, 2002 mixed use development in commercial areas, redevelopment of commercial properties and rejuvenation of lodging properties and more in town affordable housing would be allowed. There would be a set of clear straightforward rules that streamline the review process so there was a grater trust and reliance with the private and public sector. Bendon noted that there were well-intentioned regulations adopted in the 1970s, which restricted development and resulted in strict downzoning. The less intensity resulted in single-family housing in the multifamily zone districts; there were iecti6ns of the office zone district that were all single and multi-family use. There has been a lack of new commercial development and rejuvenation of commercial buildings downtown, which resulted in a certain amount of stagnation. Bendon ~id tlSat there'~6~tld be a/~estructuring of the rules for development and redevelopment. Bendon said that the transfer of development rights (TDRs) seems to be a nice fit to define a development environment in which the private sector was encouraged to achieve public goals. Bendon said that another goal was to direct development to urban areas and reduce the development pressure on outlying areas; it won't prevent sPrawl but will allow for an additional option. The underlying concept was to create a development environment in which the private sector can achieve public goals. Bendon'mentioned the schedule of meetings for every Tuesday through November ~I 2th; he said that each section would have a consensus reached but Will stay t0gether Until itwas completed. Bendon utilized a graph depicting the height limits in each zone district. Bendon reviewed each section, the definitions and zone districts. The commissioners were provided with notebooks containing the proposed language and the existing sections for comparison. Ron Erickson requested a matrix for the existing and proposed uses. Bendon replied that it would be difficult for the uses but could be done for the dimensions. Bendon noted that the uses were stipulated by floor. There were new sections for parking, neighborhood commercial, TDRs and all other uses. Bendon explained the locations of the zone districts; Commercial, C-1, SCI, Neighborhood Commercial, Office and Main Street zone districts would have special review embedded into each zone district. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION September 17~ 2002 Bendon said that the advisory group wanted to provide an incentive for redevelopment in the area and wanted to look at a mix of commercial uses incorporated within the SCI zone district. Bendon said that Main Street would allow for a wide range of uses, retail and neighborhood commercial being restricted to land marked properties; conditional uses did not change. Bendon said that there was a concept to combine the commercial, C-1 zone district, neighborhood commercial and those portions of office that are not on Main Street into one zone district and call it neighborhood commercial. Bendon said that those areas were periphery commercial because they were periphery to the commercial core and all provide for the lesser intensity of commercial uses in a transition towards other residential areas where there might be banks and other locally serving businesses and different from the Main Street dynamic. Bendon said that if they were not combined then office would be in two different areas. The commission discussed the definition of vehicles, sales and rentals; Jack Johnson found issues with the sales and rental of vehicles given the definition as written. Johnson asked what agricultural clubs meant. Bendon replied that was more of a county issue, but was meant to limit county club use. Dylan Johns asked the definition of design studio or artist studio in the neighborhood commercial uses. Bendon replied that the definition was created with the SCI zone district for architects, landscape architects, graphic design, any design form. David Hoefer provided the definitions from the code: Artist's studio. A fine arts workshop of a painter, sculptor, potter, weaver, carver, jeweler, photographer, or other similar art that requires artistic skill, and not generally utilitarian, related to personal hygiene or adornment, receiving the public, or engaging in retail sales. Design Studio: A workshop primarily devoted to the design or representation of built form, £andscapes, consumer products, or graphic arts. Bert Myrin asked how split-level buildings would be part of this. Bendon responded that he didn't see them as part but there were some in town and that the use by floor would address the issue. Roger Haneman asked about banking and service uses including the brokerage firms in the definition for the ground floor right. Bendon replied that it might just say banking and savings and loan. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION September 17~ 2002 Eric Cohen asked about the ski locker facilities in the North of Nell building. Bendon replied that it could be a service use. Cohen said that lockers probably did not generate sales tax. Cohen asked if it was necessary to limit the square footage and seating for the neighborhood cafb. Bendon responded that the rationale was to allow for a restaurant that Wfis smallerl Johns asked where the differentiation between restaurant and neighborhood caf~ came from; why have 2 categories. Bendon replied that restaurants were historically only allowed in the commercial core and to broaden that to allow for more vitality in the periphery commercial areas, which w6uld allow for restaurant tyPe uses. Bendon said that if a small restaurant were allowed it would not be as impactive as a really large restaurant; the neighborhood cafb seemed to be the first draft for the use. Ruth Kruger asked if there was a definition for a deli in the code with no table service. Bendon answered that was a food market by definition, which allowed for up to 10 seats indoors without wait service~ Phil Rothblum, public, stated that when he was on the infill committee they thought of changing definitions for new development or renovation rather than changing the existing uses and definitions. The commission discussed the sales or rental of vehicles (automobiles and motOrcycles/combustion engines); 2 commissioners (Myrin, Johnson) wanted to prohibit combustion engine sales and rentals in the commercial core and (Erickson, Kruger, Haneman, Johns, Cohen) 5 commissioners had no issue with the sales or rental of combustion engin'e Vehicles in the commercial core. - All of the commissioners were in favor of striking the wording of similar 5nancia! ser¥!ce' and leave as just a banking service only. The commission discussed the importance and appropriateness of limiting the number of seats in a neighborhood cafe; none of the commissioners wanted to limit the number of seats but kept the 1500 square foot limitation. This would be a use by right in areas where restaurants would not be allowed currently. Bob Langley, public, asked if the basement floor would be counted against FAR. Bendon replied that there would be no changes to FAR regarding basements. Bendon said that the conditional use standards encouraged the lesser intensity. Myrin asked for the dimensional difference as you move away from the commercial core. Bendon noted that the infill group had a diversified discussion of the uses as the intensity becomes less the father away from the commercial core. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION September 17, 2002 Bendon asked if the commission wanted the buildings to diminish in size and scales as you go away from the commercial core. The commission disCussed the office zone district, neighborhood commercial and C- 1 being combined into one called neighborhood commercial so they all have the same uses and dimensions or do you still differentiate between the zone districts. Ski lockers would be included in the services uses: Timeshare lodge units or offices could not be located on the first floor in the commercial core, which would be included.in the timeshare section. Ernie Fyrwald, public, said that when Barry had his contingency at the meeting he asked for a separation of zoning uses for offices to be separated from the entire infill report; he said that there were many examples out there. FYrwald cited the city market blOck as being totally dysfunctiOnal. Fyrwald asked if it was possible to have zones by use and zones by dimension; blanket the town with acceptable use combining the zones but variations of dimensions within the various zones. Bendon responded that the system should function the same for all the sections with parallels in the uses and dimensions. Phil Rothblum, public, asked about restaurants in the C-1 zone. Bendon replied that restaurants were allowed. R°thblum said that combining zones would be in opposition for the purpose of infill; the purpose of infill was to increase the activity and life of the downtown area. Rothblum said that would just spread out and increase the use area for the life that there was. Rothblum said tO grandfather every residential building in the whole area was totally unacceptable. Bendon explained that Phil was on the losing side of the infill debate regarding the combining of zone districts. Garret Brandt, public, stated that he was an attorney that represented the lot owner at Hunter and Hopkins; he said that they were moving towards developing something but there was nothing in the works. Brandt said that they would like the commission to review the commercial FAR, free-market and open space infill limitations. Brandt noted that Chris has done a great job on the whole. MOTION: Ron Eriekson moved to extend the meeting to 7:15; secOnded by Bert Myrin. APPROVED 6-1. (Myrin against) Johnson asked the number of TDRs used in town. Bendon replied very ballpark maybe 100; there was a concurrency requirement with affordable and free-market housing, which converted the sending site's 250 square feet to the receiving site at 750 square feet to make it more attractive. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION September 17, 2002 The issues were to obtain a map for information on the zone districts; offices allowed as a conditional use on the first floor in the commercial core; phasing out the current office use in the commercial core; combining the office, C~ 1 and neighborhood commercial into neighborhood commercial zone district; consider the dimensions separate from the uses. MOTION: Ron Ericksou moved to continue the public hearing on the Infill Land Use Code Amendments to September 24, 2002; seconded by Roger Itaneman. APPROVED 7-0. The commission adjourned at 7:25 p.m. ~(ckie Lothian,-D[puty City Clerk 6