Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20021015ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION October 15, 2002 Eric Cohen opened the regular Planning and Zoning meeting at 4:30 p.m. in Sister Cities Meeting with Ron Erickson, Bert Myrin, Jack Johnson, Ruth Kruger and Dylan John present. Roger Haneman arrived at 5:45 p.m. Jasmine Tygre was excused. Staff in attendance: John Worcester and David Hoefer, City Attorneys; Ed Sadler, Asset; Michelle Bonfils, Housing; James Lindt, Chris Bendon, Community Developmem; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Ruth Kruger asked what was happening at the Pines Lodge. John Worcester responded that a stop work order was issued for a week; the reason the order was lifted was that the base plates were notched out to slide into the existing studs. Worcester stated that the developer provided pictures of the extraordinary lengths that they went through to keep 51% of the walls that were in bad shape. Worcester said that some of those studs were taken out but bracing, steel cables and posts were used to replace the glass walls that were taken down. Worcester said that he felt that going to court to convince a judge that there was indeed a violation without this building being historic would have been very difficult. Worcester said that the contractor spent $100,000.00 to $200,000.00 to fit through the building code loophole, which would be difficult to prove ~n a courtroom. Worcester stated that the mayor requested a code change for the definition of remodel. Worcester explained that because of the code developers end up leaving 2 or 3 walls that should really come down and the owners end up with a buildings that were not preferred architectural designs. Worcester said that an emergency ordinance would go straight to council and not come to P&Z first. The commissioners agreed that they have worked with staff already and this was something that needed to be accomplished as soon as possible. Bert Myrin asked about the painter sign in the courthouse right-of-way. Myrin asked if the Bavarian Inn was being demolished. James Lindt replied that there was an application for the remodel of the existing building. Ron Erickson requested a signed copy (for all P&Z members) of the Aspen Mountain PUD ski trail easement agreement connng from Summit Place. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to keep all future infill code amendment public hearings in City Hall; seconded by Bert Myrin. APPROVED 6-0. Jackie Lothian noted that Sister Cities had a large meeting slated for the 12~ of November in the Sister Cities Room; P&Z would have to find an alternate meeting room. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION October 15, 2002 Doug Allen, public, stated the Pines remodel.contractor had a choice to come in for a remodel or a demolition and they chose remodel, which meant that they had to keep 51% of the structure. Allen said that could be proven in court that 51% was not retained. Eric Cohen stated that if there were walls that were not structurally sound enough to be kept then a remodel could not be requested as part of the logic. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to have the Pines Lodge remodel be reexamined by the council; seconded by Bert Myrin. APPROVED 5-0; 1 abstained. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None MINUTES MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the minutes from September 24, 2002 amending the spelling of bizarre and adding the vote on the last page; seconded by Ruth Kruger. APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: TRUSCOTT DECOMMISSIONED RESTAURANT PUD AMENDMENT Eric Cohen opened the public hearing on the Truscott PUD amendment2 David Hoefer stated that the notice was provided and the jurisdictional requirement had been met. James Lindt explained that this was a request for a GMQS exemption from an essential public facility for an amendment to the Truscott PUD for the specially planned area in the Truscott 100 building for Asset Management offices and 2 on site property managers. P&Z was the recommending body to council on the land use actions. Lindt noted that the restaurant area was sterilized from commercial use in the ordinance earmarking as meeting space; the space was about 900 square feet. Lindt said that Shaw was currently operating their construction offices from this space. Lindt stated that this request required a GMQS exemption from an essential public facility for the PUD amendment to designate parking spaces for the office use in a specially planned area, so that the office could be a permitted use in the multi- family residential zone district. Lindt said that staff understood the need for asset management office space but recommended denial based upon the compatibility for general offices for project managers but would be appropriate for on-site property managers. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION. October 15, 2002 Michelle Bonfils said that thc 2 parking spaces would be in the housing parking lots, which were part of the excess parking; a map was distributed delineating the area. Bonfils stated that there were 4 asset management project managers spread between the parks and housing offices; they had no space to meet together, which slowed down thc efficiency on projects. Bonfils stated there was no public traffic; this was a temporary use because Phase 3 called for redevelopment of the building. Ruth Kruger asked for the time frame of Phase 3 Truscott. Bonfils replied that it was 2006 from the master plan but it could be longer. Kruger asked what else that space might be used for other than office space. Lindt replied that it was a community space but they have not identified another use that serves an onsire use; the on site property managers would use the space. Jack Johnson asked for a description ora project manager. Bonfils responded that one was a land use planner as well as doing the financial planning and design work for the project; the other was the construction manager, which was actually an on site supervisor of construction. Ed Sadler stated that the asset and corn der staffwould do city projects. The commissioners requested a sunset clause for this use in two years; when Phase 3 becomes reality office space should be included. No public comments. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve Resolution #28, series 2002, recommending that City Council approve the 1) GMQS Exemption for an Essential Public Facility, 2) a Consolidated Conceptual/Final SPA on Lot 2 of the Aspen Golf Course Subdivision, and 3} a PUD Amendment to allow for the Asset Management Department to use the decommissioned restaurant space in the Truscott 100 building as offices for their four (4) Project Managers and two (2) On-site Truscott Property Managers with the following condition: ~.~ The use of the decommissioned restaurant by the Asset Management Department Project Managers as office space shall be reexarmned by the Planmng and Zomng Commission m two years to determine appropriateness of continuing the office use in this location. Seconded by Ruth Kruger. Roll call VOte: Johnson, yes; Johns, yes; Kruger, yes; Myrin, no; Erickson, yes; Cohen, yes. APPROVED 5-1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (09/03/02, 09/17/02, 9/24/02, 10/01/02, 10/08/02): INFILL LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS Eric Cohen opened the continued public hearing on the Infill Land Use Code Amendments. Doug Allen, public, stated that he had a financial interest in the Aspenhof Building, which had the benefit of one of the presently existing view planes. Allen 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION October 15, 2002 explained that people who relied on the view planes built these buildings. Allen said that people do not like to walk on the dark streets in the winter and the tall buildings block the solar access causing ice to build up. Allen requested that the commission consider the loss of solar when considering view planes, Chris Bendon stated that the next discussion would be on pedestrian amenity, historic TDRs and the lodge zone districts. Bendon said that all of the questions were not answered on the pedestrian amenity financial mitigation so tonight's topic will be the TDR, section !. Bendon explained the TDR (transferable development rights) were tailored to solve a public goal; in Pitkin County there was a desire to preserve backcountry open space areas and restrict development in those areas. The seller could sell that development right and transfer it onto another property purchased. Bendon noted that TDR programs were complicated and the purpose needed to be kept obvious in town; historic transferable development rights provide an option to the historic property owner to sell all or the remaining development right to a non-historic property owner. Bendon said that the terminology was a sending site and receiving site. Bendon said that certificates would be issued as a bearers document for that TDR; the process would include a pre-application to understand the deed- restriction on a historic property with an affidavit from the owner of the deed- restricted property. Bendon said that there would be a simple review process to ensure the development rights, an ordinance that creates the development right and a real estate closing. The same type of process for the receiving site would occur with a review process on a non-historic house or other limitations on the property. Bendon stated that the political process would hopefully be minimized. It was suggested to have only 1 TDR accepted on each landing site. The commission discussed the deed-restriction process with recordation of the document, creation, of the certificate for the TDR, legal descriptions, the TDR sending rights, one TDR per landing site, market value of a TDR, calculation of FAR, alley houses, ADU incentives, historic commercial TDRs, keeping growth within the core, tree mitigation, the approval process, height restrictions, massing, blocking view planes, ordinance and zone districts. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing on the Infill Land Use Code Amendments to October 22, 2002; seconded by Ron Erickson. APPROVED 7-0. T~e c,z9.mmissio~ adjourne, d at 7:05 p.m. / Jack~e Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 4