Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20021029ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION October 29, 2002 Jasmine Tygre opened the special Planning and Zoning meeting at 4:30 p.m. in Sister Cities Meeting with Roger Haneman, Bert Myrin, Jack Johnson, Dylan Johns and Ruth Kruger present. Eric Cohen arrived at 4:35 p.m. Ron Erickson was excused. Staff in attendance: David Ho&er, City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER~ STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Chris Bendon reported that Council reviewed Obermeyer by a resolution with key elements and points of the project. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None MINUTES .......................... ........ MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve the minutes from October 1, 2002; seconded by Ruth Kruger. APPROVED 6°0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (09/03/02, 09/17/02, 9/24/02, 10/01/02, 10/08/02, 10/15/02, ! 0/22/02): INFILL LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Infill Land Use Code Amendments. Chris Bendon utilized power point for the new sections of residential RMF and R6, revisions for ADUs and the new section on alley houses. Bendon utilized a slide of the Wagner Park bathrooms view plane that was currently the protected view plane, the clock was approximately 30 feet for reference of possible development. Ruth Kruger inquired how the bathroom got where it was placed; HPC was the review body for the renovated bathrooms. Jack Johnson asked if the protected view couldn't be moved to the center of the park. Bendon replied that it could be moved; the views from the south side from the Cooper Avenue mall would not be able to be built upon. The previous straw poll was 4-4. Eric Cohen said these were the same arbitrary decisions as were made in the 1970s. David Hoefer stated that the decisions weren't arbitrary but based on historic buildings. Bendon said that the direction to go might be a view of the pass from somewhere in town. Bert Myrin stated that he was not comfortable creating new view planes and said that we should not let go of the existing view planes. Myrin said that once the view planes were gone they were gone and could not be brought back. Ruth Kruger stated that she was torn on the views with the exception of the Wheeler because the Wagner Park views were blocked with the bathrooms. Bendon noted that by virtue of public ownership it was a protected view. 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION October 29, 2002 Dylan Johns said that shading was more of concern rather than prot6cting all the view planes; he said that there wasn't necessarily a special point from any certain place in town that was more special than another. Bendon said the fundamental question was if the view was worth protecting. David Hoefer reiterated what Bert said that when it was gone it was gone and there was no way to get the view back. Hoefer noted that whatever decisions were made in land use would probably affect things 100 years down the road. Roger Haneman said that the view planes were based upon what people liked; he said most of the P&Z decisions had a line of reasoning and not just a matter of fact decision. Jasmine Tygre said that there was a historic precedent because it has already been a protected view plane; those decisions were of the record. Haneman said that he could not vote for these view planes except for the Wheeler. Johnson said that the Wagner Park one could go to the middle of the park; if there were rooftop views, then he would be more likely to support more of the views. Myrin said that it was not reversible to change the views, which concerned him because people came here for the views. Myrin supported all the view planes. Tygre said she agreed with Bert; she said that before the Little Nell was built the mountain was right on Durant. Tygre said the view planes were important for the entire town and were very precious and the view planes were not that restrictive. Tygre said that she was reluctant to give them up and said that they did not affect that many properties. The commissioners took a straw vote on Wagner looking trough the bathroom, to keep as a regulated view plane: 3(yes)-3(no) and 1 abstain. Bendon said that the Residential zone districts were described as from the mountain to the rivers and broken up into 6 areas, the original town Site plus the additions from the 1800's. Commercial core, periphery commercial, SCI, Main Street, East End, Lodge and the West End were the areas~ Bendon said that the infill group decided that there should be an infill strategy for each of the areas; what might be appropriate for one area might not be appropriate for another. Multi-family zone districts, the East End between Original Street and the fiver. Bendon said that RMF-A was for the annexed areas. The proposed RMF language strategy was contained in Section Q and QQ. Ifa developer comes into the RMF district with a split project, their Only choice is to go through growth management. Single family and duplex uses are only allowed on historic landmarked properties. Bendon said that from the Housing Authority the Affordable housing requirements in the multifamily residential zone district would be 45% FAR of the building would be affordable and 60% of the units in the project would be affordable, there was no trigger based on the number of bedrooms of a project. The changes to the FAR would be that the height could go up and the single family and duplex were no longer an allowed use unless historic. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION October 29, 2002 Bendon said it was possible to rezone the entire area south of Main Street The commission discussed the smaller houses in the area not being allowed to be redeveloped as single family or single family and duplex, which could be kept depending on the lot size. Bendon noted that the FAR, height and density were increased especially for higher density projects. The commissioner favored the change in sectiOn Q. The ICe Garden west End areal SoUth Of Main s~eet was suggested to rezone as multifamily housing because of the proximity t° the commercial core, the connection to the bike path on Hopkins and there were many non-conforming structures in the area, either single-family or multifamily. The commission favored the rezoning change for this area 6-1. Haneman voiced concern over the 35-foot height limit~ JOhns stated that the district closet to the mountain could take the height. Myrin asked how the multifamily replacement worked. Bendon replied that there was a multifamily replacement program replacing ½ on site. Myrin voiced concern for the replacement of the single family Eric noted that this was the way for redevelopment of the run down multifamily structures. Jasmine Tygre liked the idea of a mixed neighborhood. Janver Derrington, public, had a question about the west end lot splits of 12,000 square feet and how would a duplex be addressed in the R6 zone district. Chris Bendon stated that this was the next section. Bendon stated the R6 was traditionally the west end. He said that there was little' change in the language. The minimum lot area was lowered to 3,000 square feet; 2 residences on a 6,000 square foot lot or 3 dwellings on a 9,000 square foot lot; 2 detached residential dwellings. Bendon said that on a 6,000 square foot lot there could he a 3,240 square foot house with a 375 square foot garage plus an ADU on top up to 800 square feet or an alley house at 1,200 square feet. There was a question if this could actually all fit with the setbacks, site coverage and height restrictions. Questions: Did the commission want to see more density in the West End? Myrin doesn't support the higher density on 3,000 square foot lots; he would support the dwellings per lot as existing. Johnson and Haneman asked the square footage on each subdivided lot. Johns favored the existing with the incentive to sell the ADU similar to the proposed because financially the garage exemption model would make it more desirable; he did not favor the 1 house per 3,000 square foot lot. Cohen liked the concept of smaller houses on smaller lots, he said that 1500-2000 square foot homes were more likely to be occupied. Kruger said that up until now all ideas were brilliant - this one is not practical but if no one will use this without the incentive to build a garage, what was the point. Kruge[ wanted to leave west end alone. Tygre agreed with Ruth; the value ofinfill was to make sure that density occurs in the area where it should occur. Tygre said that the proposed changes won't make these houses occupied and this is not the area to increase the density. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION October 29, 2002 The commissioners favored smaller lots with higher density with 3 members and 4 wanted no increased density in west end. 3 commissioners thought that the existing FAR was good and 4 were for the proposed FAR. Bendon said that the Alley houses Section S expanded to allow for alley houses. ADUs were 300-800 square feet and alley houses were 800 to 1200 Resident Occupied (RO) unit to expand the infill strategy for the west end to conform with design standards and be above grade with a minimum deed restriction and either rented or as a category unit. There was room for expansion for the current ADU. The commissioners supported the concept of alley houses in general as a whole. Alley house doesn't mean it has to be located on the alley; carriage house was a better way to describe it than alley house. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing on the Infill Land Use Code Amendments to November 5, 2002; seconded by Roger Haneman. APPROVED 7-0. The commission adjourned at 7:05 p.m. ~ckie Lothian,~Deputy CitTy Clerk 4