HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20021119ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION November 19, 2002
COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS ........................................ 2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEP, EST ............................................... 2
LOT 9, MAROON CREEK CLUB PUD AME~MENT .i .................................... 2
LOT 3, ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD AMENDMENT .......................................... ~.... 4
INFILL LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS ........................................................ 6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION November 19, 2002
Jasmine Tygre opened the special Planning and Zoning meeting at 4:30 p.m. in
Sister Cities Meeting Room with Ron Erickson, Roger Haneman, Eric Cohen, Ruth
Kruger, Jack Johnson, Bert Myrin, and Dylan Johns present. Staff in attendance:
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Ohlson, Chris Bendon, Community
Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMISSIONER~ STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ron Erickson distributed copies of the Aspen Mountain Ski-Trail Easement
Agreement (east side of the Mountain Queen) for the commission to discuss at
another time. Scott Writer stated that a portion of the trail would not be open to
the public until after the certificates of occupancy were issued but they will now
reopen that portion of the trail.
Bert Myrin asked about the Frost duplex going to HPC tomorrow night. He said
that P&Z was concerned about the lot split. Joyce Ohlson replied that the P&Z
minutes would be handed out at the HPC meeting tomorrow.
Chris Bendon explained that the emergency ordinance was requested by P&Z for
demolition of multi£amily housing replacement to allow for 100% replacement
exempt from growth management. The number of bedrooms or units would not be
reduced but would allow for replacement. The only trigger for growth
management was when a replacement building was expanded in some way with
additional commercial or additional residential units.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Jack Johnson stated that he had a conflict on Lot 3, Aspen Mountain.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LOT 9, MAROON CREEK CLUB PUD AMENDMENT
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for Lot 9, Maroon Creek Club. The
notice was provided. Sarah oates explained that the Maroon Creek Club was
approved under county jurisdiction and then annexed into the city. Oates stated
that all of the residential lots had designated building envelopes and some have
activity envelopes, which allow for grading, access and landscaping.
Oates said that Lot 9 was a little over an acre and located just past Tiehack; the plat
note stated that there was no development in any areas in excess of 30% and this
lot was not exempt. Staffrecommended denial because they wanted to see the
slope minimized more than the applicant was willing to minimize it.
Bruce Hazard, Design Workshop, stated that he has been a planner on the Maroon
Creek Club since the inception with the county approval process and then the
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION November 19, 2002
annexation. Hazard utilized a site map to locate the property; he said that the final
plat note missed this building site. Hazard said that this was the last lot to sell; he
said that they were willing to make a minor adjustment to the top of the building
envelope and slide the envelope down to eliminate portions of the 30% slopes and
they feel that the requests were consistent with the county approvals. The property
was not re-graded and the property had a 5500 square foot building limit without
any architectural drawings.
Hazard stated that the plan was to try and preserve as much of the previous
agricultural and irrigated meadows that cattle ran on adjacent to Highway 82; that
pushed the vertical development from the toe of the slope. Jasmine Tygre stated
that she was always concerned for amending a PUD when the original conditions
and trade-offs were unknown. Joyce Ohlson stated that the plat notes did allow for
development on slopes over 30%.
Jerry Cavaleri, public, stated that he wrote a letter that was contained in the packet
regarding the building envelope adjustment, which placed the house much closer to
his house.
Scott Writer, public, stated that there were concessions because of the view
corridors from Highway 82 and Maroon Creek Road; therefore the homes were
pushed into that Tiehack back section.
Bert Myrin asked about the drainage from the slopes. Sarah dates replied that
drainage plans would be required or they would be subject to their PUD
regulations. Eric Cohen noted that the staff recommendation was to move the
building envelope even farther to a eliminate more of the 30% slope; they could
end up with a smaller building envelope. Ron Erickson stated that he was not in
favor of moving the lot line. Tygre reminded the commission that there were
criteria on which to base their decisions.
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve Resolution #31, series 2002
approving the proposed amendment to the Maroon Creek Club Planned
Unit Development (PUD) for the Purpose of amending the building
envelope for Lot 9 as an exception with the plat note: with respect to single-
family and townhome lots shown on this Plat, no development will be allowed within approved
building envelopes on slopes exceeding 30% with the exception of Lots 9, 12 and ] 7 through 40
where any slopes exceeding 30% shall be graded Pttrsuant to the grading shown on sheets 15
and 16 of the PUD plan and condition 1. That a soil erosion control plan be sub~nitted at
the time of building permit application that meets with the approval of the Community
Development Engineer. Seconded by Ron Erickson. Roll call vote: Erickson,
yes; Itaneman, yes; Cohen, yes; Kruger, yes; Myrin, yes; Johnson, yes,
Tygre, no. APPROVED 6-1.
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION November 19~ 2002
PUBLIC HEARING:
LOT 3~ ASPEN MOUNTAIN PUD AMENDMENT
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for Lot 3, Aspen Mountain PUD
Amendment, David Hoefer stated that the proof of notice was received and met
the jurisdictional requirements for the commission to proceed.
Scott Woodford explained that the application requested (1) a text amendment to
the land use code to allow for the option of payment in lieu fee for the Residential
Multi-family Replacement Program (RMRP); (2) PUD amendment (Top of Mill)
to substitute a payment in lieu fee for the four affordable housing units presently
required for Parcel 2 (this action is dependent upon approval of#l); and (3)
Insubstantial PUD Amendment to substitute payment of the fee in lieu for the
Accessory Dwelling Unit required for the duplex on Parcel 3 (the final decision
rests with Planning and Zoning and not dependent upon approval of # 1). Woodford
said that there was another piece of this puzzle not on the review for tonight to
transfer reconstruction credits from another site to replace the affordable housing
for fee in lieu if the other requests were approved tonight.
Woodford stated that staff recommended denial for the text amendments # 1 and 2
but recommended approval for #3. Woodford said that the text amendment (gl)
was required to permit substitution ora payment in lieu fee for 4 on site affordable
housing units for Parcel 2. Staff had concerns for the original intent of the multi-
family replacement program because it allowed for these units to be replaced on
site and the units would be built at the same time as the rest of the development.
The burden to build the affordable housing units would be placed upon the city if
payment in lieu were accepted. Woodford said that the Housing Board
recommended approval for the text and PUD amendments; he said that Community
Development looked at any implications that these amendments might have.
Sunny Varm provided the background from the original Savannah to the Four
Peaks applications for Lots 3 & 5; these 4 units were the mitigation from the
demolition and reconstruction. Vann said that this housing mitigation was the only
plan that did not provide a cash in lieu option. Jasmine Tygre stated that the text
amendment might not be necessary because of the changes in infill requirements
on multi-family replacement. Scott Writer replied that they needed to obtain a
certificate of occupancy on the triplex but first needed the certificate of occupancy
on the affordable housing units; this needed to happen very quickly and that was
the reason for the code amendment. Tygre responded that if the text amendment
were approved it may be created for only this prqiect; she noted that she was not in
favor of a text amendment that benefited only one property. Vann said that it
affects all properties that want to develop prior to the infill regulations completion.
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION November 19, 2002
Chris Bendon stated that the cash in lieu option might be part of the infill
amendments but council could take action on the project separately. Woodford
stated that the PUD design was wrapped up with the ADU design included.
Ron Erickson stated that P&Z was against the ADU because it was substandard.
Vann responded that the ADU met the standards even though it was not up to the
P&Z liking.
Ann Murchison, public, said that she and the neighbors had no objection to the
cash in lieu. She said that the only concern was the parking of cars and that in
coming cars headlights be addressed. Vann said that if this were approved then
there would be another opportunity to review the duplex at a public heating.
The commission discussed the text amendment with concerns that this was for one
applicant, the location for the affordable housing on site was preferable rather than
cash in lieu, 2-3 million dollars would be a good benefit for the housing program,
the concept of cash in lieu was good but not totally confident in the use of the
monies, site specific replacement of affordable housing should be the goal of the
infill program and not appropriate for the city to be responsible for that developers
affordable housing replacement with the cash in lieu for another site. The money
from this cash in lieu could be used for buy downs of free market units, lodge
conversions for affordable housing projects such as the Ullr, which would buy
down existing units and not have the advantage of buying down something that
would be brand new.
Sunny Vann stated that this Resolution goes back and restates all the subsequent M
amenchnents to the project; he requested that the text amendment be made in a
motion form with a resolution to be drafted after the approval or denial.
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve a text amendment to the
land nsc code to allow a payment in lieu fee option to the residential
multi-family replacement program and to substitute a payment in lieu
fee for 4 affordable housing units presently required for Parcel 2;
seconded by Ruth Kruger. Vote: Erickson, no; Itaneman, no; Cohen,
yes; Kruger, yes; Myrin, no; Johns, no; Tygre, no. DENIED 5-2,
MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to recommend that City Council
accept the cash in lieu for the ADU on the Top of Mill with a minor
PUD amendment because the substandard unit would be not meet
current standards; seconded by Ruth Kruger. Vote: EriCkson, yes;
Haneman, yes; Cohen, yes; Kruger, yes; Myrin, yes; Johns, yes; Tygre,
yes. APPROVED 7-0.
$
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION November 19, 2002
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (09/03/02, 09/17/02, 9/24/02, 10/01/02,
10/08/02, 10/15/02~ 10/22/02, 10/29/02, 11/05/02, 11/12/02):
INFILL LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public heating on the Infill Land Use Code
Amendments. Chris Bendon stated that the subjects were dimensions for the Main
Street District and demolition and replacement. There were member of the public
that wanted to cotrunent on the demolition. A letter from John Werning was
placed into the record regarding obsolete buildings.
Charles Wolf, public, stated that his family owned the Cooper Street Pier Building.
Wolf commended Chris Bendon on the ordinance and he thought encouraging re-
development in the core was going in the tight direction. Wolf submitted a letter
into the record.
Bendon reviewed the dimensional requirements for the Commercial Zone Districts
utilizing a graphic with an extra 2 options for the developer. Bendon said the
proposed height was 42 feet or 3 floors of development or 4 floors not exceeding
45 feet would be an option or by special review to go to 52 feet; the current
allowable height was 40 feet.
Bendon stated that the SC/District had 2 proposals: one for a building to be 45 feet
an~d through special review at 55 feet tall or raise the first floor height by an
additional 5 feet, so the total height could be 60 feet. The other option was to rely
on the commercial dimensions, which were 42 feet and 52 feet through special
review with an increase of 5 feet on the first floor.
Bendon said that Main Street had a proposed 32-foot height and through special
review a 35-foot height.
Bendon said that multifamily zoning had 3 different heights proposed, depending
on the density. A low-density project would be restricted to 25 feet, the current
requirement; medium-density could go to 30 feet and a high-density project could
to 35 feet. It was a way to incentivize the higher density projects; the same
structure was there for floor area as well.
Anne Murchison, public, stated that the proposed height limits were way too tall.
Murchison said that this would create a series of canyons downtown with buildings
at these heights.
Ted Guy, public, stated that he was in favor of the extra height and the top floor
being stepped back.
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION November 19, 2002
Jasmine Tygre asked if there would be specific criteria for the special review for
the additional floors or height. Bendon replied that there were general criteria and
commercial design criteria. Tygre stated that she wanted to make sure that there
were standards to apply to the review process.
Bendon described the low density at less than one unit per 1500 square feet of lot
area; medium was between one unit per 1500 square feet of lot area and 800 square
feet of lot area; high density was more than one unit per 800 square feet of lot area.
MOTION: Roger Itaneman moved to extend the meeting by 15
minutes; seconded by Ruth Kruger. APPROVED 7-0.
The commission discussed the rezoning of 4 or 5 zone districts at the same time
with the same criteria. There was some concern for the units being too small, the
limitation of 8ofoot ceilings, 38-foot building heights by special review, the zone
district boundary locations, rezoning of some districts, FAR by type of use and,
replacement re-development of commercial space.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the pUblic hearing on the
Infill Land Use Code Amendments to November 26, 2002; seconded by
Ron Erickson. APPROVED 7-0.
The c~om.missioa adjourn, ed at 7:20 p.m.
ck~e Lothian, Deputy C~ty Clerk
7