Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20021217ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ~ DECEMBER 17~ 2002 Jasmine Tygre, chair, opened the special meeting at 4:35 pm in the Sister Cities Meeting Room with Jack Johnson, Bert Myrin, Dylan Johns, Roger Haneman and Eric Cohen present. Ruth Kruger was excused. Staff in attendance: Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Jasmine Tygre requested a proclamation for Ron Erickson. Bert Myrin said that there were televisions at the Aspen Highlands Ritz facing the street and questioned their legality. Staff would look into it. Chris Bendi~n informed the commissioners of the National Planning Conference in Denver beginning March 29 through April 2nd MINUTES MOTION: Roger Itaneman moved approve the minutes from' November 05, 2002; seconded by Dylan Johns. APPROVED 6-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: INFILL LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on Infill. David Hoefer stated that it was re-noticed at the December 10th meeting. Chris Bendon stated that the resolution reflected the comments, the action items from the P&Z meetings beginning September 3rd and Alan Richman's report. Richman's report included costs and exactions, re-development mitigation, the dimensions allowed in zone districts, the review processes in the land use code. The infill advisory group was comprised of citizens, property owners, and real estate agents/brokers; the question was to implement the infill goals with the AACP changes to the land use code that need to occur. The infill group discussed growth management, the combining of lots and the disconnected uses towards the AACP. The infill group looked at the loss of lodging over the last 10 years and how retail was affected by the fewer number of people staying in lodges in Aspen. Bendon stated that to encourage private sector development to best meet the community's goals was to provide a mechanism for the developer to do so. There was a statement in the report to adopt a clear set of regulations, new rules and processes that will foster trust between the public and private sector allowing 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 17, 2002 community goals to be achieved. Bendon stated that this was the Planning & Zoning's recommendation to CitY Council to revise the land use code to reinforce the Community Plan along with objectives and goals as a community. This allows the natural rejuvenation of commercial and lodging property, to focus growth into the center of town (as suggested in the AACP) and create the environment where the private sector through their own motivation for their goals could be achieved. The commission requested an introduction in the "whereas'" similar to what was just said as part of or an introduction of the resolution. Jack Johnson asked about the rich progressive architectural history of Aspen being part of the design standards, or was it to come in at a later date. Bendon replied that if the commission wanted that it could be added in the resolution but the commercial design standards were neutral as far as architeCture, specifically not intended to dictate style and architectural content. Johnson asked about the possibility of alley shops as public amenity mitigation. Bendon responded that the difficulty with that was the mitigation has to serve directly with the impact; he said that it was best to stay clear at this point. Dylan Johns said that he still wasn't clear on the measurement of demolition; how the roof percentages were calculated. Johns asked if there would be diagrams. Bendon answered that it was just exterior demolition; the legislative intent was to look at all the surface area of the exterior of the building with the applicant's drawing in flat planes to diagram the what remains and what will be demolished, then take a percentage. Roger Haneman asked the difference between enlargement and expansion in Sections 3 and 4. Bendon replied that one was for historic landmarks; there was no intent to have a difference in the two. John Werning, public, stated concern for a 12,000 square foot lot with the limited building options; he asked for flexibility on older residential multifamily units. Werning thanked Chris and the commission for their time spent on this legislation. Bob Blaich, public, stated that many people put in a lot of years on this project and really believe in it. Blaich said that the intentions have beden met as best as they can, there was a tremendous amount of research that went into this and in essence the result was what was intended. Blaich commended al! of the people that worked on this infill project; He said that Chris did his job and hope that he will be commended. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING,COMMiSSiON DECEMBER 17; 2002 Bendon provided the Wheeler view plane on the computer with the question of what was to be protected as far as this view plane. Bendon explained the view plane height from the inclination rate. Haneman asked what the rate of increase was for every 10 feet back; he said if the front of the property was 3 degrees at 9 feet, what would the height be at the back of the lots. Bendon replied that the 3 degrees increases 4 feet across the center right-of-way, so another 100 feet might increase another 5 feet. There was discussion of the preservation of this view plane or the second floor and the view plane, whic would stop at Durant Street to the south, Mill Street to the east and Monarch Street to the west. 3 commissioners wanted to allow for 2-story buildings and 3 opted for the 3-story building option. The commission (4-2 straw vote) wanted to preserve the Wheeler view plane at the 5 degrees and not the building height. Tygre and Myrin wanted to protect all of the view planes. Johns asked for a clarification question on the R-6, R-15 and R-30 zone districts with relation to Iow and medium density; he said that the square footages were the same for those districts. Bendon replied that between low and medium were R-15 and R-30; they had the same FAR schedule~ The only essential difference was the size of the lot; R-30 lots were 30,000 square feet; R-15 were 15,000 square feet. Haneman asked if the exemption went with the lot or the building on the relocation of historic structures on page 32 oft resolution. Bendon replied that it would be the lot and the structure; the lot would still go through GMQS. Myrin asked how the AACP maximum population of 28,000 fit into the infill ordinance. Bendon responded that there might not be enough land in town to get to that density; that was roughly 30% additional development. Bendon said that management o£ growth was a more qualitative exercise, a locational exercise to create vitality, excitement and an economically viable place while still managing growth at a certain rate focusing upon land use. Bendon noted that the community plan was made-up ofhnndreds of people's input, which was an evolution. Myrirr asked if there were any communities that stopped growth all together and were they sustainable. Bendon answered that was a good question; a logging or fishing community might fall apart when that resource was used; there were European towns that have not grown in the last 100+ years that still had an economic sustainability. Myrin asked that the preamble include economic sustainability. Haneman asked how the annexations play into that 30,000 limitl Bendon replied that all the numbers count because they were in the urban growth boundary, from Brush Creek; the accounting procedure for the ceiling will include the county residential projects. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION. DECEMBER 17, 2002 Jack Johnson questioned the existing infrastructure of schools, fi.re department, etc being adequate for that topside number of 30,000. Bendon responded that there was a technical committee that answered all of those questions from the growth management committee. Tygre said that the old growth management took into account points for how far fire hydrants were from the projects; the sewer and water capacities were studied and factored into the considerations of annexation and who paid the tap fees. MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to approve P&Z Resolution #35-02 on Infill with additions to the whereas preamble sections; seconded by Roger Haneman. Roll call vote: Myrin, no; Cohen, yes; Johns, yes; Haneman, yes; Johnson, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5-1. Discussion of motion: Myrin wanted to address the need for more occupied residential units and wanted to encourage unoccupied units becoming occupied. Bendon said that could occur with the need to provide growth management mitigation forin town units; the largest hurdle was with the condominium associations. Myrin stated that density, heights and view planes were of major concern. Haneman questioned the definition of hotel regarding the occupancy limitation of 30 consecutive days. Bendon answered that definition was in the curren[ code; LP lodges were exempt. Bendon noted that the 30 days was from a tax implication trigger. Haneman said that the definition could include anyone without a direct or indirect financial interest. Tygre stated that the overwhelming amount of work resulted in this well executed document and commended Chris for the job. Tygre agreed with the concept of infill; she said that her concerns were the view planes because it made town interesting with open views that contribute to the hidden, unexpected and eccentric charm of this town. Bendon stated that P&Z should attend the work session after the first reading with council the on the last Tuesday in January. The P&Z resolution created a pending ordinance; if necessary the demolition ordinance could also be extended. Board Reports: Haneman stated that the Civic Master plan included non-profit funding needing more review; changes in locations being feasible prior to going forward. The fire station was still not decided on moving because of the community and tourist connection with town. The meeting adjou~ed at 6:4~5 p.m. J~-ie L~thian,'~I~ut~ ~1 erk 4