Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20030121ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 Eric Cohen, vice-chair, opened the regular meeting at 4:35 pm in the City Council Chambers. Dylan Johns, Ruth Kruger, Bert Myrin, Roger Haneman and Eric Cohen were present. Jack Johnson and Jasmine Tygre were excused. Staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Ohlson, James Lindt, Scott Woodford, Community Development; Kathleen Strickland, Assistant City Clerk. COMMISSIONER~ STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Ruth Kruger asked what was approved for the old bookstore (Quadrant) on the 200 block of Hopkins. Joyce Ohlson responded that the approval was for a change in use. Kruger stated that there was nothing but the foundation and basement left without any exterior walls. Ohlson stated that it would be checked into. Bert Myrin asked about the doors on the Caribou Alley. Joyce Ohlson replied that they were cited. David Hoefer noted that they had not been to court; he stated that staff would research it. Myrin noted that there was a new neon sign in the old Aspen Drag. Hoefer replied that a letter was sent stating that they were not in compliance with the sign code and given 30 days to bring it into compliance. MINUTES MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve the minutes from November 26, 2002 and January 7, 2003; seconded by Ruth Kruger. APPROVED 5-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARYNG (12/03/03; 01/07/03): RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL PUD Eric Cohen opened the continued public hearing on the Residences at Little Nell. Scott Woodford stated that this was the third meeting for the conceptual review for the Residences; the last meeting accomplished the physical site planning and building issues. The issues to be reviewed were the GrOwth Management Quota System Allotments and Exemptions, Affordable Housing Requirements and Mitigation, Rezoning, Time Share, Special Planned Area Amendment and any other outstanding items. Woodford stated that there would be 16 residential units on site; applying the growth management quota system exemption, which allows the 16 to be multiplied by 2.95, equals 47 units plus 3 of the 4 allotments from the Tipple Town Home Subdivision (not built) that gives them 8 more and the 10 reconstruction credits from the existing lodge units that will be demolished, which is a total of 65 units. Woodford said that they have a sufficient number of development rights to build. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 In addition the COde allows the demolitiOn and replacement of the commerCial space meeting the parking requirements and affordable housing. Woodford stated that there were four different aspects of requirements for affordable housing. The time-share lodge reqUirement inclUded 38 employees necessary to operate this lodge; the numbers were derived from the general manager of the Little Nell Hotel. The commercial space woUld require 50 employees from the code requirement and the 15 demolished on site units were being replaced with 50% of the bedrOoms and 50% °fthe sqUare footage. The applicant was claiming development rights from the Tipple Town Homes, which resulted in mitigating for those 8 employees. The affordable h°Using requirements were satisfied on-site with 4 One:bedrOom units (7 employees mihg~ted) and 53 employees and 12 bedrooms were required Were for off-site mitigation. That off- site mitigation site had nOt been determined. Staff had issues with the lOcatiOn of the on-site units affordable hOusing adjacent to the Parking garage because of noise, emissions and Potential headlights shining into the units. Staff proposed either moving the units or better mitigatiOn of the impacts. The residential multi-family replacement program required that 8 demolished units be replaced on:site. Woodford Stated that 2 different rezones were being proposed. The existing site was LTR proposed to Commercial Lodge (CL) and the Aspen Skiing Company parcel was Conservation (C) proposed to be COmmerCial Lodge (CL). The Commercial Lodge (CL) alloWed commercial uses and better represented the type of development proposed with the FAR more in line with the proposal. The standards for rezoning review were distributed to the commission. Woodford said that the two issues from neighbor concerns were compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan and if it met the criteria. The poliCies and g0als met the AACP and believed that it was a well designed mixed use infill project that included both on and off site affordable houSing, public amenities, helped the diversified year round economy, enabled transportation by bus and private sector affordable housing. There was a question °fcompliance with future land use for the rezoning of the conservation parcel but the over-riding factor was the overall project meeting the Community PIan and Infiil Guidelih~S~ Woodford said that there were 30 time-share units proposed with 1/7 increment, which equaled 210 time-share estates. Each unit woUld have a lock-off for a total of 60 rooms. There were pools, living and fitness rooms, business center, bar, restaurants, staffed front desk and reservation services. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 Woodford said that the Special Planned Area proposal amendment for Lot 2 was to be subdivided and included in the development area. Sunny Vann said that the project was designed to allow development based upon the reconstruction credits on site; most of the GMQS exemptions complied with the applicable requirements of the code. Vann said the number of development rights required will ultimately depend upon the final configuration of the project; there may be one more or less lock off. Vann said that this demonstration provided sufficient development rights to accommodate the commercial use of the building and the lodge units themselves; there were enough development rights to provide for up to approximately 65 keys. This application was submitted under the current regulations but would meet the new regulations. Vann said that the demolition of commercial space was exempt from growth management under the in fill changes subject to mitigation of affordable housing requirements. Vann said that they continued to pursue a site within the urban growth boundary and within the city limits. Vann stated that there was a condition in the Resolution before the commission tonight to mitigate the issues for the on- site affordable housing units. Brooke Peterson stated that there was a site in the urban growth boundary but not in the city limits for the off-site affordable housing mitigation under consideration but would like commission comment on this. Peterson stated that this project would be difficult to house all employees on site and realized the mitigation requirements, which would be met. Vann said that the time-share USe plan complied with all the mandatory operational characteristics included in the regulations as well as the majority of the optional requirements. Vann said there would be detailed time-share documents in the final approval. Vann stated that the SPA was a housekeeping issue with no adverse affect on the prior approval but as a technical requirement in order to preclude subdivision and accommodate the scope of the project. Vann stated that the property was being divided into 3 parcels with the top 2 lots as single-family residences with minor changes to the boundaries and the remainder of the site was Lot 1, which encompasses the time-share lodge, restaurant, commercial space, public amenities and the acquired SkiCo parcel rezoning all to CL/PUD. Vann provided the z°ning history of the Little Nell area. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 Roger Haneman inquired if the amendment was compatible with the surrounding zone district considering that CL allows retail as a permitted right; retail could be adjacent to residential under this zoning. Haneman asked if there were any other retail spaces next to residential units. Yann replied that the L and CL zone would allow commercial next to residential; this Was a PUD site-specific plan. Ruth Kruger asked if there were windows on the backside of the affordable housing units. Kim Weil replied that the plans did not show the windows but there would be windows. Kruger asked the heights of the 2 residences and the Durant Condominiums. Well answered that they would be made available from the raw elevatiOns2 Bert Myrin said that there was a lot of discussion of affordable housing, density and infill report. Myrin said that the height and density goal was direction frOm the infill report; he asked how that affected the affordable housing, Woodford replied that it did not increase the affordable housing formula. Myrin asked if the conditions were "and or". Woodford responded that they were both; the P&Z and Council shall consider in reviewing an amendment to the tex~ Vann said that they would take issue because there were all kinds of sections in the code that say shall comply with all of the following and this one said shall consider. Myrin noted that one of the benefits on the time-share was that the City will receive a real estate transfer tax; he asked if there was a level that that did not kick in with lower priced sales. Vann replied that it was the first $100,000.00 and given this property's location, there would be a sale of real estate transfer tax. Myrin asked the price of these units. Vann answered that it depended on when it was approved and built but the working numbers were $850,000. to $950,000. per share. Myrin asked if the conservation zone couldn't be kept with an overlay Or variance for FAR. Ohlson said that rezoning was a cleaner way to approach the project; there was a new ski area base zoning, which was directly related to Ski area but the CL was the most conservative approach to the rezoning for this project. Dylan Johns asked is there were any studies on the affordable housing mitigation for noise. Vann replied that they were surprised that these issues were raised because there were few hotels that had on-site employee housingl Vann said that the affordable units were over-sized, above grade with good light but the units did overlook the ramp to the garage, Eric Cohen asked what happens if the property was rezoned and this project didn't get built. Vann replied that there would be a CL zone district Subject to a specific PUD plan; anyone else would have to put in a new project plan under the zoning. Vann said that having the zoning only gives someone the right to apply because 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARy 21~ 2003 everything was tied to growth management, PUD amendment and regulations of the code. Hoefer said that the bott°m liae was that the zoning Was not tied to the application. Cohen stated that the off-site housing was an issue that still needed to be resolved. Public comments: Steve Falander, Public, stated that he lived at 702 South Galena Street. Falander said that he hasn't seen any changes in plans so they could only speak about the plans as presented. The density affected everything else like the mass and height; he presented drawings with a seale illustrating the impacts of the rezoning in relation to the proposed heights. Falander spoke about the 2 houses on the property with the relation to the new zoning and how those houses could grow with the new zoning. Falander Provided PhOtOS of the area of the site development. Falander stated concern for the proposed 7 story cut into the natural environment, the total stripping of vegetation from the site, bUilding on 30 degree slopes, the conservation portion was 35% of the project, moving the lift, the increased bulk of the project and the overall density and height. Falander requested the redesign now. Phil O'Conner, public, stated that it was a great looking project with amenities for everyone living there. It would cOmpliment town. Lennie Oates, public, stated the he was counsel for the North of Nell Condominium Association. Oates reiterated what Steve Falander said in connection with the developer represented what he would do in terms of talking to people regarding the changes. Oates stated that he has not heard anything yet. Oates quoted from the zoning ordinance regarding the conservation zone with a SPA overlay. Oates said that the developer wanted to rezone from the conservation zone because of the restrictiveness of that zone district; he said the developer wanted double the height and FAR allowable in the conservation zone. Many people bought their units in the North of Nell because of that conservation zone protecting open space. Oates said withOut the Zoning change the SPA amendment was substantive. Pamela CUnningham, public, Aspen Alps Condominium general manager stated concern for the destabiliZation of the sOilS and requested an independent inspeCtor to monitor beginning now and going through the construction phases. Peter Thomas, public, stated he represented the Galena Place T°Wnhomes. Thomas said that Mr. Falander and Mr. Oates already stated the same comments that he had. Thomas stated concern for the height and setback issues as major 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 21~ 2003 problems. Thomas cited the AACP not being part of this kind of infill; he stated that the infill was just a report and had not been codified. David Hoefer clarified that the infill has not been approved by City Council. Joyce Ohlson explained the infill report procesS beginning With 14 public heatings before the planning & Zoning Commission forwarding a recommendatiOn to the City Council for approval of those code amendments set for the first reading on January 27th. Mickey Spaulding, public, stated that he was the general manager of the Aspen Lodging CompanY; he said that they managed essentiallY all of the condominiums between Mill Street and Galena Street abOVe Durant including the Alpenblick, Faushinghaus, Aspen Mountain and so on. Spaulding asked that the entrance onto Galena be revieWed so Galena street dOesn't get treated like an alleY~ Vann replied that there was a loading dock off of Galena that was large enough to accommodate the type of big trucks that were uSed uP here With no Storage for trucks; routine maintenance vehicles Would be stored in the Parking garage. Vann said that there was no parking on Galena except for the 8 spaces that were required in connection with the Hyatt. MOTION: RUth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing on the Residences at Little Nell to FebrUary 4, 2003; seconded by Roger Haneman. APPROVED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 1390 and 1392 SNOWBUNNY LANE DRAC VARIANCE Eric Cohen opened the public hearing for a variance on 1390 and 1392 Snowbunny Lane, James Lindt explained the application was submitted by Alice Brien represented by John Muir requesting a variance from the design standards for a double stall garage doors constructed at the new duplex. Two of the three review standards must be met for approval. Lindt stated that the garage doors faced the rear of the property. The lot was greater than 15,000 square feet, relatively flat and there were no site-specific constraints, therefore staff could not find that the review standards had been met by the proposal and recommended denial. John Muir provided drawings for the garage doors to appear as carriage doors in a casement opening fashion. Muir said that the center post was the only thing missing and he felt that they met the intent of the law. Muir Stated that the doors were not visible from Cemetery Lane or Snowbunny Lane and requested approval. Roger Haneman asked what the safety issues Were that the applicant used to request this variance. Muir replied that it was improved vehicular access without removing additional landscape areas. Lindt explained that the staff memo cited 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 the need for additional turning radius to get into single stall garage doors; the applicant did not feet that they could utilize single stall garage doors to make the turn. Mickey Spaulding, public, stated that he was the next door neighbor and he said that he would have built double garage doors if he had it do to over again because single garage doors limits the type of vehicles allowed. Spaulding stated that his vehicle doesn't fit in hls garage now because of the single doors. Eric Cohen questioned the design standards concerning this variance. David Hoefer noted this has come up during DRAC reviews quite often. The standards were: a) yield greater compliance with the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan; b) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. The first standard had to be met along with either "b" or "c". Ruth Kruger asked if the design standards were going to be reviewed for revision. Joyce Ohlson replied that was not on the wOrk Schedule for this year. Cohen asked the applicant why it would yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Muir responded the intent was to break up large wall areas especially associated with garage doors and better vehicular access. Roger Haneman noted that the Cemetery Lane Master Plan wanted t° get rid of the design standards for single stall dOOrs. Ruth Kruger said that She could support the variance due to the safety issue and the fact that the doors can't be seen from the street. MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve ResolUtion #5, series 2003, approving a variance from the Residential Design Standards to allow for double stall doOrs to be maintained on the garages at 1390 and 1392 Snowbunny Lane finding that the review Standards have been met. Seconded by Ruth KrUger, Roil Call Vote: Jbhns; ~6S; Haneman, yes; Kruger, yes; Myrin, no; Cohen, yes. APPROVED 4-1. Discussion of motion: Bert Myrin said that he could not agree with the greater compliance just because it could not be seen; he did not find ~t met standards "a" or "b". Ohlson explained that the idea was not to have garage doors be the dominant feature of houses, which was a typical suburban pm:tern throughout the country. Myrin stated that was not the criteria at this point and he felt that the pressure needed to be placed on P&Z or Council to change the criteria. Myrin said that if the variances were always granted then the pressure was not there for the changes. John Muir stated that the language for single and double width garage 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 21, 2003 doors was a maximum of 24 feet; that could be interpreted to allow a 24-foot garage door. Lindt replied that double stall garage doors had to be less than 24- £oot width. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Roger Haneman. APPROVED 5'0. nscribed by Jac~ie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS....,....2 ............. ~] ............. i ....... 2....i ................................ 1 MINUTES .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 RESIDENCES AT LITTLE NELL PUD .................. 2 .............................................................................................. 1 1390 and 1392 SNOWBUNNY LANE DRAC VARIANCE ................. 21 ............... ~ .............................................. 6