Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20001017ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS .......................................................................................... 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................................................................. 2 SANDUNES INITIAL CITY ZONING .................................................................................................................... 3 ASPEN VALLEY SKI CLUB PUD AMENDMENT FOR SIGN ........................................................................... 4 981 KING STREET DRAC VARIANCE FROM SECONDARY MASS .............................................................. 6 VARIOUS MINOR LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS ..................................................................................... 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 Bob Blaich, Chairperson opened the regular Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting at 4:30 p.m. in the Sister Cities Meeting Room with Ron Erickson, Steven Buettow and Eric Cohen present. City staff in attendance: David Hoe£er, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Nick Lelack, Fred Jarman and Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS Bob Blaich inquired about a party for Roger Hunt. Joyce Ohlson replied that the planning was in the works with a resolution. B1aich asked about the current status on the Security signs update. David Hoefer responded that it was his understanding that the company was replacing the signs on a request basis. Ohlson said that Council was reconsidering the Ordinance that was adopted. Staff would check into the follow-up. Blaich also inquired about the leaves being blown into the street from private lawn services for the city to then clean up, which did not seem fair for the city. Blaich asked about a possible recycle program for the fixtures from the honses that were being razed. He asked what happened to those items. Steven Buettow noted that the last house demo he did in that neighborhood brought many people out for salvage within an hour. Ohls0n noted the Pitkin COunty Land Fill had,a place. H6efer stated that it was the landowners responsibility and not the city s responsibility to recycle personal property o£ others. Blaich inquired about the COWOP process teams. Ohl$on stated that Council did not reappoint Tim Mooney to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Ohlson stated that the Burlingame COWOP team and the Civic Master Plan teams needed replacements for Tim. The commission required an alternate, since Eric Cohen would move up to a regular member. The commissioners said that the did not understand the city council action of not appointing a member to fill the alternate position immediately or keeping Tim until that position was filled. The commissioners were disappointed about Tim not being re-appointed and agreed that there were problems obtaining a quorum from time to time without an alternate. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Steven Buettow stated that he owned property in the Moore PUD and did not know if there would be a conflict of interest for the Aspen Valley Ski Club Review. David Hoefer noted there would be no conflict living in the neighborhood. There were no conflicts. Joyce Ohlson explained that she opted not to review or provide comments on the Aspen Ski Club, other staff members would provide the comments and review. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17~ 2000 PUBLIC HEARING: SA~UNES INITIAL CiTY ZONING Bob Blaich opened the public hearing on the Sandunes. David Hoefer requested the public notice, which was provided to the Deputy City Clerk. Fred Jarman stated that the Sandunes LP, was located at 81 $ West Main Street, Lot 1 and Lot 2, which was one parcel under pending ordinance to be annexed into the city; it was before city council next Monday night. Jarman explained that the rezoning recommendation had to be decided prior to annexation; currently this parcel was located with 14% of it in the city and the rest of it was in the county. This property came before P&Z prior for Stream Margin Review, Variances for Residential Design Standards and an ADU. It was currently zoned R-15 in the county and staff recommended it be zoned R-15 in the city. jarman read the purpose of the R-15 Zone District from the code "to provide areas for long term residential purposes with customary accessory uses, recreational and institutional uses were conditional uses ". The existing surrounding land uses were similar with a logical fit for this property; staff recommended R-15 zoning approval. Ron Erickson asked if they were one or two separate parcels. Joe Krabacher, attorney for the owner, Susan HOrsey, stated that there were wo lots recognized by the county but the city did not recognize two lots, ratherjust one. Erickson noted that through annexation into the city, the city would allow a lot split at that time. Krabacher noted this was logical zoning for the property and he city was more restrictive than the county R-15. Dan Martineau stated that he represented the applicant and added that the lot split occurred in 1992 prior to his mother purchasing the property. He said that the last year. was spent in designing the muse to conform with the R-15 zone district since Ms. Horsey's understanding was from prior discussions that would be the zoning when annexed into the city. David Hoefer inquired as to with whom the representations were made. Martineau replied John Worcester; the city wanted to annex this property and he said that the city came to his mother for annexation. Ron Erickson asked the benefits of annexing this property as R45 into the city. Fred Jarman said that the comparison of R-15 in the County to R45 in the city; the result was density in the county would allow 2 single family dwellings on each lot without employee unit mitigation lots, in the city under R-15 a single family dwelling could be built on one lot and a duplex on the other with ADUs on each lot. Jarman stated that the city utilized the city FAR, Lighting Code, Residential Design Standards with this lot. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to recommend approval of the assignment of the R-15 (moderate-density residential) Zone DiStrict to Lots 1 and 2 of the Sandunes L. P. Annexation located at 815 West Main Street. Roger Haneman seconded. Roll call vote: Cohen, yes; Buettow, yes; Eriekson, yes; Biaieh, yes. APPROVED 4-0. PUBLIC HEARING: ASPEN VALLEY SKI CLUB PUD AMENDMENT FOR SIGN Bob Blaich opened the public hearing for the ASpen Valley Ski Club PUD Amendment for a sign. David Hoefer stated that the affidavit °fnotice was provided and the commission had juriSdiction to proceed. Fred Jarman said that the representative was Mike Maple for the Aspen Winter SPorts Foundation aka Aspen Valley Ski Club. Jarman said this request was to erect a sign, which was outside of the normal code provisions. Jarman provided photos of the sign and proposed location. The sign was 12 feet high, which was not the issue, but the issue was the square area of the sign, which was doubled from what was allowed. Allowed was 10 square feet; this was 20 feet square on a canvas type of material with 2 poles like a large "ski gate" to keep in tune with lhe facility. Staff suggested that the applicant come through this process for the PUD even though it was normally an administrative decision but becaUse of the Community Development Director and Deputy Directors' conflicts, the review was before P&Z. Jarman stated that the staff recommendation was for approval without any decision or input by the director or deputy director. Jarman said that the sign was larger than what was recommended but it was very out of sight and fit with the use of this club. The sign was 5 feet by 4 feet and 12 feet off the ground. Jarman stated that there were conditions with lighting issues. Ron Erickson asked the applicant why the sign had to be 20 square feet. Mark Maple said that the guidelines might allow 20 feet of signs with 2 signs; they wanted to combine those two signs into one and actually wanted the Sign larger. Maple said that the location to the nearest street was High School Road well in access of 200 feet or more like 400 feet. Steven Buettow asked why a 10-foot square sign was not satisfactory. Mark Maple replied that the code reflected that the bottom of the sign was a minimum of 9 feet from the ground; they wanted it 8 feet from so that kids couldn't hang-off of it. Eric Cohen asked if it was a flexible material like a ski gate; how would it be affected by wind and weather than a permanent sign. Maple said that it was like 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 sail material with fiberglass in the ends s° there would be undulation in the sign with the wind but it had steel poles designed to look like bamboo. Bob Blaich asked if this facility would be used in the summer at all for any purposes; he also asked if there would there be parties. Maple responded that it was used in the summer because it was the Ski and Snowboard Club's Headquarters; part of the PUD was to provide a community facility. Blaich said that there were trees being planted around the sign and asked if the trees wouldn't obscure the sign in the summer. Maple replied that the tress were actually behind the sign. Mark Hesselschwerdt, public, noted that maybe in the summer the sign could be smaller than a big colorful banner on the side of the road. He stated that after the initial invitation to the facility, it could ~hen be an overkill situation having a sign that big. Maple replied that from a signage standpoint, this sign was close to worthless; he said the sign had marginal utility and really was a piece of sculpture because it wouldn't be able to be read from 300 feet away. Maple said this was the only sign for the facility. David Hoefer stated that the legal concern was for any Precedent that this might set, other groUPs wanting signs. Hoefer Stated that the reasons should be clearly delineated for the sign to be an exception. Blaich asked if it were stated that it was a temporary sign, would that be acceptable. Blaich asked if it could be reevaluated either annually or every 2 years; he noted that the commission had to have valid reasons for supporting the sign other than the support for the Aspen Ski Club. Cohen stated that if it was a temporary sign the same arguments could be made. Hoefer reiterated the caution of the conditions for this specific sign made clear. Buettow said that the area was a large bowl surrounded on three sides by residential and this was a large sign. Buettow stated that the neighborhood has gone to great lengths to landscape and make the area very non-descript and blend- in. Buettow stated that the neighbors would look out on the valley in that direction and at this sign; he encouraged a smaller 1 O-foot sign. Maple said that the notice was sent with a photograph to those 8 people that were just mentioned, 4 of those people called and asked the size and color and did not have a problem with it. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to Approve Resolution #50, series 2000 for an insubstantial amendment to the Moore Family PUD for the purpose of installing a 20 square foot "Ski Gate" sign / banner in front of the Aspen Valley Ski Club with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant shall erect the ,Ski Gate" sign / banner with the exact proposed dimensions, color, lettering as indicated in the application; 2. That the applicant 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 shall erect the "Ski Gate" sign / banner in the exact proposed location indicated in the application; 3. That the applicant is aware that any change to the proposed and approved sign dimensions and location shall require additional review by the City of Aspen Community Development Department; 4. That the applicant shall not illuminate the "Ski Gate" sign / banner in a manner that conflicts with the City of Aspen Lighting Code pursuant to Section 26.510.070. Specifically, 1) no sign shall be illuminated through the use of internal illumination, rear illumination, fluorescent illumination or neon or other gas tube illumination, except when used for indirect illumination, and in such a manner as to not be directly exposed to public view; 5. That the applicant understands that the illumination of signs shall be designed, located, shielded and directed in such a manner that the light source is fixed and is not directly visible from, and does not cast glare or direct light from artificial illumination upon, any adjacent public right-of-way, surrounding property, residential property or motorist's vision; and 6. the applicant is aware that the sign may be illuminated only during hours of normal oPeration pursuant to Section 26.510.130(C). Section 2:This Resolution shall not ~ffect any existmg litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Eric Cohen seconded. Roll call vote: Buettow, no; Cohen, yes; Erickson, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 3-1. Discussion of the motion: Erickson said that he didn't see this the same as a sign for a business and it was more of a symbol for what the building stands for. Erickson stated that he didn't think it would be seen from the road. Cohen stated that the historical and community value of the Ski Club deserved a special consideration and held a higher degree of importance than other events that take place in town. Buettow stated that he couldn't support this amendment because they could accomplish all of the objectives with a smaller less obtrusive sign and less visually outstanding that met the code. PUBLIC HEARING: 981 KING STREET DRAC VARIANCE FROM SECONDARY MASS Bob Blaich opened the public hearing for a DRAC variance for secondary mass. David Hoefer stated that the notice was provided. Nick Lelack stated this was a public hearing to review Resolution #49, series 2000. Lelack explained that the Residential Design Appeal Committee consisted of 3 members from the P&Z and 3 member from the I-1PC, but either commission could serve as DRAC. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17~ 2000 Lelack stated that this went to DRAC this past summer with a different design and the variance was denied 3-2. Lelack said that all new structures (photos were provided of the existing house that was being demolished) shall locate at least 10% of the total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building or linked by a subordinate connecting element. Lelack stated that the lot size was 17,883 square feet and there was a new design. It was one-story on the east side of the lot with a different material to distinguish between the primary and secondary masses, also inset a minimum of 3 feet on both sides, clearly a linking element. Staff supported the variance stating that it was a more effective method of addressing the standard in question. Lelack said that it was two-story because of the slope on the one side and said that he felt that it met the* intent of the standard. Jeffrey Shoal explained the house layout with the link maybe being a closet in the hallway. Shoaf said the bottom of the house had the garage with a bedroom above it and upstairs also had the kitchen/living area. Lelack pointed out the deed- restricted Category 2 Affordable Housing Unit. Steven Buettow commented that this was what he requested from the DRAC meeting. Ron Erickson asked for clarification on the owner of Lot 3 placing a restriction on tot 4 that no development shall be located further east than the boundary between Lot 2 & 3; who was the owner of lot 4. Shoafreplied that he was the owner, but wasn't when the original application was presented. MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to approve Resolution #49, series 2000, approving the secondary mass Residential Design Standards variance for a duplex at 981 King Street, Lot 4, Astor Subdivision finding that 1 of the 3 conditions (condition B -more effective method of addressing the standard in question) had been met. Ron Erickson seconded. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Erickson, yes; Cohen, yes; Blaich yes. APPROVED 4-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 09/05/2000 and 10/03/2000: VARIOUS MINOR LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS Chris Bendon stated that the simple code amendments were agreed upon and passed onto Council. Tonight's discussion included the issues ofhoteklefinition, subdivision for open space for future affordable housing, environmentally sensitive area and affordable housing zonedistrict. Bendon stated that subdivision for open space for future affordable hous~ng~vas Section 2 of the memo. This was an exemption in the growth management system, allowing the property owner to create a parcel with no development rights 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 associated with it by creating an open space parcel with a deed-restriction or a parcel that was zoned for affordable housing that had no development rights associated with it. Bendon referred to the Mitch Haas letter and stated that this would be a new section to the code under growth management exemptions. There were general criteria, deed-restriction and subdivision agreements to maintain the parcel either for open space or affordable housing. There would be a review process but staffwasn't sure that the affordable housing issues and concerns were met. Ron Erickson asked what the private sector hoped to gain by this code amendment. Bendon replied that the property owner and developer would come to staffwith a development idea for a piece of property to be s~bdivided for the purpose of affordable housing. Ohlson said that the subdivision held no development rights but could possibly have affordable housing built on it but was questionable and then there would be no development rights associated with the parcel of land. Bendon clarified the questi°n posed as a possible takings issue because of mine tailing or some other reason that the property could not be developed; Criteria E covered the development rights. Erickson noted that this was not a code simplification but rather an addition to the code regarding land that may never be subdivided, opening up a whole new avenue for development. Erickson stated that that land that could not be subdivided outside a PUD could now possibly be subdivided outside ora PUD. Erickson asked what was gained from this new code language beside making someone feel good. Ohlson replied that it was an issue of flexibility. Bendon responded that was Why staff was hesitant to include this in the Ordinance; he said that this did not provide enough information for a public hearing especially for public comments. Erickson stated that even if the public process was considered onerous at least it was known; this did not accomplish anything positive. Bob Blaich asked if staff was recommending that this portion be stricken from the Ordinance. Bendon replied that was true. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to strike (remove) Section #2, subdivision for open space for future affordable housing P&Z Resolution #00-42. Eric Cohen seconded. APPROVED 4'0. Blaich stated that the next review would be Section #1. Bendon stated that that there were 2 definitions in the land use code for hoteland lodge; lodge stated that it was a hotel. Bendon said that the code stated if it was zoned LP there could be a kitchen within individual units and reqUired to rent to the general public for 6 months of the year. Bendon described the background of the Lodge Preservation (LP) program for the flexibility and incentive; the question was now what to do with the definition for hotel unit; the definition was the unit is available on a short- term basis for a fee, short-term was one month or less. Bendon posed the questions for the owners of these units and what they were allowed to do under the code: 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 what was the length of time an owner could stay in their unit or another unit, can it be pulled off the rental base; the consensus was that an owner should not take the unit out of the rental base for more than 2 weeks, some say that it could be 3-6 months. The lodge definition contained the 6-month rental clause. Bendon provided 3 issues in the hotel unit definition. No more than one short-term period, cannot occupy consecutive short-term periods and at least 9 months of the year it was available for rent to the general public. Bendon said the real question was how should the unit usage be allowed. Erickson stated that the definition did not serve the purpose of short-term rental because for example a studio could be available for rent for $1,000.00 a night; itneeded to be consistent in how the definition related to a lodge unit. Erickson said that he did nOt think the price could be controlled. David Hoefer stated that there needed to be care given to this definition and a specific dollar amount on the rental could not be included in the definition. Bendon stated the general policy could impact the hotel units and lodge units with time-share and a 6-month rental pool. Bendon said that the new concept of multiple ownership, fractional ownership or time-share with the owners able to occupy their units (2 weeks in the summer and 2 weeks in the winter) keeps the hotbeds available. Bendon stated that the Condominiumized unit did take away the hotbeds available because it was no longer a lodge unit or a hotel unit. Gideon Kaufman, public, stated that time-share was only allowed in certain districts and always a conditional use; it had to go to P&Z for review. Kaufman stated that he represented L'Auberge, a small lodge on Main Street that competed in the GMQS and added lodge rooms. Kaufman stated that it did all that the community wanted it to do; take older inventory, fix it up and add to it. Kaufman stated that was what he thought would apply to L'Auberge when they went to condominiumize with a 6-month minimum lease rental requirement. Kaufman stated that L'Auberge was more a lodge than a hotel. Kaufman noted that the old Applejack (Aspen Inn) and the Hotel Aspen were condominiumized and were successful with rental units. Kaufman stated that small rooms cmdominiumized were different than houses because a 300 square foot unit would be less likely to be lived in year round. Kaufman stated that because L'Auberge was zoned Office and not LP but was considered a lodge, it should be entitled to the same benefits as an LP. rau£man said that the definitiOn of ah0te1 does not m~tch L,AUberge because they don't meet the 2 key requirements. Kaufman stated that a letter from the Sanitation District required single ownership because there was an old sewer line. Kaufman said that they resolved the issue with the Sanitation District; he said they were not competing with the Ritz or HOtel Jerome. Kaufman noted that when the original time-share (the Prospector) was accomplished people came mainly in the winter with the summer as an add-on, now the economy has changed to have 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17, 2000 people only come in the summer or only winter. Kanfman stated that the one month on and one,month off did not work because people wanted to be here during July and August for the Music Festival. ~ufman stated that language could be added that stated the rental on or available as the requirement with market rates might provide the flexibility without coming in and rezoning to LP. Kaufman stated that he just wanted L'Auberge to have the same ability to have a 6-month minimum lease as other LP lodge, in the rental pool for 6-months. Erickson stated that L'Auberge was a different animal; he perceived it as each unit being a single- family home because each building had its own kitchen. L'Auberge had 14 or 15 separate buildings. Erickson said that he did not want this property to drive an entire code change; he stated that he agreed with Gideon on the description of this property but did not know how it could be solved. Bendon stated that there were many different ways for L'Auberge to go: rezoning or conditional use amendment. Blaich stated that he had the same concerns as R°n about L'Auberge; he stated that when it was approved it was stated that it was adding beds. Blaich noted that after the new buildings were built some P&Z members didn't realize the size of those new buildings, which over time have improved with landscaping. Blaich said that they were little miniature houses and a very unique thing; he did not want to get wrapped up in redef'ming the code amendment around L'Auberge. Kaufman stated that they needed to make a resolution on this because they have been trying to get an answer since July; he said that they have used the 6-month requirement from the LP but needed to figure out how to proceed. Kaufman stated that one problem was specific to this property and the other a generic issue. Kaufman stated that HPC gave them an award for the lodge refurbiShment. Kaufman asked that they be treated as any otherlodge would be treated. Erickson stated that there wasn't a code amendment that could solve L'Auberge's problem. Kaufman asked that a conditional use be added to the Office Zone and not rezone. thatKaufmanthey wereStatedunique.that now there was uncertainty as to the definition ofhotel; he said Bendon stated that they needed to come to a conclusion on the appropriate time frame in general. Bendon noted that L'Auberge had the same options available as they did before. Erickson stated that there was already a program in place that wasn't working, because we try to socially engineer the town and no one follows the laws unless the rules and regulations can be enforced. Erickson stated that the market would determine what was going to happen. Bendon replied that if there was a catch in the code it review condo declarations. Kaufman stated that there had to be some 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17~ 2000 rules that were written. Bendon responded that there was the 6month rule when L'Auberge was approved. Kaufman answered that there was no restriction when the L'Auberge project was done because KIOWA threw out the ability of communities to regulate. Bendon stated that it was a hotel; he said the original hotel definition stated that the rooms shall be available on a short term basis for a fee. Bendon asked that how could an owner use their room then if it was always available to the general public; that wasn't the intention. Cohen asked the process of a special use LP designation to this property in the Office Zone, not necessarily rezoning, but just a special use for this individual property. Bendon replied that they could apply for a conditional use in this office zone or they could rezone to the LP zone district, then they would have the 6- month provision by right. Erickson asked what the conditional use would do. Bendon replied that it would provide the ability not be on the short-term market for a certain amount of time; it would be their style of operation for those particular circumstances. Blaich stated that he would rather deal with the review on that basis and divorce it from the code amendment. Erickson and Cohen agreed. Buettow stated that he wanted also to rectify the L'Auberge situation on an individual basis so they can condominiumize and go forward on a 6-month rental basis. Kaufman asked if the conditional use needed to be modified in the code or just modify their conditional use. Bendon stated that there was a condition to the conditional use for L'Auberge's original conditional use. Erickson asked if this was possible to expedite. Ohlson responded that there was legal noticing and posting. Hoefer noted there was an application that had to be reviewed. Blaich asked for the fastest track. Kaufman asked how long after the application was submitted. Ohlson replied that it would be 3 weeks to a month. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the public hearing for the Land Use Code Amendment, P&Z Resolution #00-42 to October 24, 2001. Steven Buettow seconded. APPROVED 4-0. Ohlson noted that there was a training meeting set-up for November 21 s~. Meeting adjourned at 7:I0 p.m. ~ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 11