Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20030805ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 05, 2003 COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS ........................................ 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS ............................................. 3 MISCELLANEOUS LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS ................................... 3 MISCELLANEOUS LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS ................................... 4 MAROON CREEK CLUB PUD/SPA AMENDMENT, CHANGE IN USE .......... 5 ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE PUD AMENDMENT - SIGNAGE .................. 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 05, 2003 Jasmine opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission at 4:35 pm in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Eric Cohen, Ruth Kruger, Jack Johnson, Roger Haneman, John Rowland, Steve Skadron and Jasmine Tygre were present. Dylan Johns was excused. City of Aspen staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, James Lindt, Sarah Oates, Scott Woodford, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Jack Johnson asked about the car inside the hole at the Grand Aspen site and what was happening with the project. Ruth Kruger asked how the mall-leased space was determined. David Hoefer replied that it was a dollar amount based on square footage and Kathy Strickland was the contact. Eric Cohen asked about the progress on the Bavarian. Chris Bendon replied that it was being remodeled for affordable housing; the entire PUD was based upon the building being remodeled because of the access. Cohen asked if the rest of the project was affordable housing for sale. Bendon answered that it was various categories. Jasmine Tygre asked how the Burlingame D project got to this acquisition problem. Bendon replied that he did not know where the responsibility for that was but the planning office did not have anything to do with title work. Hoefer said that one would have thought that the AABC would have come in with these concerns long before now. Tygre asked about there being no connection between big Burlingame and the ABC. Bendon answered that was part of the conditions from John McBride with no vehicular connection but the city was pursuing a footpath. Staff and the commission gave Eric Cohen a wedding card. Chris Bendon provided an updated Infill schedule for meetings. MINUTES MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve the minutes from June 3, July 1 and July 15, 2003; seconded by Roger Itaneman. APPROVED 7-0. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 05, 2003 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS Ruth Kruger and Steve Skadron had conflicts of interest with the Aspen Highlands Item on the Agenda. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/01/03): MISCELLANEOUS LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS Jasn~ne opened and continued the public hearing for Miscellaneous Land Use Code Amendments from July Is~ (packet IV.A. 1.). Scott Woodford stated that this item was separated from the code amendments to move it forward to Council as a priority for codification. The proposed change in language No Multiple Applications. The City of Aspen shall not accept or review more than one development application concurrently on any one property or_ portion of a property. To submit a new application on a property, any active development application must be vacate. Upon determining there is a public purpose to be served, the Community Development Director may waive this limitation. No public comments. The con2mssion discussed the several applications that were currently in the process and how this change would affect that. David Hoefer noted that a better quality process was maintained if there was only one application in the process at a time ~n addition there was the practical issue of staff time; if every applicant submitted 2 applications it would use up more staff time and burden the system for new applications. The commission wanted to ensure that the GMQS amendments would not be left behind. MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve Resolution #15, 2003 for an amendment to the land use code regarding No Multiple Applications. The City of Aspen shall not accept or review more than one development application concurrently on any one property or portion of a property. To submit a new application on a property, any active development application must be vacate. Upon determining there is a public purpose to be served, the Community Development Director may waive this limitation. Eric Cohen seconded. Roll call vote: Kruger, yes; Cohen, yes; Johnson, yes; Haneman, yes; Tygre, yes; Rowland, yes; Skadron, abstain. APPROVED 6-0. It was discussed that the new members could vote if they felt comfortable with the code amendment after reading the minutes. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 05, 2003 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/01/03): MISCELLANEOUS LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS Jasmine Tygre opened the ContinUed public hearing on ~sCellaneouS COde amendments. ScOtt Woodford explained that the P&Z requested further examination of (Section 5) Variance Criteria for Residential Design Standards regarding the definition of"context". Language was added (1). Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is Warranted. Tygre noted that there would still be wrestling matches because there was no way to avoid that and complimented Scott on a good job; the rest of thc commissioners agreed. Woodford said that the First Story Element (Section 8) changes were to the word replacement from "one story" tOfrst story and there was concern for the walk out access on the first story element from the last meeting. Woodford provided photos as examples of the first story elements and examples that would no longer comply. Language was amended ~Itl residential buildings shall have a.first story street- facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the buiMing's overall width and the depth which is at least six (6) feet from the wail the_first-stor~ element is pra/ecting from. ~4_first-story element may be a porch ~"~ ~ .... ~ .... ~- ,~ living space. ~4ccessible space (whether it is a deck, porch or enclosed area)shall not be allowed over the first stor~ element, however this shall not preclude having aCcessible space over remaining_first story elements on the_front_faqade. Commissione~s Haneman, Cohen, Tygre and Johnson expressed concerns for the options of height for the first story and requested a decision on the height limit for the first story element. John P~owland said the definitions seemed to become lengthier. The majority of the commission requested section 8 be re-looked at because there was no clear direction from staff or the neighborhood meetings. Woodford said the change to the Non-Residential Lighting Standards with respects to outdoor lighiing shall be 12feet or less in height unless it meets one of the following criteria: *The lighting is fully shielded and the point light source is not visible beyond the boundaries of the property in which the lot is located; or *The lightin~ is otherwise provided in Section 27.575.150(K). Wo0dford said these changes would not require all lighting above 12 feet be reviewed by P&Z. Haneman expressed concern for reflected light on buildings. Johnson voiced 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 05, 2003 concern about light pollution, buildings with zero setbacks, and these changes not accomplishing the lighting goals. Haneman asked about the top parapet lighting on the Hotel Jerome. Haneman suggested that photos be taken of existing lighting examples for compliance and non-compliance to be presented at the next meeting and Johnson requested investigating the possibili ,ty of a lighting consultant. The majority of the commissioners present felt the changes were still in need of work on the lighting and definition of context portions of this resolution. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing on the miscellaneous land use code amendments to September 2, 2003; seconded by Roger Haneman. APPROVED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING: MAROON CREEK CLUB PUD/SPA AMENDMENT, CHANGE IN USE Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Maroon Creek Club PUD/SPA change in use. David Hoefer stated that the notice was in order; the commission could proceed. James Lindt stated that John Howard represented the applicant, Jim Williams. The applicant wanted to amend the SPA/PUD as well as a GMQS exemption for a change in use to allow one of the lodge units at the Maroon Creek Club to add a kitchen thereby making it a residential dwelling unit. Because it was a combined application the Planning & Zoning Commission was the recommending body on all the land use requests to City Council. Lindt provided the background for the lodge units; the County approved 12 as part of the Maroon Creek Club Subdivision and PUD in the early 1990's. It was subsequently annexed into the City in 1996 and a PUD amendment was approved, which allowed for reduction in the number of lodge units that were in the Maroon Creek Club; as a condition of approval is was required that no kitchens be allowed in the lodge unitS therefore the applicant requested an amendment to that. Additionally the use of the lodge units was slightly different that the normal city lodge units, which were required to be available on a short-term basis for rental to the public at least 6 months of the year but these units were approved as part of the Pitkin County Code in which there was no such requirement of short-term availability. Lindt explained that the use of the unit was purchased through a special membership sold by the Maroon Creek Club called the Millennium Membership, which cannot require these units to be rented on a short-term bas~s. Staffagreed that adding a kitchen would not change the use of the units. Adding 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 05, 2003 the kitchen did not provide a community benefit and did not maintain the lodging bed base therefore staff could not support the change in use PUD/SPA amendment. John Howard stated that the membership was not a fee simple ownership but a membership for the occupancy and use of the Maroon Creek Club. The applicant wanted to combine three of the one-bedroom lodge units into one 3-bedroom unit. The members of the limited liability company have consented to this change as a convemence for one of the members as opposed to any interest on their own part. Howard clarified the original 12 units were reduced to 8 from the original Pomegranate, which had a reduction in the number of bedrooms but not the square footage, which was a reduction in the number of lodge rooms. There was a current building permit allowing the combining of 3 lodge units into one unit further reducing the lodging units to 6. Howard said that there would not be any change in use because the units that were available for rent would continue to be rented; the application was for the addition of the cooking appliance (a stove). Howard said that the Maroon Creek Club did not operate as a lodge. Howard stated that he couldn't see mom, dad, the 2 kids and dog in their Chrysler minivan pulling offto stop at the Maroon Creek Club for one-night; unless you have business there you probably wouldn't mm into the Maroon Creek Club because you would realize that you were in the wrong place. Howard said the owner, Mr. Williams, used the units for his family and the employees of the Texas Company; there would not be full time residents in these relatively small three bedroom units. Howard restated that there were not lodge rooms at the Maroon Creek Club with reference to the general public. Howard asked that the [s~ condition regarding the annual basis letter for the ability to lease out their units be deleted because the individual members did not want to be liable for a guest of their unit that was not under the owners control. Roger Haneman asked how these became lodge units. Lindt replied that after the Aspen Country Inn became employee housing as part of that there were 12 lodge allotments left over for the Maroon Creek Club tO use. Haneman said the residential allotments were maxed-out, so GMQS would not be affected by putting this kitchen in. Lindt replied that GMQS would be affected because it would make it a multi-residential unit however by obtaining a GMQS exemption for a change in use, you are exempting one unit and freezes the other 5 units from becoming residential units. The other unit owners would have to go through the GMQS exemption process in order to change their units. Lindt said that the other possibility for staff to approve this was to encourage the other Millennium owners to rent out their units but they didn't feel that was a possibility because of their 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 05, 2003 legal agreement with the Millennium Members, which was exclusive use of their owned units at any time during the year. Jack Johnson asked how a building permit was issued prior to a review process. Lindt responded that it was discussed at a staff level and was consistent with the previous PUD amendment, which allowed the reduction in lodge units as long as the square footage remained the same, Howard said that the number of bedrooms was reduced and the number of units was reduced from 12 lodge rooms to 8 while maintaining the same square footage. Howard said the lOdge rooms were allocated from the Aspen Country Inn, so in the county code they were lodge rooms and transferred to the developer as lodge rooms; lodge rooms were built not residential multi-family. Bendon explained that the project was built in the county without a definition for lodge. Lindt added that the county had no provision for short-term rental and that was the reason that the units could be sold as they were without that rental provision. Bendon stated that when the city annexed the project it was accepted with the county's land use code at the time as well, which traveled with the project for the life of the project as annexed. Tygre asked if one residential unit would be deducted from the GMQS quota if this exemption for the change in use was approved. Bendon replied that was true. Kruger asked if this was a lodge room because it did not have a kitchen or a cooking appliance. Lindt replied that was correct. No pubhc comment. Eric Cohen noted that this was an example of when a lodge room was not a lodge room, when it was part of the Maroon Creek Club. This had no affect on anything. This stops because anything else changing in this PUD would have to go through growth management; plus there was the anomaly of the acceptance of the county code upon annexation. Cohen said that the precedent from keeping other owners from doing the same request would be that the rest of the owners would be required to go through GMQS because the one exemption was already used. The next application would have to go through the GMQS process; all the members agreed on this exemption. Haneman commented that it went to push for all that you can for a PUD and then come back and amend it the next year to get more. Johnson said that this could have implications because it was called a lodge room but it wasn't a lodge room; these units will never be rented. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 05~ 2003 Tygre noted there were problems when properties were annexed with prior county approvals that came with unknown negotiations on the approvals; most PUDs were carefully negotiated. This kind of change in use may lead to additional applications in the future. Lindt noted there was a specific change in use criteria language, which stated that only one unit, may be created through a change in use. MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to approve Resolution #18 and recommend that City Council approve a PUD and SPA amendment and a GMQS exemption for a change in use to allow for the combined lodge unit (consisting of lodge units 1, 2, and 3) in the Maroon Creek Club to add a kitchen and thereby become a multi-family residential dwelling unit, with the following condition: l. The lodge unit to be converted to a residential dwelling unit shall be upgraded to meet the 1998 ANSI Type B adaptable clearance requirements relating to the handicap accessibility of the bathroom. Seconded by Ruth Kruger. Roll call vote: Johnson, no; Haneman, yes; Kruger, no; Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes; Cohen, yes; Tygre, no. APPROVED 4-3. Hoefer stated that for the record this motion included the removal of the condition as requested by the applicant for the annual basis letter regarding the rental of their units. PUBLIC HEARING: ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE PUD AMENDMENT - SIGNAGE lasmine Yygre opened the public hearing on the Aspen Highlands Village Sign Amendment. Ruth Kruger and Steve Skadron recused themselves. David Hoefer stated that proof of notice was provided. Sarah Oates noted that this was a PUD amendment for another annexed property, Aspen Highlands Village. Oates distributed the current Aspen Highlands sign code regulations (Exhibit D), which was developed in 2000 by Hines Highlands and the Master Homeowners Association. Oates said that the Highlands developed their sign code about the time that they were being annexed and were told that it didn't meet the City of Aspen's sign code regulations. Staff recommends approval. Oates said that the Village core would have the only impact; there were Village regulations as they relate to real estate signs for residential properties, lettering but was particularly orientated to the Village core. Oates stated that this was a P&Z approval only. 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 05~ 2003 Deborah Prince, representative of the Aspen Highlands Village Association, said there were very strict regulations on the neon signs, which would be very artist signs. Oates commented that there was a design review board for the retail association to review the signage and would then refer to Sarah Oates to make sure the sign meets the dimensional requirements. Jack Johnson asked what the AHV was. Prince replied that it was the Aspen Highland Village Association, which oversees the Village as a whole. Johnson asked if the affordable housing residents were members of this association and the number ofrepresematives serving on the board; who was speaking for the people not the retailers. Prince replied that they were; there was a board. Bob Daniel, representative for Hines, explained the association structure as the master association with several sub-associations within the master association. Daniel said there were sub-associations for all the condominium units, the affordable housing units that were not part of the Village core, townhome association, which is a rather complex entity. Daniel said that currently the association was still under declaring control pursuant to the regulations of the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act with 4 Hines appointees. Daniel said for the Aspen Highlands Village water service agreement required annexation into the city. The City of Aspen must adopt the zoning and entitlement established for Aspen Highlands Village due to the Pitkin County Entitlement process so there would not be any non-conforming uses in the city by the city annexing a county project. Daniel said there were no signage regulations in the county that were applicable to Aspen Highlands Village and it was merely an oversight that at the time of annexation that the PUD amendment was not incorporated into these signage guidelines. Johnson asked who made up the design review board. Daniel responded there were 3 architects (1 an affordable housing unit owner and 2 professional architects from the community) and Gary Beach to review drainage and water issues; the master association board appointed these board members. Johnson noted the differences between the Aspen Highlands Signage Regulations and the City of Aspen Code and asked why flags were not allowed, Prince said that there were residents that lived above the commercial core spaces and there would be difficulty in the scrutiny in what was tasteful and not tasteful. Eric Cohen asked if there was only one real estate sign allowed per property. Oates replied that was true, page 8 of 10 of the guidelines. Tygre noted that the signs that were shown in the Highlands Signage Booklet were all very western and old western in style; how does that fit in with neon and where 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 05~ 2003 would the neon signs be located. Prince answered that they were an eclectic western and the neon was a generalization of not allowing more than 3 neon signs. Public Comments: Adam Gillespie stated that he represented a group of homeowners (confidentially) that were concerned withyard sale signs and for sale signs on cars; they wanted the signs to be restricted to commercial use only. Oates said that signs on parked vehicles was addressed on page 9 of 10. MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to approve Resolution #20, series 2003, approving a PUD amendment to the Aspen Highlands Village PUD to adopt a sign code for Aspen Highlands Village, attached at "Exhibit B" included the amendments on page 6 of 10 to strike the last sentence under Wall Signs; page 2 of 10 to strike the second sentence on Flags. Seconded by Roger Haneman. Roll call vote: Johnson, no; Haneman, no; Rowland, no; Cohen, yes; Tygre, no. DENIED 4-1. Disscussmn: Tygre stated that Aspen Highlands was a separate entity but that she could not approve neon signs, especially with lighl pollution. Haneman agreed. Johnson said that he couldn't support the sign code because this amendment added another layer of bureaucracy and the sub-associations would be judged by a un-elected board appointed by a corporation; he objected to the quasi- governmental agencies creating and making laws that were different from everybody else's. Meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. 10