Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20040217ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -~m � COMMISSIONER C—.—..----.--------.----------.—..2 \8/AGARPqTD AMENDMENT --5l7Park Circle ........................................................... 3 l ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission at 6:05 pm after the Special Growth Management Commission Meeting. Aspen P&Z members present were Jack Johnson, Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns, John Rowland, Ruth Kruger and Jasmine Tygre. Staff present were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Allgaier, James Lindt, Scott Woodford, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ruth Kruger said the County P&Z Commissioners do not feel that they should have any jurisdiction over these matters and the City Commissioners have discussed this many times to alleviate the County jurisdiction jointly over city matters and decisions. Kruger stated this has been discussed several times and asked if something can be done to change the system so the County P&Z doesn't have to spend their time on the city matters. James Lindt responded that the proposed code amendments that were part of .the overall infill code amendment would do that but council did not want to handle the infill code amendment as a whole and have now directed staff to do a section -by -section code amendment review. Lindt continued that as part of the growth management system proposed code amendment, if approved would get rid of the county's review in the growth management system. Kruger asked if there was any way to put this forward rather than make it an inconvenience for the applicant, public, commissions and staff. MOTION.- Ruth Kruger moved to recommend City Council prioritize the GMQS amendments to the city code and be approved by City Council; seconded by Dylan Johns. APPROVED 6-0. Discussion of motion: Jack Johnson asked why there was a joint GMQS for city projects. Lindt replied that there were joint city and county GMQS allotments. Johnson asked if the BOCC would also have to approve this or would it only be city council. Kruger said that it was shameful that as volunteer on citizen boards that they had to pay for parking while serving and donating their time on official city business; she suggested that the city allow the commissioners to park while in city hall serving on a city board. Tygre said that this has been discussed in the past and will be discussed again in the future. Tygre said that Council did a commendation for Eric Cohen and wanted to remind the commission and staff that we were going to do something to honor him. Lindt noted P&Z was invited to a Civic Center Master Plan luncheon on February 26th from 11 am to 2pm in City Council Chambers. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 Jackie Lothian distributed a letter forwarded from Bert Myrin from Susan O'Neil. James Lindt stated the letter had been included in the Chart House packet. Jasmine Tygre noted that the agenda problem still existed and the memo stated the schedule for the regular Planning & Zoning meeting had the Wagar item to be continued to March 2nd PUBLIC HEARING: WAGAR PUD AMENDMENT — 517 Park Circle Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Wagar PUD amendment; public notice was received. MOTION.- Ruth Kruger moved to continue the Wagar PUD Amendment to March 219 2004; seconded by Jack Johnson. APPROVED 6-0. Stan Clauson, planner for applicant, said that they did not have any notice of continuance of this hearing and asked if they could discuss with the owners the available dates. Scott Woodford said that staff thought that they could actually hear the case if'there were time, but somehow the agenda reflected that it would be continued to March 2nd. Tygre noted that the public was told that this case would not be heard tonight and it was unknown if there was anyone that left who had come to discuss this case. Tygre apologized to the applicant for the confusion and asked for this item to be first on the agenda for March 2, 2004. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/03/04): MAROON CREEK CLUB PUD/SPA AMENDMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for the Maroon Creek Club PUD/SPA Amendment. James Lindt stated the request was for a PUD/SPA amendment to add kitchens to the lodge units converting them to residential units. Staff recommended approval for this request with the conditions in the resolution. Lindt noted that there was an original request for one of the units to have a kitchen with concern at that time that an application such as this one would come in requesting the rest of the units be allowed kitchens. Staff noted there would be community benefit because the proposal included transportation alternatives (the taxi voucher system and the fleet of bicycles). 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 17 2004 Sheri Sanzone, planner for the applicant, stated that she had already given her presentation during the Growth Management section of the hearing so she would not go through it again. Tygre asked if the insubstantial PUD that was approved by the community development director was allowed by code to combine the 12 units into 8 lodge units. Lindt answered they also met the review standards for an insubstantial amendment. Sanzone noted that attachment A included the review criteria. Lindt stated that the applicant further gained approval of building permits to combine the remaining units into 4 lodge units. Lindt said that they have operated as residential units since they were built 8 years ago. Lindt said that this was a site -specific development with an SPA overlay, which allows for residential units but does not allow for lodge units with kitchens. Dylan Johns asked if they could apply for Lodge Preservation. Lindt explained the options would be to apply for an SPA Amendment to add to the specially planned area lodge units with kitchens as a permitted use however staff encouraged the applicant to go through the process to convert to residential units because that was the way that they were operating; they are not operating as lodge units and were not available for short-term rentals. John Rowland asked why the applicant didn't put the stoves in and not go through this process. Lindt responded that every building permit was reviewed and they would not be allowed to put a stove in at this time under the current approvals. Jack Johnson said that this applicant applied for the review and therefore the criteria has to be met; if they were denied then there was an appeals process. Johnson asked what they were ruling on since the GMQS was denied. Lindt replied that if the PUD amendment was approved by P&Z then they could file for an appeal of the growth management scoring with City Council. No public comments. Johnson asked if these units would ever be lodge units. Sanzone responded that there was nothing that precludes the owners from lending out their units but the owners have no interest in operating their units as lodge units. Johnson asked if there could be a condition of approval not to condominiumize these units. Tygre noted that the process for condominiumization could not be imposed upon these owners; ownership cannot be dictated. Lindt agreed. Johnson said the whole process of the Maroon Creek Club, not that he was present for it all, but there was something not right and he could not get behind it with many incremental changes. Johnson did not like the precedent it set for P&Z, City Government and other people who may have similar site -specific issues that could use this as a precedent. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 John Rowland asked what this could set precedence for; he viewed this as an isolated situation; he asked where this could possibly lead P&Z. Lindt replied that staff did not think it set precedence because it was a site -specific development plan with site -specific uses that were approved only for the Maroon Creek Club. Lindt said if other lodge units in town wanted to convert from lodge units to residential units they would have to go through a similar process, through growth management scoring and obtain an allotment. Sanzone stated that in the insubstantial amendment it wasn't that kitchens were precluded but if they wanted to peruse kitchens then they had to go through another level of review; she agreed that is was specific to this site with county approvals brought into the city with strange uses and finding unit owners that would agree. Tygre stated that there was nothing that would preclude these units from being sold separately as some point in the future. Sanzone answered they would have to go through another land use process. Tygre stated concern from the commission for what was originally approved in the county as lodge units from now becoming multi -family residential units in incremental stages and obviously there were review steps all along the way but these were complicated agreements from the county to the city. Tygre stated there were implications beyond this, which have not been presented; that was not supposed to be part of the consideration but other things affect a particular application and as a planning commission those concerns need to be in the back of the commissioners minds with all the time that goes into SPA and PUD plans with many trade-offs. Tygre said since the changes and trade-offs were so incremental you really don't know why they were done but were we still getting what was agreed upon in the original SPA or PUD approval. Johnson commented that the original approval was for 12 lodge units, then it changed to 8 and now it was 4 without stoves. Johnson said that it would have been a reasonable expectation to think that it was complete in 1996 instead of all of these incremental steps happening. Tygre stated that did not relieve the commission from the evaluation of this proposal in terms of the specific criteria proposed. Ruth Kruger stated her position respected Jasmine and Jack's position but this was a totally dysfunctional development, it was not a place for a lodge and did not have the infrastructure of a lodge or work as a lodge. Kruger noted this was an attempt to correct something that was totally dysfunctional; this could add value in the future but she did not have a problem approving this respectful of the planning staff s work. Johns said there wasn't anything specific and saw the incremental changes; he didn't see how this application would run counter to the criteria given the check and balance was the GMQS, which could be overturned by City Council then the process was not fulfilled. Johns said he did not understand how these units would 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2004 ever be made into functional lodge units; the original approval was agreed upon, which happened and the rules changed after it was in place. Johns asked what the specific downfalls would be if residential units were allowed. Johns supported the project just because he could not find anything wrong. Steve Skadron asked if the implications on precedent would not apply to the criteria. Tygre replied that it could; the commissioners' opinions based on one of the criteria that the implications of future modifications for precedent setting was contrary to one of those criteria and could be a commissioner's finding. Lindt responded to John's question about other properties in town affected by this; any lodge without an SPA has to be available for short-term rent. Lindt stated this was a different situation at the Maroon Creek Club because it was originally done with county approvals; the county did not specify that their lodge units had to be rented out on a short term basis, so other lodge developments in town had to be rented out on a short term basis. Johns asked what the situation was at the Inn at Aspen. Lindt responded that it was in the county and under county regulations. Sanzone stated the purpose of a PUD was not only to provide flexibility in design but also provide the mix of uses that responds to the market. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Planning and Zoning Resolution #4, series 2004, recommending that City Council approve with conditions, a PUD/SPA amendment to allow for the addition of kitchens in the four (4) lodge units within The Maroon Creek Club, thereby converting the units to multi -Family dwelling units finding that the criteria have been met. Seconded by Dylan Johns. Roll call vote: Johnson, no because criterion #S had not been met; Rowland, yes; Johns, yes; Skadron, no; Kruger, yes; Tygre, no citing criteria #S & #L DENIED 3-3. Adjourned 7pm. q&A,c) 6,h�t� . - Yckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 0