Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20041005ASPEN PLANNING& ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes - October 05, 200~ COMMENTS ........................................................................................................................... .. 2 MINUTES .............................. : ..................................... : ............................................... , .......... ,.~.~,:.,..2 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ..................................................... 2 CODE AMENDMENT-TDR'S ............................................... : ................................ . ............. 2 LOT 1, ODEN LOT SPLIT STREAM MARGIN REVIEW ..................... ~ ................... 4 707 E. HYMAN CONDITIONAL USE FOR COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT'... 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes - October 05, 2004 Ruth Kruger opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners Brandon Marion, RUth Kruger, Jack Johnson, John Rowland and Steve Skadron were present. Staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Chris Lee, James Lindt, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Ruth Kruger hoped this meeting would adjourn by 6:45 p.m. Kruger inquired about the new windows in the Elli's building and asked if they were historic or went through a historic review process.- James Lindt will follow up on Elli's. MINUTES MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to approve the minutes from July 27, August 03fa, 11'~' and 17th, September 7th and 21s' 2004; seconded by Steve Skadron. Rowland, Johnson and Skadron approved the minutes, Motion Carried. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (09/21/04): CODE AMENDMENT-TDR'S Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing on the Code Amendment; Chris Bendon noted this was a continued hearing from 9/21 st. There were 5 members present for this hearing. Gideon Kaufman addressed the 2 items that concerned P&Z and Placed suitable review by Planning & Zoning and staff. Kaufman raised questions regarding staff's interpretation that the only way to accomplish this was through the Historic TDR Program. Chris Bendon stated there was concern that this would take away from the 'Historic TDR Program, which has not yet been proven. Kaufman said this code amendment was for this particular unit because of code changes, which has made this a non-conforming unit so they cannot add 2 window wells to make the downstairs legally 2 bedrooms. Kaufman said their TDR code amendment was only used for employee housing; their TDR program enhances only affordable housing and doesn't have the same mark-up as the Historic TDR Program so they are not taking from that existing Historic TDR Program but they are creating a market from the surplus of free-market housing and converting it for the community. Kaufman said that each special review would go through P&Z for approval for each particular situation, which accomplishes a valuable community goal. Kaufman provided the criteria for P&Z to follow. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMiSSION:Minhtes-~ 0~Ct6b'er 0~} g00a Ruth Kruger asked where the TDR was coming from. Kaufman replied that it was from a free-market house that did not want to use all of the FAR allowed. Kruger reiterated that Kaufman was creating a new program (code amendment) that would create sending sites that were not historic and opening the market for a larger opportunity taking FAR from a free-market house to an ADU. Bendon re- stated concern for the demand and the Historic Program could leverage the TDRs. Jack Johnson asked if the code had never' been changed would there have .been sufficient FAR on this property to amend this ADU. Bendon answered no. Johnson asked if the transferred floor area must accommodate the extent of the non-conformity plus the expansion or if only just the floor area has been resolved. Bendon replied that Joyce covered the first meeting on this and P&Z addressed 'that question by saying that yOu should only cover the amount that is necessary to accommodate the actual expansion and should have to first cover the overage. Johnson asked the overage. Bendon answered it was 750 square feet. Johnson stated that was only created because the bonuses were taken away, correct. Bendon explained that between 1999 and 2002 where there were 2 bonuses for ADUs; one for detached ADUs that provided 50% bonus and the other was for mandatory occupancy. Bendon said there were 3 mandatory occupancy ADUs created and this was the only one occupied. Bendon said in 2002 the bonuses were taken away and the only way to ensure the ! 00% bonus was if the ADU was sold through the housing lottery system. Johnson asked by simply selling this ADU to the family that was living there was insufficient without a TDR. Bendon replied that was correct. Public Comments: Lynn and daughter, who live in this ADU, were present. Kaufman stated that when this unitwas legally built it was mandatory rental. Kaufman stated that this code change would allow this ADU to expand' and continue to house this family. Bob Staradoj, public, asked if there had ever been a case where an ADU on Site has been sold. Bendon replied no; the community was looking.for the first one to be sold. Bendon added if the ADU were sold the property owner would gain a 100% of the FAR, which was exempt and the property owner gains an additional 50% FAR bonus. David Hoefer reiterated that the commission was not dealing with 'a specific case for this code amendment. Bert Myrin, public, stated that the code that Jack and Chris spoke about gave an incentive to the employee Side and what was presented tonight was from the employee side not the owner side. Myrin reiterated what Chris stated for the bonuses. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes- October 05, 2004 John Rowland stated that he was in favor of this code change and the only negative aspect was administrative for staff; he said that staff could handle the challenge. Steve Skadron shared John's thoughts considering the restrictions placed on the economics on the property and there was a viable argument for this but Skadron also shared Jack's concern of getting this done under the .current code rather than actually changing the code. Jack Johnson stated 3 issues: there were. ways that this could be done for this family under the .existing code; this code change was'in the best interest for this applicant but not for the city and voiced concerned about the TDR sending and receiving sites. Brandon Marion mirrored Jack's no vote because of the far- reaching effect on the entire city. Ruth Kruger asked how long the historic TDR program has been in existence and the number of applications to date. Bendon replied it has been in place for about 7 months and there was one application pending. Kruger said that the vote on this code change wouldn't diminish a program that wasn't being utilized. Kruger did not see a problem with this application and P&Z would look at' each application for these types of situations. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve Resolution #30, 2004 recommending approval of a code amendment to ,~ermit expansion of non- conforming structures; seconded by Steve Skadron. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Skadron, no; Johnson, no; Marion, no; Kruger, yes. DENIED 3-2. Bendon asked the commission if there was a particular element of this code amendment that if it were different then you would support it. Marion replied he liked the concept of giving FAR to affordable housing but wanted a more comprehensive plan than the one presented. Johnson said it would have to be a last resort .otherwise more big houses were being created and Johnson wanted the Historic TDR Program to prove itself prior to creating another TDR program. Chris Bendon introduced Chris Lee the new planner. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT 1, ODEN LOT SPLIT STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for the Stream Margin Review for Lot of the Oden Lot Split. David Hoefer said that the notice was received and the requirements have been 'met; the commission had jurisdiction to proceed. James Lindt stated that the Stream Margin Review was to determine the top of slope; Lot 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes - October 05, 200~. 1 was adjacent to Red Mountain Road with Hunter Creek along the north side of the property. A survey showed the top of slope at the elevation of 7870. Lindt utilized a drawing to illustrate the top of slope. Staff agreed with the top of slope from the survey. Lindt said that a stream margin review would be sought after the house was designed. Bob Staradoj, applicant, stated that walking on the site made it easy to determine the top of slope. Lindt said that there were several photos of the property. Jack Johnson asked about the fisherman's easement. Lindt replied that the fisherman's easement couldn't be required any longer; the code was changed to encourage a fisherman's easement. No public comments. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve Recsolution #31 for a stream margin review request to establish Hunter Creek's top of slope at the elevation of · 7,870feet above sea level on Lot 1, of the Oden Lot Split, with the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall apply for another stream margin review to construct a residence on the subject site since this stream margin review approval simply establishes Hunter Creek's top of slope as it relates to the development of the subject site. 2. The Applicant shall record an amended plat at the ?itkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office that reconfigures the building envelope on the Subject parcel in a manner that would make the north and west sides of the building envelope follow Hunter Creek's top of sl{>pe as established herein. 3. As a condition of any future stream margin review application on this site, the Applicant shall be required to erect silt fence and construction fencing at the top of slope determined herein. Seconded by Jack Johnson. Roll call vote: Skadron, yes; Rowland, yes; Johnson, yes; Marion, yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 707 E. HYMAN CONDITIONAL USE FOR COMMERCIAL PARKINC LOT Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for a commercial parking lot at 707 East Hyman. David Hoefer stated that 2 affidavits of notice were provided and the commission had jurisdiction to proceed. James Lindt noted this was located in the office zone district located between the Hannah Dustin building and Benedict Commons Affordable Housing, the site was formerly known as Park Place. Lindt stated the applicant proposed a commercial 19 space surface level parking lot accessed off East Hyman and closed the alleyway access. The conditional use was for the 5 spaces in addition to the off-street parking requirements for the site (Hannah Dustin). The applicant proposed landscape screening for the Benedict Cornmons building and to remove the gate. There would be a wrought iron fence ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMiSSION-Minutes - October 05, 2004 with a chain between the posts around the perimeter of the property. Staff felt the site plan should be flipped so that access was from the alley rather than East Hyman; environmental health wanted PM-10 mitigation. Staff Suggested dust suppressant on the gravel once a year. · Lindt said that chain was not an acceptable fence material and was a condition of approval to meet the land use code recommended fence materials. Staff did not recommend approval. Stan Clauson, representative for the applicant, utilized maps. and draWings to illustrate the location and stated the site has been used for parking for over 20 years with the entrance off ofHyman. Clauson noted that Peter Fornell removed the A- Frame building and graded the parking lot. Mr. Fornell worked With the Parks Department to install street trees on Hyman. Clauson did not agree with staff on the materials and what the code provides or doesn't provide on parking. Clauson said Mr. Fornell wanted to establish the conditional use as a commercial parking lot accessory to the Hannah Dustin Building. Clauson stated that this was presented as parking to the general public with monthly leased tenants. Clauson stated this was not a PUD application but a conditional use apPlication. Clauson 'noted the resolution provided 7 conditions and this was not a chain-link.fence. ' Lindt clarified that the conditional use was for the spaces (3-4) above what 'was required for the Hannah Dustin Building. · Brandon Marion asked if the fence that was currently on site was what the proposed fence would look like. Peter Fornell replied that was the fence other than what will be used for the last few units of the Benedict commons. Steve Skadron asked the applicant if this was laying the groundwork for something grandeur at a later time. Fornell disputed that; this was an alternative use to the application. Clauson stated this application represented a full utilization of the site. Fornell noted there was litigation pending on the last application. Jack Johnson stated that since 15 or 16 spaces were needed for the Hannah Dustin Building parking mitigation the applicant could just plan for that many spaces and never come before P&Z for a conditional use. Lindt replied that was correct: : Johnson asked how many cars utilized the lot when the A-Frame was still there. Fornell answered it wasn't very organized but anywhere from 20 to 24 cars; sometimes 3-4 cars would have to move to get a car out. Kroger asked Stan what PM-10 wz~s. Clauson answered it was particulate matter ten microns or less, which isa fine dust. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes - October 05, 200d Public Comments: 1. Mike Hoffman, public, stated that he was a local attorney representing the Bell Mountain Residences Condominium Association. Hoffman distributed a letter. Hoffman stated Bell Mountain residents opposed the Park Place project because of the rear yard setback and height variances; they also felt it 'was the wrong use in that location. Hoffman asked if it was fair to impose a disproportionate amount of parking on this site and neighborhood when there has been no master planning for this area. Hoffman reminded the commission of the 15-foot setback in the Office Zone District. 2. Herb Klein, public, attorney for the 700 East Hyman Condominiums noted the code section that he cited in his letter 26.710.180 C5 a commercialparking lot is a conditional use that is independent of required off-street .parking. Klein said there were problems with gravel, headlights, lighting, hours of operation and employee generation to check the lot. 2. Hanna Pevny, public, stated that she was thepresident of the Aspen Chamber Resort Association and supported this project including the entrance on Hyman. Pevny said that parking was a huge issue in this community and a lot depends on tourism; about 75 % of the non-winter visitors come by car from the 2000 study. 3. .Fred Martell, public, stated that there was no question that Aspen needs parking but this was not the 'answer. Martell said the sound of gravel when there is no other noise is very disturbing; if this is approved it must be paved and the plan should be flipped so the entrance is in the alley. Martell said that during the day this street was busy but at night it was very quiet; he voiced concern about someone finding the manager of the parking lot in the evening to get out of the lot. Martell said this was not the proper area for this parking facility. MOTION: Jack Johnson' moved to continue the public hearing for 707 East Hyman Conditional Use for a Commercial Parking Lot and the Aspen Consolidated Sani'tation District PUD Master Plan to October 12tt~,· seconded by John Rowland. ALL IN FA VOR, MOTION APPR 0 VED. Meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.