Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20041130ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - November 30~ 2004 COMMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 2 MINUTES ...................................................................................................................................... 2 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST ................................................................ 2 FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION ............................................................................................... 2 SOLDNER/BURLINGAME RANCH PROPERTY INITIAL CITY ZONING .................... 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - November 30, 2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the special meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Members Dylan Johns, Jack Johnson, Brandon Marion and Jasmine Tygre were present. Ruth Kruger arrived at 4:40pm and Steve Skadron at 5:30pm. John Rowland was excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Chris Bendon reminded the commissioners about the boards and commissions party at the Wheeler on Thursday, December 2nd. Bendon mentioned the December 14th work session. Jasmine Tygre requested the commission to email the wish list to Chris. MINUTES Motion: Jack Johnson moved to approve the minutes from October 5, 2004 and November 02, 2004; seconded by Dylan Johns. All in favor. APPROVED 4-0. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Steve Skadron was conflicted on the Fox Crossing. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (11/16/04): FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on Fox Crossing. Tygre stated that it was not appropriate for her to vote at this time. Chris Bendon said the last meeting remaining issues were code amendments; the Hunter Valley Way parcel; to one-way of Race Alley and no reliance on county TDRs. Bendon said the way this was structured there was a growth management exemption, which allows the city to grant a developer growth management exemptions in exchange for a developer preserving an important open space parcel; it does not rely on the county TDRs whatsoever. There were 6 criteria for the parcel being preserved; it requires the P&Z and Open Space Advisory Board recommendations, (1) the strategic need for the parcel being preserved; (2) private land with preservation value, (3) proximity and visibility of the parcel to the City, (4) development rights associated with that parcel, (5) the proposed location of the receiving sites granted the exemption from growth management and (6) the legal encumbrance on the parcel by the City Attorney. Bendon explained Section 3 of the Resolution was the code amendment and Section 4 was the action that P&Z was taking on the Preservation. There were a recommended 3 development rights for the Hunter Valley Way parcel with 3 conditions. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - November 30, 2004 Bendon said that Section 5, the form of mitigation for accessory dwelling units, should not be required because the applicant was providing open space. Bendon said Section 13 speaks to the issue of Race Alley being one-way or two- way; the staff recommendation was for Race to become one-way. P&Z was charged with deciding if the subdivision met the standards. The fire marshall and city engineer did not think this subdivision met the standards because the infrastructure did not serve the site with the proper safety. Bendon said to widen the street would be difficult but the street could be made one-way. Bendon stated that P&Z wanted clarity on project benefits and illustrative plan showing setbacks and a roof plan of the neighborhood; no specific architecture was locked in at this time. Bendon noted the parcels were intended to be developed according to the zoning, which could change so the setbacks might change. Jack Johnson asked when the ADUs came to be a concern. Bendon said he mentioned it when the development rights were talked about. Johnson asked how was it written in the proposal. Bendon replied that it was silent. Brandon Marion asked for clarification on the mitigation. Bendon explained that the mitigation was for the exemption from growth management and as a benefit of being landmarked historic they do not have to provide an accessory dwelling unit. Bendon said if you look at the preservation parcel as the benefit to the community then you don't have to do anything more or they could be asked to provide housing mitigation through ADUs. Kruger asked if this had to go to housing. Bendon replied that it did not have to go in front of housing; if there were ADUs then they would be referred to the housing office for development. Bendon said that ifP&Z wanted to require ADUs Sections 3 and 5 would have to be amended to include between 8 and 11 mitigations. There were 3 development rights from the Hunter Way parcel. Bendon explained the code amendment in Section 2 was to allow 2 historic TDRs per residence provided it were within the same subdivision as opposed to what is allowed presently as 1 Historic TDR. Camilla Auger stated that a TDR was needed for other than a standard house. Auger said there was a checklist for the benefits, an illustration of what the setbacks and rooftops would look like and illustration of what the historic would look like, which has been through architectural review. Auger said the Hunter Valley Way was a key item because it preserved 10 acres of open space. Auger said the Aspen Valley Land Trust would be an irrevocable conservation easement over Hunter Valley Way therefore insuring the open space. Auger said the trail hookup would make it possible for the Rio Grande Trail to hook up to the Hunter 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - November 30, 2004 Valley. Auger said the road goes onto where the old railroad was aligned. They were providing a looped water main from Walnut and sprinklers for every house even though the houses were significantly smaller houses than what was required for sprinklered houses. The sightline would be improved at the Walnut and Gibson intersection; widening Race Street and providing neighborhood parking. Auger said if they couldn't leave Race Alley, as it is then it will become one-way and the development was without any requested variances. Gilbert Sanchez, architect, stated the impetus for all of this was the preservation of the Angie Griffith Victorian and the adjacent cabins, which forms the central core of the property. HPC approved a 2-story addition and a garage to the Victorian; the combined cabins would be moved onto one lot with a one-story addition. Sanchez said that any development will comply with the underlying R-6 zoning including the setbacks, which were illustrated on the drawing delineated in two- tones of green with the darker green outside the setbacks. The setbacks were 10- foot minimum front and rear yard with a total of 30 and the side yards also have 10-foot minimums because the lots were annexed after 1989, which the proposal will comply with all of those setbacks. The buildings will comply with the residential design standards; the garages will be setback 10 feet from the front faCade. Marion asked about the fire department request for the hammerhead turn around. Bendon answered the radii around the comers was of concern but now the Walnut connection goes through to Lone Pine. Bendon said the preservation of the meadow was a public park. Auger said the homeowners maintained the park. Marion said the trail stopped at the park in the picture. Auger replied that it would continue. Bendon said Section 9 in the resolution regarding this trail easement. Marion asked about the times the park was open and if it should be addressed in the easement language. David Hoefer responded that the language would include the ownership, use and maintenance responsibilities. Auger said the park itself was under the historic preservation so it had a specific boundary. Johnson asked about the question of fencing and could language be added to say that there would be no fences in the meadow to obstruct the view. Auger replied that was certainly the intention. Johnson requested board support to add language that fences could not obstruct the view from the historic properties. Sanchez stated that any fences built would have to satisfy HPC requirements; front yard fences could only be 36 inches high. Marion noted that historic structures could have 6-foot high fences in the back. A section would be added to the resolution regarding the fence size limitation for the meadow area. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - November 30, 2004 Public Comments: 1. Colleen Burrows, public, read her letter into the record, which voiced · concern about the traffic management, especially the impacts of South Street. Burrows said the developer needed to have the streets contained internally in the subdivision and go out onto Lone Pine. Burrows said there was a traffic study done before Williams Ranch and Williams Way that acknowledged South Street as a bad spot. Burrows requested that South, Walnut and Spruce Streets be looked at again. Burrows said there were some really nice things done by the developer but the lots on the north end could be reduced in size for the interior roads; there were ways that this developer could avoid pushing traffic onto the outlying streets, which were already impacted. Burrows said that the traffic committee hasn't been heard from. 2. Gretchen Greenwood, public, supported Colleen's comments; she said that she lived and worked on Walnut Street in a historic cabin. Greenwood obtained a parking variance and her property abutted this property. Greenwood stated that this project was not bringing a lot of amenities to this neighborhood; there was a significant grade change in this neighborhood. Greenwood asked if the project could be accessed from Lone Pine; she said that making Race Alley one-way was absurd. Greenwood said it was the Planning and Zoning's job to alleviate the traffic. 3. Marcia Poutous, public, stated that she lived on Spruce Street and Camilla has contacted people in the neighborhood. Poutous hoped that Race Alley would remain 2-way because the residences that now exist have the option of exiting off of Race or Spruce; if Race Alley is made one-way then all the traffic would exit onto Spruce, which would be bad. Auger said the lowest development was on Spruce Street; she said there would be minimal amount of cars generated onto Spruce Street from this project. Auger said they have met with the traffic committee and the fire department; they have re- designed to fit the fire department requirements. Sanchez said there was on site parking with the lots having deep driveways allowing for additional off-street parking in addition to inside the garage. There was additional parking on Spruce Street in the Jon Busch parking area. Sanchez said the character of the park was passive with one of elements of trails and parks was preservation; this was a place to discover but not a destination park. Marion asked if the city engineer and police chief had comments on this project. Bendon said they were asked if it met the city standards; their response was there ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - November 30, 2004 was a deficit with Race Alley (either widen or make one-way). Marion asked if Lone Pine incorporated parking or was it a no parking street. Bendon replied no parking because the cart way was 16 feet. Marion asked about Aley Park and who pays for that maintenance. Bendon replied that could be included. Hoefer noted it could be added to Section 9. Marion asked who Aspen Valley Land Trust was. Bendon replied they were a land preservation non-profit; they hold either title or easements to land in open space preservation. Johnson asked what was it about the Aspen Valley Land Trust in the way that it was set up that would make all of this irrevocable. Bendon answered that the AVLT holds an easement so they become a part landowner; in order to remove that easement you have to get the AVLT approval and their sole mission is to preserve land in perpetuity. Bendon said that having multiple parties having a say in the preserved property made it more difficult to remove the easement. Marion asked if this code amendment for TDRs had to have the sending and receiving sites in the same subdivision. Bendon replied that was correct; the west end could not take advantage of this code amendment. Marion asked if this Hunter Valley Way parcel was a potential development site. Bendon replied that it was a potential development site with access issues but it could have a development right of one house with 5,750 square feet. Bendon said the access wasn't a planning issue but a legal one. Auger said the access has been granted legally so that the investors could be given a tax incentive. Marion asked where the access was given and questioned the parcel's access. Auger replied she gave the access to the Hunter Valley Way parcel because that was the only way that the parcel could be obtained; no compensation was given for the access. Marion asked how Community Development came up with the number of development rights from the Hunter Valley Way parcel. Bendon replied that it came from recommendations from the Open Space Committee and the benefits from preserving that parcel outweighed the development rights given. Hoefer stated Sections 3, 5, 9 and 13 were for discussion as well as the general merits of the project. Tygre stated that the resolution would have to be re-done and David's suggestion to review the Sections and merits. Johnson complimented the project and the illustrative plans really were helpful. Johnson stated that he was troubled by code amendments for particular projects in general because of the unintended consequences therefore he wanted a better understanding of the consequences of the code language, which was procedural. Kruger stated it was an admirable job putting together an extremely complicated project but the ultimate goal was to preserve that parcel. Kruger said that she did 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - November 30~ 2004 not like the code amendment method but P&Z had the fight and responsibility when other projects with these code amendments come forward to review those projects. Kruger said that the devbloper has moved forward in way over and above what the fire department and police department have required for traffic circulation. Kruger said that with the changes to the resolution she intended to approve the project. Dylan Johns agreed that amending the code for specific projects can be tough; he said that the Hunter Valley Way parcel by itself would achieve a lot of community benefit and would not even need the rest of the project. Johns said if the subdivision was large enough to handle the Historic TDR then it would eliminate a lot of properties. Johns said the subdivision was no less or more dense than the surrounding area and this was probably a more attractive plan that if left for these parcels to be developed individually. Johns said the access points were consolidated by the subdivision and it was a lot safer to go out onto Spruce; he said there were a limited number of houses. Johns did think that P&Z should be re- configuring streets to create arterial roadways as long as the street met the governing bodies guidelines. Johns said he was in favor of the subdivision. Kruger said the waiver of the 3 ADUs should be kept because of the neighborhood traffic. Johns said that they should keep the 3 ADUs because he did not want another loophole in the code. Marion said he was very uncomfortable with the development of that property (Hunter Way) has been made possible by the developer; he felt this was a poor way to bring in a project saying that it could be built on but we hope that we can save it. Marion said bringing in the 3 development rights and getting fid of the ADU concept to maximize the value of the property for the developer was asking for a little bit too much. Tygre summarized that 3 of the commissioners were in favor of the project; there was a split on the code amendments; the employee mitigation was the ADUs or cash-in-lieu along with the number; clarification of the language on Section 9; and Section 13 the street configuration. Tygre asked ifP&Z would see this project in any form again if approved. Hoefer replied that it would not come back to P&Z. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to extend the meeting for 15 minutes; seconded by rack Johnson. All in favor; Approved 6-0. Bendon noted there were substantive changes to the resolution. Hoefer said that Jasmine and John could vote if they reviewed the minutes. Tygre said that she 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - November 30~ 2004 wanted to see the complete document. Bendon and Hoefer agreed that the substantive language should be clearly stated in the resolution. Bendon explained that the FAR should not be in the resolution because the zoning could change. Tygre said the code amendment would be discussed again as well as the mitigation; she said by exploring all the issues, it would allow for the project to be passed on with a positive approval. Auger said that this was the simplest way was by combining all code amendments. Auger said that they were willing to give up the exemptions on the ADUs if that would make it more comfortable; if P&Z wanted to dispose of that code amendment and do whatever ADU requirements P&Z chose. Auger explained the Hunter Valley Way parcel would have been developed if they had not purchased it; they did what was necessary to satisfy the investors. Sanchez asked if there were problems with the Historic TDR code amendment or was it just the mitigation code amendment. Kruger replied the commission did not like a code amendment coming in with a specific application just to make the application work. Kruger said the commission knew how this particular code amendment worked but asked how does it affect other properties. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing on Fox Crossing to December 07th. Seconded byJackJohnson. All in favor. APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: SOLDNER/BURLINGAME RANCH PROPERTY INITIAL CITY ZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Property Initial City Zoning. MOTION: Jack.Johnson moved to continue the public hearing on the Soldner/Burlingame Ranch Property Initial City Zoning to December 07th; seconded by Ruth Kruger seconded. All in favor. APPROVED 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 8