Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20041207 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - December 07, 2004 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF 1NTEREST ..............................................................2 SOLDNER/BURLINGAME RANCH PROPERTY INITIAL CITY ZONING .................. 2 SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS .................................................................................................. 2 FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION ............................................................................................. 2 · 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING ................................................................................... 6 LITTLE AJAX CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL SPA AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE REQUESTS ............................................................................................................ 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - December 07~ 2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Members Brandon Marion, Jack Johnson, Dylan Johns, John Rowland, Ruth Kruger and Jasmine Tygre were present. Steve Skadron arrived at 6:00pm. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, James Lindt, Chris Lee, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Chris Bendon said December 14th would be a work session with P&Z in the City Manager's Office. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Steve Skadron was conflicted on the Fox Crossing. PUBLIC HEARING: SOLDNER/BUREINGAME RANCH PROPERTY INITIAL CITY ZONING This hearing was closed. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (10/19): SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for the Sign Code Amendments. MOTION.. Jack Johnson moved to continue the Sign Code Amendments to January 18, 2005; seconded by Brandon Marion. All in favor; Approved 6-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (11/16/04, 11/30/04): FOX CROSSING SUBDIVISION Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on Fox Crossing. Chris Bendon stated at the last meeting the commission requested the language in the resolution be amended and added additional direction on the code amendments. Bendon said there was an economic advantage to be able to move TDRs around in a subdivision and as an advantage to preserving historic structures. The second code amendment was the development right for preserving an open space parcel; Bendon said this was an important goal and should go forward to city council regardless of what happens with Camilla's application. Preserving open space was a goal and another tool for the city. Bendon said language was changed in the resolution to require affordable housing mitigation in Section 3; Sections 4 and 5 were specifically for Camilla's project. Bendon noted that the remaining question was if other developers might find the code amendment interesting; since 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - December 07~ 2004 then Bendon received a call from a private planner regarding a property owner contemplating doing an open space preservation but they need development rights to be able to do this. Bendon stated the traffic safety advisory committee did meet (a memo was included in the commissions' mail boxes). The memo from the TSAC did not like the bollards; the Walnut Street extension connecting to Lone Pine and the adequacy of Race Alley and Race Street. Bendon said TSAC said to either widen Race Alley and Street to a 30-foot right-of-way or make the streets one-way with a sidewalk on one side and for Race to continue to Lone Pine. Bendon said the obligation was to review if the proposal met the standards. Bendon said that widening Race Alley would not be a very popular idea; he included the designation of Race Alley as one-way with a sidewalk on one side of the alley. Bendon stated the applicant was aware of the deed-restrictions on Aley Park. Bendon noted that Nick Adeh was present; Adeh was on the traffic safety advisory committee. Camilla Auger stated that Phil Overyender requested a second water line, which was done. Auger said that they will do a passive park at Aley Park with gardens. Auger said the issue of connecting Spruce Street with Lone Pine would not lessen any traffic on Spruce Street but would make a short cut through the project, which would make the historic preservation and preservation of the park not possible. Auger said there were several letters and Hunter Creek Condominiums objecting to the street going through; this would require taking out 50 trees and increase traffic. Auger said there are currently 7 full-time working resident tenants on this property (Walnut and Race Alley) and once the project goes forward most of the people will be second homeowners so there would be a reduction in traffic. Letters placed into the record were from Bill Stifling and Dawnette Smith, The Renters of Walnut Street LLC, John Erspamer and Marcia Poutous, Ward and Mimi Hauenstein, Mark Hesselschwerdt, Colleen Burrows, Lisa Thurston, Jon Busch, Martha Cochran, Parks Department, Dale Will, Clurie Bennis, Larry Griffith and the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC). Nick Adeh, city engineer, stated there were tremendous concerns regarding the subdivision and the re-configuration of the subdivision prompted the need to take this proposal to the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee. Adeh said that as proposed it meets the bare bone minimum for traffic movement with the exception of the need to widen Walnut Street to fit the public water loop in that easement; there was a suggestion to make Spruce Street connecting to Lone Pine 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - December 07, 2004 through this subdivision, which would provide street entrances for all of the lots. Adeh said the minimum was 20 feet for Walnut Street with two-way traffic and Race Street would be one-way because of the width. Adeh said the National Fire Marshall requires a minimum width for one-way travel (restricted by walls of buildings) be 20 feet. Public Comments: 1. Jon Busch, public, supported the application as submitted. Busch said that sidewalks should be deferred to a later time and he would add a paved trail through the open space to connect to Walnut Street for a better pedestrian walkway. 2. Bill Stirling, public, said that he helped the developer assemble these lots over the course of 3 years and he manages the existing rental properties on this parcel. Stirling supported keeping Race two-way because it lends character, charm and country feeling to the neighborhood. Stirling said about 60% of the property in Aspen is owned by absentee or second homeowners, which would probably be true for this project once it is purchased. Stirling said keeping Race two-way would keep it from becoming a short-cut. Stirling said this subdivision with the open space no longer gives that lot line to lot line feeling and creates a connector for the upper and lower trails. Stirling said the neighbors have been extremely helpful for the project. Stirling said the density in this subdivision was much less than the density that was in most neighborhoods; he said this was a great opportunity for the town with long-range benefits. 3. Patti Clapper, public, voiced concern over the one-way of Race Alley and the traffic flow. Clapper supported the trail. 4. Dave Harris, public, stated he lived across the alley from this project and he counted 19 houses in the neighborhood currently and this doubled the neighborhood. Harris stated as a subdivision it should have access within itself with streets contained. Dylan Johns asked about Exhibit C regarding the Historic TDR Landing sites and the total number of floor area per unit in the subdivision and how it worked. Bendon replied the total number of TDRs that can be used within the subdivision could not be more than what could have been used before the code amendment, which was Exhibit C. Bendon said there were 19 residences, which 2 were historic, so there would be an eligibility of landing 17 TDRs in that subdivision without a code amendment. Hoefer stated that only 8 lots could have 2 TDRs. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - December 07~ 2004 Brandon Marion commented that Camilla did not previously reveal that access had been granted to the Hunter Way parcel and contradicted what the applicant said in a previous meeting and at the November 30, 2004 meeting it was brought up. Marion said this caused him great concern for the integrity of the planning and zoning process and the Fox Crossing proposal but he will continue to look at the project fairly and cast his vote on the merits of the project. Marion asked who owned the land currently. Camilla Auger replied 4 unrelated investors that lived in Texas. Marion asked how they can approve the project if Race Street is not adequate. Hoefer replied that was part of the subdivision; it would have to be brought into compliance by either making the street one-way or widening the street. Hoefer noted on page 9 of the Resolution the applicant could do either one; P&Z could recommend one over the other. Marion asked how the 3 TDRs were proposed in exchange for the Hunter Way parcel. Bendon responded that was largely from the comments from Open Space and fits within current zoning; roughly it was the same amount of square footage and an opportunity for the city. Bendon said there was no scientific method. Jack Johnson requested that the allocations be brought up at the work session for discussion. Tygre agreed because the amendment troubled her as well. Tygre said the criteria could be very specific in terms of evaluation for guidelines. Johnson stated the project was complicated but a great project. Johnson said the beauty of it was the meadow and the trail running through it connecting with Oklahoma Flats and Hunter Creek. Johnson said the connection between Spruce and Lone Pine gets in the way of the beauty of the project and would negatively impact the park idea. Johnson said Race Alley should remain two-way but he would vote for the resolution as written. Johns said that it has been shown that there were multiple options for Race Alley. Johns agreed with Johnson on the connection between Spruce and Lone Pine negatively affecting this subdivision. Kruger agreed with Johns on supporting the resolution with the 2 options for Race. John Rowland asked about the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee's recommendations. Adeh replied that it was not just about traffic but also the utility easement comdor, which would mean the corridor had to meet the requirements of 20 feet. Rowland said he was comfortable with the subdivision and it met the character of the East End. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - December 07~ 2004 Tygre stated that she would abstain from voting on this resolution and suggested the code amendment be taken out of the resolution; she said it would be a lot cleaner and future applications development rights would be addressed separately. Hoefer stated that through the public notice process this code amendment was part of the project but in the future the code amendments should be separate and prior to the project application. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve Resolution #33 and recommend City Council approve Fox Crossing and the associated Land Use Amendments with the addition of the solidification of the trail through the park; seconded by ,lack Johnson. Roll call vote: Kruger, yes; Rowland, yes; Johns, yes; Johnson, yes; Marion, yes; Tygre, abstain. Motion carried 5-0. C ONT1NUED PUBLIC HEARING (11 / 16): 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the rezoning of 1201 Riverside Drive. David Hoefer stated this was a continued public hearing and notice had been provided on November 16th. James Lindt explained that Dale Hower submitted this application to rezone the property at 1201 Riverside Drive from R-15 to R-6; P&Z is the recommending body to City Council on this action. Lindt provided the history of the property; the applicant designed 2 residences for this property based on the R-6 Zone District (because the zoning map had shown this property was in the R-6 zone district in 1990). Lindt said the zoning map was in error because the property was actually zoned R-15; the applicant then sued the city. There was an agreement to rezone the property; two smaller houses would probably be built on this site rather than one large single-family house. The rezoning would remove the non-conforming status and all the property to the north was zoned R-6. Staff recommended approval. Dylan Johns asked if the net effect allows for a duplex but reduces FAR. Lindt replied that is correct. Jack Johnson asked if this was the only non-conforming R-15 lot in that subdivision. Lindt replied that it was not. No public comments. Brandon Marion asked if there would be an access problem if it were a duplex rather than a single-family. Lindt replied that it was off the culd-de-sac and the ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - December 07~ 2004 agreement with the neighbor was not to share a drive any longer, so the access was split off. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution (419 recommending City Council approve the proposed rezoning application to allow for the property at 1201 Riverside Drive, Lots 6-9, and a portion of the alley, Block 24, Riverside Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen, to be rezoned from R-15 Zone District to R-6 Zone District. Seconded by Dylan Johns. Roll call vote: Marion, yes; Skadron, yes; Johnson, yes; Johns, yes; Rowland, yes; Tygre, yes; Kruger, yes. Motion carried 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING: LITTLE AJAX CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL SPA AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE REQUESTS Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Little Ajax. David Hoefer stated that the notice was provided but it was lacking the mailing list. Joe Wells would provide the City Clerk's Office the mailing list on December 08th. James Lindt stated the application was submitted by Burton Kaplan and Peter Gluck for the approval of a consolidated PUD, Subdivision and Rezoning as well as several other associated land use requests to construct 16 affordable housing units on Lots 1 and 2 of the Little Ajax Subdivision. P&Z was the recommending body. Lindt said this was Phase 2 of a two-phase development proposal that was established through a pre-annexation agreement, which the applicant entered into with the city. Phase 1 was 3 single-family lots adjacent to Hopkins Avenue at the base of Shadow Mountain. Lindt described the site with the aid of a map showing the 3-lot subdivision; a Conservation Easement was purchased for Lot 3 and allows the Midland Trail to extend across for public recreation. The proposed development was on Lots 1 and 2 with 16 affordable housing units in a horseshoe configuration including 15 3- bedrooms and 1 2-bedroom, category 4, sale units with 25 parking spaces tucked under the building with storage units. The elevation drawing showed a two-story front off of West Hopkins; the back ½ of the building was 3 stories with a proposed maximum height of 35 feet (measured from the interior courtyard). The total FAR was .9 4 to I. Staff believed the use was compatible with the neighborhood; it fits into the mix of uses and the dimensional requirements were consistent with other buildings in the neighborhood. The parking ratio was 1.56 per unit with proposed auto disincentives. Lindt said the park impact fees must be decided by P&Z and City Council. The applicant believes this fee should be waived because of the conservation easement ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - December 07, 2004 on Lot 3 given to the city at a discounted price. Housing requested more diversity in the categories of the units. The applicant said in order to do so, there would be greater subsidy required from the city (currently the city will subsidize at $72,000.00 per bedroom). Staffbelieved these were quality units; the units were around 1200 square feet each and the 2-bedroom unit was about 900 square feet. The project does not encroach onto Shadow Mountain. Joe Wells asked Charlie Kaplan to present. Wells asked for a vote tonight. Charlie Kaplan stated this began in 1999; with the help of the community the development the project has come down Shadow Mountain keeping the upper parcel as open space. Kaplan provided a model of the project with a modified courtyard form. There were 5 different buildings, which created townhouse units with the parking below and party walls that went all the wayto the garage for privacy. Kaplan said the 2-story roofline went up at the end and created a nice profile and street-presence. The perforated cuts that go through the buildings were actually circulation spines that provide view corridors through the buildings tO Shadow Mountain; the circulation is provided by a set of stairs to the second level and then straight back to the (hopeful) conservation trail. Kaplan said the second level was the circulation level and the first was the courtyard level. There was a covered and enclosed trash area; a mailroom and mechanical room. There was a mechanical room in each building. The units that had living spaces on one floor and bedrooms on another for circulation in the living spaces centered on the open space. Ruth Kruger asked if the building materials were decided upon. Kaplan said the colored section would be concrete board or stained cedar; the middle band would be storefront glass or paneling systems with a lot of transparency. John Rowland asked how category 4 was decided upon. Kaplan answered after talking with Council they suggested presenting different options or levels of subsidy for different category units. Wells said the Housing Board suggested 2 alternatives - one a greater subsidy to create a better mix or a wider range without an increase of subsidy. Lindt stated that increasing the subsidy was a council decision. Steve Skadron asked if there was blacktop around the planted area. Kaplan responded that blacktop was being considered and the strips will be delineated with a pattern in the blacktop that could still be plowed because they were important architecturally. 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - December 07, 2004 Skadron asked how the trails easements work and if they were permanent. Lindt replied the applicant has put up a temporary trail easement on the East side of the property to access the Midland Trail down to the West Hopkins Trail. The City is looking to purchase a conservation easement on Lot 3 to continue the Midland Trail, which would be a public trail. Skadron said that West Hopkins was a pedestrian trail in the summer and what impact would this development have on that trail. Lindt responded that there would be an increase in traffic but they don't think it would be so considerable to change the character of West Hopkins. Johnson asked for a chart that included the R- 15 zoning and the parking requirement. Lindt replied there was not a chart included and this would be rezoned to AH PUD but R-15 was 2 parking spaces per units of greater than 2 bedrooms. Johnson asked what parking for lodges was. Lindt replied .7 per lodge bedroom. Johnson asked the applicant their position regarding the school impact fees. Kaplan replied they feel that this was a joint effort with the city and were not counting on all the fees. Wells responded that this was a free-market lot valued at about 1.7 million dollars giving the city the conservation easement at 1.1 million and felt justified in the two values with the park dedication fees around $57,000. Kaplan said the appraisal was 2.1 million on Lot 3. Johnson asked for the school impact fees. Lindt said it was based on the assessed value of the property. Kaplan noted that Lots 1 and 2 have not been appraised but if it would be appraised as an affordable housing development then the appraisal would be different than a free-market appraisal. Dylan Johns asked about the increased association dues linked to the number of cars and where would that money go. Lindt replied that was association monies used to maintain the property; the city would not get those fees. Johns asked about Laundry Facilities. Kaplan replied there was a hook-up for a washer/dryer in each unit. Johns asked the potential privacy issues from the trail or landscaping issues because of the openness of the project. Kaplan replied the landscape plan was provided and the landscaping provided some privacy; there would be many trees planted on Lot 3 to screen the project from the trail. Marion asked if the glass height would be an issue on Hopkins and if there was an issue with light coming out of the buildings. Kaplan replied that the glass wasn't specified yet. Lindt stated that there wasn't an issue but a condition in the resolution could state that non-reflective glass coating would be used. Kaplan stated that there will be some opaque panels in the system so it won't be pure glass. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - December 07~ 2004 Marion said that he was also concerned about the Hopkins Trail. Marion asked how the trail hook-ups would work. Brian Flynn, Parks Department, replied the there was no plan to change Hopkins but have added a laYer of pedestrian use disconnected from the road for both commuters and recreational users. Flynn said the plan was to add the trail on Lot 3 and would like to eventually gain easements all the way around Shadow Mountain towards the Music School as a recreational use trail. Lindt clarified even with the conservation easement the Midland Trail will still dead-end. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to extend the meeting to 7:15; seconded by Ruth Kruger. All in favor, motion carried. Kruger asked if there was any activity on Hans Graminger's property at the end of the block for additional traffic generation on Hopkins. Chris Bendon replied that there was nothing in Community Development. Jasmine Tygre asked the width of the spaces between the buildings. Kaplan replied 6 to 8 feet wide. Tygre said the underlying zone district was R-15. Lindt replied that was correct but the applicant was rezoning lots 1 and 2 Affordable Housing PUD. Tygre requested a chart of the underlying zoning with the changes to that zone district as proposed and to the surrounding Lodge with the requirements and PUD. Tygre stated that the P&Z would establish a project within the context of its surrounding areas in terms of dimensional requirements. Johnson agreed on the need for a chart. Lindt said that he would provide it. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to extend the meeting to 7:30; seconded by Dylan dohns. All in favor, motion carried. Public Comments: 1. Martha Madsen, public, stated she lived across the street from this project; she said the commission comments have been enlightening. Madsen voiced concern for the automobile traffic that this project would generate and West Hopkins was a heavily used pedestrian way and voiced concern for cars accumulating on the street. Madsen said there would be tremendous amounts of snow accumulating on that site and if there would be adequate turn around for the vehicles. 2. Donna Fischer, public, stated this was a very busy area with traffic and voiced concern that there was not enough parking for the project. Fischer said the snow removal would be costly and problematic. Fischer questioned the size of the storage provided because it was not always adequate and people used their 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - December 07~ 2004 garages for storage then parked on the streets. Fischer said there were many very good things about the project. 3. Hatly Dart, public, concerned for the increased cars to be parked up and down Hopkins. 4. Fred Uhler, public, questioned the need for more housing and if the trail in back would be maintained. Uhler was concerned for the tailings being destroyed or taken away. Kaplan said that the mine waste droppings were on the adjacent property. Johnson asked if that material had to be taken away and generally it was considered bad. Wells replied that it would be buried and capped and generally contained high contents of lead. Tygre asked if it was an environmental hazard. Wells replied that once it becomes air borne then it becomes an environmental issue. Kruger asked if the walkways between the buildings would be snow melted. Kaplan responded that they would be grated so the snow would not sit on the walkways and they also felt that the flat roofs were better in snow country rather than pitched roofs that dump snow onto walkways. Kaplan said that from an environmental standpoint they would rather not snowmelt the walkways. Tygre requested more details on the window treatments and since P&Z has spent so much time on the lighting ordinances she requested more detail on the lighting along the walkways and auto entrance. Skadron asked the restrictions placed on vehicular travel when a road is dedicated as a pedestrian throughway; what impact do the signs have. Lindt replied that he would look into it. Johnson asked why was Hopkins designated a pedestrian throughway. Johns requested information on snow storage, traffic generation and parking. Marion also had concerns about the traffic generation and parking allocation justification. Wells requested a special meeting to continue the public hearing. The commission did not think a quorum could be obtained for any more meetings in December. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing on Little Ajax Conceptual/Final PUD and associated land use requests to January 4th, 2005; seconded by Jack Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. ~ackie Lothian, I~eputy City Clerk 11