Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20050315ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes-MARCH 15, 2005 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS CODE AMENDMENTS ....................... 2 MOTHERLODE SUBSIVISION, SPECIAL REVIEW, GMQS EXEMPTIONS .. 4 LAUDER (860 ROARING FORK ROAD) SPECIAL REVIEW ............................ 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes-MARCH 15, 2005 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Aspen Planning and Zoning meeting in the Sister Cities meeting room. Commissioners Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns, Jack Johnson, Ruth Kruger, Brian Speck, John Rowland and Jasmine Tygre were present. Brandon Marion was excused. Staff in attendance were Sarah Oates, James Lindt, Chris Lee, Joyce Allgaier, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS James Lindt noted the next meeting on the Lodge at Aspen Mountain was scheduled for March 29th. Jasmine Tygre asked about the site visit. Lindt replied that the applicant could provide the superimposed drawings and if on-site visuals were still needed then staff would set up a site visit between the meeting on the 29th and the next meeting. Tygre stated this was important to the commission for the decision making process. MINUTES Jack Johnson moved to table and continue the approval of the minutes from February ]st and 22na to the next meeting; seconded by Ruth Kruger. All in favor, motion approved. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Ruth Kruger had a conflict on the Mother Lode. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS CODE AMENDMENTS Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Code Amendment. Sarah Oates provided the notice and said that staff was directed by constructive criticism from architects and other design practitioners. Oates stated the Residential Design Standards were originally adopted in 1994 in an attempt to reduce FAR; the idea was to create a set of standards that reduced massing of buildings. The standards were revised in 1999 after 5 years and have been tweaked periodically. Oates said there are now more changes addressing different parts of town and the community development director having the ability to grant variances. Oates said the traditional town site lots were eligible to ask for the three administrative variances but were required to meet all the standards. Several standards were eliminated for parcels not located in the infill area; the first was secondary mass, the second was non-orthogonal windows, and inflection, in its entirety. Lots with no street frontage were also eliminated and residential units within mixed use buildings were exempted. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes-MARCH 15~ 2005 Oates said that Administrative Variances were new in section 26.410.020(D). Oates stated that secondary mass was eliminated except for non-traditional lots; the width of secondary mass had to be between 6 and 12 feet. Oates said the current code allows an applicant to go to the Board of Adjustment if them were just asking for Residential Design Standard Variance, which will change with this code amendment so that the applicant would consolidate the application instead of just the Residential Design Standards. No public comments. The commission questioned how the 3 variances were chosen and the number to be an administrative decision. The commission asked if these three variances would encourage more variance requests. The commission agreed with the neighborhood delineation, window placement and structure placement on the lot for administrative review. The commission voiced concern for the type of variances granted by the community development director. There would be obvious choices on some variance requests but not on all. Dylan Johns said that during the pre-app with community development on the lot configuration and the hardship for the variances would be determined. Johns said that the number of variances that could be granted by the community development director was the question. Oates stated that during the pre-app with community development if an applicant asks for increased development outside the development envelope the applicant is told that cannot be approved by staff and must go for further review to the appropriate review board. Jasmine Tygre said that if it turns out that it looks like its going to be bad the commission could request modification. Ruth Kruger stated concern for the way this works. The commissioners requested a report on the variances granted by the community development director. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #11, series 2005, section 26.410 Residential Design Standards as proposed adding an annual report of variances approved by the community development director and removing Board of Adjustment from the first sentence; seconded by rack Johnson. Roll Call vote: Skadron, yes; Johns, yes; Rowland, yes; Speck, yes; Kruger, yes; Johnson, yes; Tygre, yes. Motion APPROVED 7-0. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes-MARCH 15~ 2005 PUBLIC HEARING: MOTHERLODE SUBSIVISION~ SPECIAL REVIEW~ GMOS EXEMPTIONS Jasmine Tygre opened the public heating for the Mother Lode Subdivision, Special Review and GMQS Exemptions. Sunny Vann submitted the affidavit and proof of notice. James Lindt stated that Regent Properties Inc. submitted the application for subdivision, GMQS Exemptions and Special Review for trash and utility facilities, affordable housing parking requirements and to pay cash-in-lieu for open space. Lindt said there would be a three-story addition to the Mother Lode building at 314 East Hyman; P&Z was the final review authority on the Special Review requests as well as the Growth Management exemption for the development of more that one free-market unit on the historic property. P&Z was the recommending body to City Council for the subdivision request as well as the growth management exemption request to develop affordable housing on the property. The addition to the building will have a basement, which contains storage and the restored first floor space would be commercial space of approximately 3,259 square feet and a 4 parking space garage (3 for the free market units and 1 for affordable housing). Lindt stated this was a historically designated building and HPC has granted conceptual HPC approval for the proposed addition and they granted a parking waiver for 4 on-site spaces. The commercial square footage was just replacement square footage and does not require employee housing mitigation; there was a growth management exemption for the addition of 1 free-market unit on a historic property without requiring employee housing mitigation and the 1 bedroom free market proposed on the second floor is mitigated by the 2 affordable units on the second floor. Lindt stated that subdivision approval was required because of the mixed use and staffbelieves that subdivision standards were met by the proposal. Lindt pointed out the P&Z decision issues on the Mother Lode proposal were: 1. Payment in lieu for the open space requirements was supported by staff and HPC; 2. The HPC recommendation for the on-site parking spaces was to waive the parking requirement to 4 spaces and allocate 3 of those spaces to the free-market units with 1 space allocated to the affordable housing. Staff recommended the affordable housing should have 1 parking space per unit because it was likely that those units would be occupied year round. 3. The Special Review to vary the trash area to 16 by 16 feet was recommended by staff and HPC. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes-MARCH 15, 2005 Sunny Vann introduced Doug Brown and Bill Poss. Vann said that James succinctly described the proposal and most of the approvals have been granted to date by HPC. Vann said the only section of the resolution they had trouble with was the parking garage. Vann said that HPC insisted on a street front fagade and eliminated the open space; there was a code amendment pending regarding the open space methodology by which the cash-in-lieu for open space is calculated. Vann noted this was one of the first commercial projects to come along in quite some time and be a viable project, which could not be accomplished in this location without that cash-in-lieu for the open space. Vann explained that the amount of required affordable housing was one and a half bedrooms and they were providing 2 on-site one-bedroom units. Vann said these two affordable units were located in the commercial core and were category 2 rental units. The affordable housing units will be owned by the owners association for the building and rented to qualified employees subject to the deed-restriction, which will encumber the two affordable units. Doug Brown said the project preserved one of the truly old western buildings in town with no variances being sought and was completely within the code. Tygre said that there were only the three issues to consider and the only issue in contention was the allocation of the four parking spaces. Brown said that they came in with a nice open space but HPC was clear that they did not want the open space but rather the building brought up to the street following the way that historic buildings were brought up to the street. Poss stated HPC required all the buildings to line the street line. Tygre stated that P&Z was not to decide if there should be open space or cash-in-lieu that decision was made by HPC. Vann replied that was correct but P&Z had to take action. Steve Skadron asked why HPC decreased the number of parking spots without requiring cash-in-lieu. Vann replied as an incentive or stimulate commercial re- development of historic structures the city council amended the code to grant the authority to HPC to waive any parking that could not (in their estimation) be provided on site. Skadron asked if this was the end of the MotherLode down the road. Brown replied that they wanted to continue the MotherLode Restaurant down the road as does the manager and other people; they want to call the commercial space of the project the MotherLode. Lindt clarified that there was no requirement to be maintained as a restaurant, it was. Skadron asked who Regent Properties were. Brown replied that he had 2 partners and they all live in Santa Monica; he has a house in Aspen on Hopkins that his family spends time here. Brown stated that he 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes-MARCH 15~ 2005 has retrofitted a lot of old buildings and won awards; they make the building work from a commercial prospective. Johnson asked how much of the patio would have been kept. Brown said about 17%. Johnson asked if the parcel next door was dedicated open space for the Wheeler. Vann said they had to pay the open space mitigation fee at the time of the building permit. Public Comments: 1. Rodney Jacobs, public, stated that he was president of the Wheeler Associates Board of Directors. Jacobs said the proximity from the Green Room, where performers who do not want to leave the building or for the Wheeler to fulfill obligations of contracts, to the Mother Lode Restaurant was very convenient. Skadron asked how severely the marketing effort would be impacted if the parking spots were not available. Brown replied that it would be arbitrary in the allocation of percentage and people need space to put their belongings; it would be a big strike against the project. The commissioners who agreed with staff were Johnson, Skadron and Johns who prefaced that he could see where the applicant was coming from. Rowland, Speck and Tygre agreed with the applicant on the parking allocation. Tygre said in this particular instance that the allocation that the applicant requested is reasonable. Johnson stated this was a great project and wished the applicant well. Johns asked if parking passes were available. Lindt replied that they were by showing a lease to the parking department. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve Resolution #12 as written with the parking allocation of 2 for the free-market and 2for the affordable housing. The motion died for lack of second. MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to approve Resolution #12 series 2005 amending the parking allocation to three (3)free-market units and one (1) affordable unit. John Rowland seconded. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Skadron, no; Johns, yes; Johnson, no; Rowland, yes; Ty'gre, yes. Motion carried, APPROVED 4-2. PUBLIC HEARING: LAUDER (860 ROARING FORK ROAD) SPECIAL REVIEW Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Lauder Special Review. The notice and affidavit was provided. Chris Lee said this special review was to 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -Minutes-MARCH 15~ 2005 expand the ADU on the Gary and Laura Lauder property represented by Alice Davis and Gideon Kaufman. Lee provided the history of this house, which was built in accordance with Ordinance #44, 1999 at that time ADU exemptions were offered at 50% if mandatory occupancy and 50% if detached from the main dwelling so none of the square footage counted for the ADU. In 2001 the city code was amended by Ordinance #40, 2001, which eliminated both exemptions. The next code amendment was Ordinance #53, 2003 that required all ADUs be above grade and detached; it created the allowable size for an ADU to be 1200 square feet instead of 800 square feet. Lee said the Lauder's ADU was expanded to put in some light wells, which increased the usable floor area for bedrooms downstairs for the children. This building was stopped due to the code changes and then the ADU has become non- compliant because they have gone over the FAR allowed. Lee stated that Ordinance 35, 2004 was adopted by city council in October of 2004, which allowed for expansion of floor area up to 500 square feet to a non-conforming ADU. Staff recommended approval. Alice Davis stated the expansion was only 120 square feet, not expanding the footprint of the ADU and not adding any bulk and mass. Davis said it was adding window wells, a rear covered porch on the main level and an enclosed stairwell with a little nook on the landing. Davis provided photos of this carriage house. No public comments. The commission and applicant discussed the TDRs, number of units available for this type of special review and mandatory occupancy deed-restrictions. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #13, series 2005 granting a special review approval to vary the ADU design standards to allow for additions to the ADU at 860 Roaring Fork Drive. Brian Speck seconded. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes; Johns, yes; Kruger, Johnson, yes; Speck, yes; Tygre, yes. Motion carried, APPROVED 7-0. ~/Jackie Lothian, l~puty City Clerk 7