Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20050719ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - July 19~ 2005 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2 SNYDER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PUD AMENDMENT ............... 2 HYMAN AVENUE APARTMENTS CONDOMINIUMS, SUBDIVISION & GMQS ....................................................................................................................... 6 HISTORIC pRESERVATION CODE AMENDMENT 26.415 AND 26.420 ........ 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - July 19, 2005 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting in Council Chambers at 4:30 p.m. Commission Members Brian Speck, Brandon Marion, Dylan Johns, Steve Skadron and Jasmine Tygre were present. Ruth Kruger and John Rowland were excused. Staff in attendance were Jennifer Phelan, Chris Bendon and James Lindt, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Steve Skadron complimented the city on the signage on the pathways in town. Jasmine Tygre asked if the Zupancis property was purchased with housing funds. Joyce Allgaier would look into it. Tygre stated that was an excellent location for infill housing. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST John Rowland rescued himself on the Snyder Affordable Housing PUD Amendment and the Hyman Avenue Condominiums, Subdivision and GMQS. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/05/05): SNYDER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PUD AMENDMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Snyder Affordable Housing PUD Amendment. Notice was provided at the July 5th public heating. James Lindt stated this was a public hearing to finish out 8 of the 1-bedroom unit basements. P&Z is the recommending body to City Council. Lindt said the background on the project was constructing 15 Affordable Housing Units on the East side of Midland Avenue; 6 3-bedroom units and 9 1-bedroom units. The 1-bedroom units were originally approved with slab-on-grade construction however when they got into building permit review the building department required crawl spaces under the units. When the contractor began digging the crawl spaces the soil problems were found and full basements were dug to eliminate the soil problems; the basements have been unfinished to this point. Lindt said the Homeowners Association is requesting the ability to finish these basements with a variety of room uses. Staff felt it important to have the expandability options for some of these affordable housing units; it allows unit owners to maintain their units through different life stages. Lindt noted there were a number of letters from neighbors with concerns about the parking and traffic on Midland Avenue. Staff proposed a condition that these basements would be limited to 1 additional bedroom per unit partially because there is only one egress well and it limits the impacts of parking. Staff recommended approval. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -July 19~ 2005 Sarah Broughton stated she represented Snyder Park and Dan Glick said he was one of the 1-bedroom owners. Broughton said last fall they looked at developing several of the basements for several of the homeowners and it became evident that this was not part of the PUD. Broughton said this went back to the Aspen Area Community Plan to add more housing stock and the Housing Board was 100% behind finishing the basements. Broughton stated that 8 of the 9 1-bedroom units have the ability to expand; the 9th unit was slab-on-grade with a garage. Broughton said they agree with the conditions and no cooking facilities would be placed in the basements so the basements could not be rented as an additional unit and the units would remain as 1-bedroom units in the housing inventory. Dan Glick provided the history of Snyder beginning with the lottery process and the units were ready to be moved into in February 2000; he said there were 850 applicants for the 15 units. Glick said 5½ years later no one has moved out or is planning on moving out; he said it was a great community and an awesome place to live. Glick stated that he videoed the parking situation. Glick explained on the map where the 8 1-bedroom unit owners park and the 3-bedroom unit owners have 2-car garages. Glick saw 4 Snyder Park residents cars on Midland. Steve Skadron asked if it was Dan's contention that Midland Avenue was not over parked. Glick said no but the construction traffic and people park over 2 hours in the 2 hour zone plus it was not well policed. Skadron asked who determined the amount of parking available on the streets. Lindt replied the City Engineer and the Streets Department determine the adequacy and safety. Skadron asked if there were concerns. Lindt responded that Jerry Nye from Streets said there was a little trouble plowing there in the winter because of parked cars. Skadron asked why in the original Ordinance #24, 1998 wasn't expandability included. Tygre responded that it was never even brought up at P&Z. Skadron asked how the improvement affects the value of the property over time. Lindt replied there was a cap either way because they were affordable housing units and even with the improvements the units would be considered 1-bedrooms. Lindt stated there was a condition in the resolution allowing a 10% cap for the improvements. Skadron asked what slab-on-grade means. Broughton answered it was a way to build a foundation with a gravel base with 4-5 inch concrete pad without a crawl space or basement underneath. Brandon Marion asked the parking requirement if the project were built today with 8 2-bedroom units instead of 1-bedroom units. Lindt replied that it would increase by 1 space per unit. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - July 19~ 2005 Dylan Johns asked if any other studies have been done to add parking to this site. Lindt said the applicants have looked at that and staff also did separately. Staff would not like to see a loss of the courtyard area for additional parking. Broughton said that more parking could be planned in but it was a delicate balance with the open space area so important to this project; it would cost part of the park. The commissioners further discussed parking within the realm of limiting the amount of available parking or not allowing more than 1 car per 1-bedroom unit; the enforcement issue; limiting parking stickers; more signs; the applicant become responsible for policing the cars from Snyder owners. Skadron asked the profiles of the people living at Snyder. Glick replied that all of the 1-bedrooms were single people except for the one that got married; the 3- bedrooms units were families or starting families. Johns asked if it was possible to say that you can inhabit the space but not with a bedroom and was that enforceable. Lindt replied that could happen and it also could be enforced. Lindt explained the building code requirements stated a bedroom had a closet and direct access to a bathroom. Lindt said that the building department would be made aware if someone were living in the basements by the other owners. Public Comments: 1. Heidi Hoffman said that she was the co-architect on the Snyder project; she provided a letter to the commission. Hoffman said that she was in favor of the PUD Amendment even though Midland Avenue was an issue but agreed with Dan that people park on Midland from someplace else. Hoffman said the mechanical was to go into the basements. 2. Lassie Dahl worked on the project for 3 years and supported it. Dahl said this amendment was now inconsistent with the reputation and creditability of the housing authority. Dahl would like to see Snyder Park maintained at the same status and questioned the homeowners policing the parking and the units. Dahl said she understood a lot of the traffic was construction traffic. Dahl voiced concern for the additional parking on the site and the addition of a bathroom. 3. Steve Hawk said that he lived in the adjacent subdivision, Smuggler Grove, and was in favor of the project. Hawk said that he attended monthly meetings for 36 months on Snyder and part of the discussions were how many bedrooms there would be; parking was part of the problem and was not enforced. Hawk said this degrades the integrity of the housing authority to have a 1-bedroom and without 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -July 19, 2005 changing the qualifications of the purchasers and they now have 2-bedroom units. Hawk said this would increase the density and add more cars. 4. Nancy Snell stated she lived on the comer of Midland and Hopkins; she said that it was a long 3 years working on the project with both sides winning and losing. Snell said that was what they fought for was not to have cars parked there; the issue of 1-bedrooms was a big issue. Snell said where there is a bedroom there is a car; she would like to stick with the formula that was agreed upon. Dylan Johns stated that there were serious issues allowing the ability of bedroom to be added to the basement level of the buildings from both the planning standpoint of the overall neighborhood. Johns said however the space is there and asked if it is possible to prohibit the ability to utilize that space as a bedroom; the conditions make the issue strange calling it a 1-bedroom or a 2-bedroom. Johns would be in favor of allowing an amendment to the PUD to allow the basement spaces to be used but not as a bedroom. Brandon Marion said this was his favorite housing project and he also respected the neighborhood issues. Marion said to change the PUD now was not a good idea; people who bought the 1-bedroom units knew what they were buying. Marion said it seemed as if the whole project were under parked. Marion said he would not approve without seeing a plan for living space but not a bedroom. Brian Speck said that he was of the like mind; at one hand life does change and flexibility is needed however there were agreements made originally. Speck said the cars were the issue and maybe the parking needed to be on the site. Steve Skadron said that initially he wanted to honor the original ordinance and shared Brandon's concerns but the big picture is what really should be addressed. Skadron said that he leaned towards Dylan's comments and he could support this with conditions to prevent the basement from becoming a bedroom. Skadron said the homeowners should have the opportunity to change the vacant space into a home office or useful space. Jasmine Tygre said that she was very tom by this amendment because she was part of the original PUD process and felt that this site should have greater density if the parking could be handled however what is on site is what was agreed to. Tygre believed that the PUD should be upheld in terms of density and would be reluctant to approve another bedroom but agreed that it was not right having space that was not useable when those spaces could make the units so much more livable. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - July 19, 2005 Marion wanted to have the applicant re-propose an integrated plan. Tygre summed up that the commissioners did not want to see a bedroom but rather a living space with only a powder room not a full bathroom. Joyce Allgaier stated that 3 commissioners did not want to have that livable space be used as a bedroom; it must be residential space. Broughton stated that they would like to come back after getting what was wanted by the entire association. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearin~ on the Snyder Park Affordable Housing Project PUD Amendment to August 2 . Brian Speck seconded; all in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: HYMAN AVENUE APARTMENTS CONDOMINIUMS, SUBDIVISION & GMQS Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Hyman Avenue Apartments. Jennifer Phelan provided the proof of notice, mailing and posting. Jennifer Phelan said there was an existing four-plex at 306 South Garmisch and the applicant proposed replacement of another four-plex with 2 free-market units and 2 affordable housing units. Phelan said the current zoning was residential multi- family; the subdivision would be for the razing of the multi-family existing structure; GMQS was for the affordable housing being created and the condominiumization. Phelan said they met the Multi-family Housing Replacement Program. Staff recommended approval with conditions. Sunny Vann, representative for the applicant, introduced John Provine, the applicant, and Janvar Derfington, architect. Vann said this 4 unit structure was built in the 1970s that has housed working residents in the community from time to time and is therefore subject to the City's Resident Multi-family Replacement Program. Vann stated the project was designed to exceed all of the requirements of that program as well as the RMF or Residential Multi-family dimensional requirements. Vann stated that the applicant accepted the resolution with the conditions. The commission asked about vested property fights and condominiumization. Public Comments: 1. Carol Blomquist asked the height of the varying levels of the building and how it varies from what the existing height was; how many parking places were there; how many bedrooms were there; and did the employee housing units go into the lottery of the housing. Janvar Derfington replied the height to the ridge was at 37½ feet, which was below the 42 feet allowed; the parking was off the alley with 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -July 19, 2005 6 parking spaces as required by the residential design standards. Derrington noted the residential units had 2 2-car garages and the affordable housing entered from the back also. Vatm responded that the AH were rental units; they will be deed- restricted from the housing authority to Category 2 and owned by the Association. 2. Rita Rasmussen stated that she lived in duplex condominiums to the east; she asked who will own theses units. Vann said that the 2 owners would own the 2 Affordable Units subject to the deed-restriction; there was a ceiling on the rent. Rasmussen asked how to prevent the affordable units becoming just part of the owners units or they get to use it for their own personal use. Vann replied that it was like any zoning enforcement action and the housing authority does periodic check-ups on deed-restricted units. Rasmussen asked the square footage of the units. Vann responded the Free-market square footage was 3,000 and the other was 3200; the affordable housing units were 865 and 920 square feet. Rasmussen said that it looks like the neighbor on the other side will be impacted by the employee units and asked if the affordable units were allowed to have pets. Vann replied the units were deed-restricted subject to the housing guidelines and he did not think there was prohibition against pets. 3. Charles Dalton said his entrance will be directly affected by the entrances into the affordable housing units; he asked where exactly the entrances come in. Derrington utilized drawings to show the alley, the entrances and Hyman Avenue. Dalton asked if there would be any hot tubs. Derrington replied there were hot tubs on the roof with a guard rail around them. Vann stated there was a fence along the property line; the maximum height was 6 feet for a fence. Brian Speck stated this was an excellent project because it fit with the Aspen Area Comrnunity Plan, fits within all the setback requirements, excess parking, employee housing and was compatible with the neighborhood. Speck said he took exception with the comments made about the developer and employee housing were not appropriate but could also sympathize with the neighbors. Speck supported the project. Steve Skadron asked why the affordable portion of the project was rental. Phelan replied the housing authority guidelines stated that it could be for sale units or rental and the housing board recommended it be rental. Skadron asked if it was a function of the multi-family replacement plan or an option of all affordable units. Vann said it was an option of all affordable units. Allgaier stated for employees to get into these units they were capped by their income, long term rentals and housing guidelines. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes -July 19~ 2005 Brandon Marion stated it was an attractive building; the condominiumization plan insured the space and echoed Brian's comments about the characterization of people who live in employee housing. Marion said that he would support the project. Tygre said that she would vote in favor of this project and was relieved to see that it followed the dimensional requirements. Tygre stated that it was compatible that a small project provided on site housing mitigation. Skadron stated it was a well designed in-fill project and he will support the project. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve Resolution #23 Series 2005 granting a GMQS approval with conditions, for the development of affordable housing, acknowledging the condominiumization of the development to be approved by the Community Development Director, and recommending that the City Council approve with conditions, the Hyman Apartments Condominiums to develop a multi-family building consisting of two free market residential units and two deed- restricted affordable housing units, including subdivision and condominiumization. Dylan Johns seconded. Roll call vote: Skadron, yes; Marion, yes; Johns, yes; Speck, yes; Tygre, yes; approved 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE AMENDMENT 26.415 AND 26.420 Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for Historic Preservation Code Amendments. Amy Guthrie stated the code amendment had 2 purposes in how HPC allows FAR bonuses to be designated to Historic Landmarks and Landmark Sites. Guthrie said this code amendment would affect the 7 designated properties with this circumstance. Guthrie said there was a 3rd purpose which was a TDR of 500 square feet. Gutlme summarized that this code amendment was for properties with 2 houses on 1 lot; properties to be given an initial incentive to designate now and the 500 square foot TDR. Tygre asked if the TDR was to be used off site. Guthrie said that the TDR was to be used off site and HPC struggled with this because the FAR bonus was a blessing and a curse because some properties want it and some don't. Tygre asked what review process goes into the receiving sites. Guthrie replied that it had to be a non-historic home and each can only receive one 250 square foot extension for their home with no other requirements except that they have to follow the residential design standards. Tygre said the neighbors would not be notified of the TDR receiving site and may exceed the FAR; this was the TDR program and she objected to it. Guthrie said that no TDRs have been sold to date. 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - July 19~ 2005 Tygre left at 7pm. Dylan Johns became the chair. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to extend to 7.'05 pm; seconded by Brandon Marion. All in favor motion carried. Steve Skadron asked how a landmark property was defined. Guthrie replied there was extensive criteria; if the property were 100 years old it was easily designated. Allgaier said that to obtain the first 500 square feet bonus the owner must show that it was an exemplary project that furthers the historic resource that has been identified. Brandon Marion said that he must recuse himself because he just purchased another historic property. All 3 remaining commissioners must vote yes to have an approval. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to adopt Resolution #24, Series 2005, recommending City Council approve the amendments to the historic preservation portion of the municipal code and as amended at this meeting; seconded by Brian Speck. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Skadron, yes; Johns, yes; approved 3-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:07pm. Jackie Lothi~tn, Deputy City Clerk 9