The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutminutes.apz.20051122ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes November 22~ 2005 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2 THE SKY HOTEL REDEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION/GMQS ........................ 2 202 NORTH MONARCH SUBDIVISION .............................................................. 2 920/930 MATCHLESS DRIVE ................................................................................ 3 LAND USE CODE MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS ................................... 3 LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT - EASTWOOD/SKIMMING ROAD ........... 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes November 22, 2005 Jasmine Tygre opened the special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in Council Chambers at 4:30pm. Members Brian Speck, Steve Skadron, John Rowland, Dylan Johns and Jasmine Tygre were present. Ruth Kruger was excused. Staff in attendance were Jennifer Phelan, Chris Bendon and Sarah Oates, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Chris Bendon noted the Board and Commissions party at the Wheeler on December 1st at 5pm. Bendon said the work session with the City Council was scheduled for January 10th. MINUTES MOTION: Steveth Skadron moved to al?'prove the minutes firom September_ 2 7th and November 15 and continue the minutes from October 4th to the next meeting; seconded by John Rowland. ,4ll in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Dylan Johns recused himself from the Land Use Code Amendment on McSkimming Road. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: THE SKY HOTEL REDEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION/GMQS Jasmine Tygre opened the continued hearing on the Sky Hotel Redevelopment, Subdivision/GMQS. Sunny Vann asked the commission to hear this review as soon as possible. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to continue the public hearing on the Sky Hotel to November 29, 2005; seconded by Dylan Johns. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: 202 NORTH MONARCH SUBDIVISION Jasmine Tygre opened the 202 Monarch Subdivision. Notice was provided for the mailing and posting. MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to continue 202 Monarch Subdivision to December 6th,' Brian Speck seconded. ,4ll in favor, motion carried. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes November 22~ 2005 PUBLIC HEARING: 920/930 MATCHLESS DRIVE Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for 920/930 Matchless Drive. MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to continue the public hearing for 920/930 Matchless Drive; seconded by Steve Skadron. All in favor motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: LAND USE CODE MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS Jasmine Tygre opened the land use miscellaneous amendments. Notice was provided at the November 1st public hearing. Jennifer Phelan stated a number of changes that staff presented were noted in green italics for additions and red strikethroughs for deletions. Section 5, the Growth Management Quota System (pages 4 & 5) language was added to the footnote "2) When an assemblage of parcels or lots, that are either contiguous or non-contiguous, is considered one development application, the parcels or lots shah meet the Lfollowing standards: If an assemblage of parcels or lots is located entirely within the Lodge zone district, aH parcels or lots shah be eligible for FAR and height incentives as outlined in the Lodge zone district standards. When one development application includes parcels or lots outside of the Lodge zone district, said parcels or lots shah meet the underlying standards o_f the zone district within which they are located." Section 6, measuring the setback from a private right-of-way (pages 5 & 24) the language added was "Required Yards Ad/acent to Private Streets or Rights-of-Wac Where there is no public dedication and the lot line extends into the right-of-way, the required yard setback shall equal the minimum distance specified under the zone district regulations along the closest boundary of the right-of-way to the proposed structure. When a propertWs lot line does not extend into the right-of-way, the required yard setback shah equal the minimum distance specified under zone district regulations from the property line." Phelan said that the measurement was taken from the edge of the right-of-way for this code amendment. Phelan said that non-unit space with regard to lodging structures (pages 9 & 10) Section 11 was created for the floor area ratio calculations (FAR). The language added was "Note: A development application's non-unit space shall not count towards the FAR cap on an individual use category, but the maximum FAR cap for the parcel shall not be exceeded." Brandon Marion stated that he would not vote on these code amendments since he was not present at the prior meeting and did not hear the public comments. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes November 22~ 2005 MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to approve Resolution #34, series 2005, based upon the code amendment request meeting the review standards of Section 26.310.040 of the Land Use Code. This resolution makes staff recommended changes to Sections 26.104.030, Comprehensive Community Plan; 26.208.010, Powers And Duties; 26.212.010, Powers And Duties; 26.220.010, Powers and Duties; 26.575.040, Yards; 26. 710.040, Medium-Density Residential (R-6); 26. 710.050, Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) ; 26. 710.060, Moderate-Density Residential (R-15a) ; 26.710.090, ResidentiaI Multi-Family (R/MJ) ; 26.470.040, Types of Development and Associated Process; 26. 710.190, Lodge (L) ; and 26. 710.200, Commercial Lodge (Cl) of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, and recommending that City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code. Seconded by Brian Speck. Roll call vote: Skadron, yes; Rowland, yes; Speck, yes; Johns, yes; Tygre, yes; APPROVED 5-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: LAND USE CODE AMENDMENT - EASTWOOD/SKIMMING ROAD Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public heating for the Land Use Code Amendments on Eastwood and McSkimming Roads. Sarah Oates provided sections and aerial photos of Eastwood Drive and Skimming Lane. Oates noted this was looking to amend setbacks in the R-15B Zone District; currently all properties have a 30 foot front yard setback. Oates stated there was a change in the way the setback was measured; the edge of the easement was where the setback was going to be measured from. Oates presented Exhibit A as the proposed setback board, Exhibit B as the GIS mapping, Exhibit C was the various requests and Exhibit D was the Eastwood aerial. Oates said approximately 8 to 10 of the existing house would be put into conformance by this change in setbacks. The only lots that were affected by this code amendment on Eastwood were the lots that were also bordered by Highway 82 and Eastwood. Steve Skadron asked if this was a reality of the topography of the property. Chris Bendon replied that there were many variance requests along this road and staff could not support the variance because staff could not find that by applying this 30 foot setback that there was a taking of property that doesn't exist. Bendon said the Board of Adjustment granted the variance requests because it did not seem like the right planning solution therefore staff needed to have a planning discussion about what is the proper setback along this street. Skadron said if you buy this property make it work under these guidelines. Bendon said there was a question here what was the better planning solution, do you want the houses pushed closer to Highway 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes November 22~ 2005 82 or not. Skadron asked if it was possible that moving the houses down could be a better solution for both highway 82 and Eastwood because of the heavy vegetation that obscured the houses; that was why he asked the question of what is the physical effect of moving the house down the hill; maybe it has zero impact on 82 because of the vegetation and the incline. Bendon said that it would have an aesthetic impact on Highway 82 and it makes the development of those parcels more difficult because they were dealing with more of the topography and access issues. Brandon Marion asked about the plowing of the roads with the houses moving closer to the road. Bendon responded that he did not know of any safety issues rather than a different character. Marion asked if any house would come closer to the road. Oates replied that there was the possibility of some houses coming closer to the road than what was existing. Bendon said that some houses would still be non-conforming with the change in the code. Oates pointed out houses that received variances and requested variances. John Rowland asked if the rear setbacks were also being adjusted. Oates replied that they were not. Tygre asked if the FAR changed. Oates answered the FAR did not change. Tygre asked if there were any improvement plans to Eastwood Road. Bendon replied no. Oates said it was a 30 foot dedication even though it was not 30 feet in a lot of places. Tygre asked if the road maintenance people had a problem with this. Oates said that she has not spoke to them on this particular case but it has been a condition for years. Bendon said that could be covered before this went onto Council. Tygre said it could be a condition of approval on road maintenance. Bendon stated that the P&Z recommendation depended on the road maintenance; if the maintenance department came back and said that they needed another five feet then it would invalidate the recommendation and the code amendment would have to come back to P&Z. Skadron asked the zoning and square footage. Oates replied that the zoning was R- 15B and the square footage was about 3800 square feet with the topography and neighborhood character. Bendon said that when these subdivisions came into the City they restricted themselves to smaller house sizes, no duplexes, no accessory dwelling units, they did not want the entire FAR of the R-15 zone district, they did not want the residential design standards to apply or 8040 greenline. Bendon said the FAR reduction was about 75% of what the regular R-15 District had. No public comments. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Minutes November 22~ 2005 Tygre said the question was if this was an appropriate development pattern given the unusual characteristics of these neighborhoods. Tygre requested a condition that the approval was contingent on the road crew and fire department. Oates stated the category could be under life, health and safety or street department and fire department. Brandon Marion excused himself from the vote since he was not present for the public comments at the previous meeting. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve Resolution #33, series of 2005 amending Section 26. 710. 070(D)(4), Moderate Density Residential (R-15B), as proposed with the addition As directed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the proposed code amendment shall include an increase in the rear yard setback by twenty (20)feet for a total of thirty (30)feet and Staff shall review the Eastwood right-of-way width with the City Engineer, Streets Superintendent and the Fire Marshall to confirm adequacy of the existing right-of-way. If the existing right-of- way is determined inadequate, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation shall be invalidated. Seconded by John Rowland. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Speck, yes; Skadron, no; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 3-1. Discussion of motion: Skadron stated his problem with the issue of continuing to ask for variances where the community might be better served not having anything developed on that site. Skadron said that just because a piece of land is there it was the city's responsibility to make it usable for development; he said that he was standing on a principal. Tygre said she understood and the physical conditions of the property have not changed nor has the FAR; she said that she shared regrets about some of the redevelopment that was going on but this ordinance is really doing anything other than saying the square footage and place the building closer to Eastwood Road than to 82 or closer to the center of Skimming Lane, which was basically what the ordinance was doing. Marion suggested a condition for the setback from 82 also. Oates noted the Homeowners Association for Eastwood required a 25 foot setback form Highway 82 whereas the city rear yard setback was 10 feet. Meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. puty City Clerk 6