HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20060103Aspen Planning & Zoninu Meetine Minutes - January 03, 2006
COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2
LONG FAMILY LLP, 802 WEST MAIN STREET REZON1NG FROM R015 TO
MIXED USE ............................................................................................................. 2
HOLIDAY HOUSE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ..................................... 2
575 Sneaky Lane, Special Review, Stream Margin and Residential Design
Standards Variance .................................................................................................. 10
Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes - January 03~ 2006
Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning & Zoning Meeting in Council
Chambers at 4:30 pm with members Steve Skadron, Brandon Marion, John
Rowland, Dylan John, Ruth Kruger, Mary Liz Wilson and Jasmine Tygre present.
Joyce Allgaier introduced the new Planning & Zoning Commissioner, Mary Liz
Wilson.
COMMENTS
Ruth Kruger noted the MotherLode was being advertised as 10,700 square foot
penthouse and she was quite certain that was not what was approved. Kruger
asked for suggestions. Joyce Allgaier responded that she did not know the realtors
protocol. Kruger said that it would be a problem if they built something that was
not approved.
Joyce Allgaier noted a Planning Commission and City Council meeting on January
10
th to discuss planning commission issues. Allgaier said that there was a Planning
Commission training meeting on March 28th for the analysis of the Grand Hyatt
with a site visit.
Allgaier stated that Dylan and Steve were the P&Z commissioners serving on the
Fire Station COWOP.
The minutes were postponed to the next meeting.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Ruth Kruger had a conflict with the Long Family LLP.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LONG FAMILY LLP~ 802 WEST MAIN STREET REZONING FROM R015
TO MIXED USE
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Long Family Rezoning. Proof of
notice was provided.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing for the Long
Family LLP, 802 West Main Street Rezoning to February 7th; seconded by Dylan
dohns. All in favor, motion carried.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (11/01/05):
HOLIDAY HOUSE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for the Holiday House PUD.
Jennifer Phelan stated the last time P&Z spent time on this application was October
4th. Phelan stated the proposal was to demolish the existing SkiCo Employee
2
Aspen Planning & Zonin~ Meeting Minutes - January 03~ 2006
Housing Units, which would be rebuilt with 25 units and 74 bedrooms. Phelan
said this was the 3rd iteration on the proposal.
Phelan said the Planning Commission issues that the Commission had previously
asked for more information on were parking access, the number of spaces, deed
restrictions and floor area comparisons. The current proposal was for 19 at grade
parking spaces accessed from the alley; with no access off of Hopkins. Parking
ratios for other developments in town could be found in Table 1 on page 2 of the
staff memo, which provides some SkiCo housing development and infill
developments in town. Phelan said there were 34 existing deed restrictions on 35
existing units; one deed restriction was deed restricted twice, which will be taken
care of with the existing non-restricted units in place. Phelan said the floor area
ratios were provided in Table 2 on page 3 of the staffmemo.
Phelan stated the applicant was requesting Subdivision Approval for the
construction of multiple dwelling units; a PUD Amendment to establish the
allowable floor area for the project; which was 5% over what the current zoning
would allow; also through PUD to establish off street parking requirement at 19
spaces (six less than what the underlying zoning would require); a Growth
Management credit for excess housing built and approval for 2 variances from the
Residential Design Standards (the number of street orientated entrances and the
first story element requirement).
Phelan said the project has changed to 25 deed-restricted units with 74 beds; over
time the number of units and bedrooms have decreased from the initial proposal,
however the number of bed increased by 10 from what is existing. The parking
was supposed to be 25 spaces, which now was 19 spaces; the parking ratio was
similar to some of the other affordable housing projects. The project was close to
the commercial core and mass transit therefore staff supports the off-street parking
reduction. Phelan said there was a condition within the resolution regarding
adequate snow storage.
Phelan said there was a 5% increase in FAR of what was allowed in the underlying
zoning even though it was a past reduction from previous designs. The last design
included 29,521 square feet and now was at 24,790 square feet. The setbacks and
height will be met. The applicant provided 2 entrances off of Hopkins and the
code required 6 entrances. The first story element was not met because of the
depth of the element and the use of the element as garden level access. Staff
recommended approval of the subdivision, the 2 variances and the growth
management standards with the conditions listed in the resolution.
3
Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes - January 03, 2006
Phelan noted the applicant requested a consolidated review to go to Council
instead of the 4 step process.
Brandon Marion asked if the beds were single beds or double beds. Philip Ring
replied that the beds were single with the exception of 2 queen beds in the one-
bedroom units.
Steve Skadron asked if in determining these ratios was there a difference between
bed and bedroom. Phelan answered in the existing she did 35 dwelling units and
36 bedrooms but did not take into account the number of beds in a bedroom.
Phil Ring, SkiCo, said the FAR was reduced by 16%, the variance by 80% and the
access from Hopkins was eliminated. Ring utilized drawings exploring different
ways in getting down to the parking lot and the carved out portions of the building
for surface parking spaces accessed off the alley side. Ring said this was a mixed
use neighborhood with Paepcke Park, the Ice Garden and proximity to mass transit.
Ring said a year ago it was determined the building was no longer inhabitable.
Ring commented that ideally they want to get more people in the redeveloped
building. Ring spoke of the 2 variances requested for the residential design
standards of the 5% increase in the FAR, and the reduction in the parking to 19
spaces.
Marion asked why not work with the residential design standards to soften the
building or to have a more integrated feel. Ring responded they have put a lot of
time and effort trying to work the standards into this design; there was a lot of
discussion with staff of the difficulty of having a multifamily dormitory style
building like this meet the residential design guidelines applicable; it was difficult
to make a building this size look like a small Victorian residence. Ring said they
have tried really hard to get as close as they possibly can to the residential design
guidelines and in order to make the changes that they would have to make they
would lose a lot of efficiency in the building to put 6 doors on the front of the
building with each requiring a 60 square foot entry. David Corbin said that
functionally they couldn't have 6 entrances on that front faCade without critically
disturbing what you could or could not do with those units; there would be
penetrations into the lst floor units that simply wouldn't work. Corbin said they
tried to meet the spirit and intent of those design guidelines and aesthetically it
would be the wrong way to go.
Marion asked if there was any logic to restricting cars or an internal policy for
where a person works if they live in town. Corbin responded there was difficulty
meeting the parking requirements physically given the geometry of the site and the
4
Aspen Plannin~ & Zoning Meetin~ Minutes - January 05~ 2006
fact that they had strong objections from the neighborhood of entering below grade
parking from Hopkins. Corbin stated that they took those comments to heart and
felt mandated to develop a creative solution of the alley access. However, entering
a below grade garage from the alley is not a feasible solution for functional below
grade parking. Corbin said there was not enough footprint in the lot to meet a one
to one ratio in the parking; this was probably the best compromise to make.
Corbin said this was primarily seasonal housing and the employees do not have to
have cars within walking distance to the Nell, base of the mountain or to
transportation.
Marion asked if there was any follow up on the auto disincentive concept; was
there ever a follow up survey. Ring said that the SkiCo does track auto
disincentives for the employees of the SkiCo.
Skadron asked what another 5% reduction would have on this project. Ring
replied it was 1100 to 1200 square feet (a 4 bedroom unit) and there was a way to
change the basement mechanical to more of a crawl space but would prefer to keep
it as is for mechanical and storage. Skadron asked for clarification on the 1st story
element. Ring utilized the model to show the point of access for a ramp to the
garden level for ADA access, storage and mechanical. Skadron asked when the
special review process was desirable over the PUD process. Allgaier responded
that in a sense they were almost the same.
John Rowland asked how or what will determine which 19 people will be able to
park and what will prohibit the other people from parking on the streets. Corbin
replied that they were not seeking any other parking rights or privileges. Rowland
asked if the front faqade was built out to the setback. Ring replied that they had 5
more feet to the setback; the building was 10 feet from the setback.
Jasmine Tygre asked if the two 5 bedroom units worked as the 4 bedroom units
with a central living area with the bedrooms off of it. Ring replied yes. Tygre
asked if there was a shift from the more year round workers to seasonal workers
being housed in this building. Ring replied it depended on the workers that needed
to be housed; it was up to operations. Ring said they had to move away from more
of the 1 bedroom units for efficiency purposes. Tygre asked if there were parking
ratios for similar multifamily buildings in the area. Phelan replied that the only
way to do that would be to pull the building permits.
Public Comments:
1. Letter from Judy Pool and Family, 108 West Hopkins was read into the
record.
Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes - January 03, 2006
2. Rhonda Bazil stated that she represents Phyllis Bronson and Jessie Boyce
and the Cottonwood Townhomes. Bazil said the concerns were specifically with
the density and parking; the only thing that changed since the last application were
the beds were reduced by 4 and the number of parking spaces were reduced by 10.
Bazil said that the goals were reducing the density of the building and the off-street
parking requirement.
3. Phyllis Bronson stated the project was still too big and voiced concern for
having 70 transient kids living in the neighborhood. Bronson said it was not the
neighborhoods fault for the Ski Company's housing crisis.
4. Jane Erb stated that she was a Cottonwood resident for 28 years; she said
this project will change the character of the neighborhood.
5. Barret Siever said that he lived at the Cottonwoods and the biggest issue was
parkingi it was difficult to park in that neighborhood now.
6. Marilyn Harper said that she lived in the Cottonwoods and her biggest
concern was the amount of additional people in the neighborhood and the parking.
7. Steve Johnson lived at 201 South Garmisch; he asked if the alley was going
to be paved. Phelan replied that was not expected. Johnson suggested the alley be
paved.
Tygre summed up the public comments to the major issues still remain the size of
the building, the number of people housed in the building and the parking.
Brandon Marion wanted to hear the compelling reason for the number of people
housed on the site. Corbin responded that it wasn't a compelling business reason
in the sense of the economics. Corbin stated they were a major employer and there
was a need for affordable beds in town and this was one of the only shots they had
given the constraints in Aspen for employee housing. Corbin stated that the
employee from Auckland would not bring a car and they could steer employees
from sources or locations that would not have a car.
Skadron stated that he could support the project if it was 5% smaller. Skadron said
that if there were no FAR variances he could go with the condensed process.
John Rowland said what if the project provided no parking. Rowland asked what
was the benefit of the parking and the competitiveness for the parking. Rowland
favored the traditional 4 step process. Rowland said there was a lot of opportunity
6
Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes - January 03, 2006
for the 1 story element and would rather see a variance for penetrating into that
setback to break down the mass in lieu ora variance for the 1 story element.
Rowland would also like to see a reduction in the number of occupants.
Ruth Kruger said that under parking would be a huge mistake. Kruger said the
gesture of moving the parking to the alley, which was not an issue for her to have
the parking entrance in the alley and was not her preference but applauded that
action as a concession to the neighbors. Kruger would like to see a reduction in the
number of bedrooms to be sensitive to the neighbors. Kruger said that she would
like to see the process honed down and would be okay with the combined process.
Dylan Johns stated the new parking was a good one and incorporating the
restriction for not having cars was good. Johns said that 5% could be taken out of
the building without affecting the dynamics of how the building operates and
functions; there was a significant need for housing with a better and more
structured management system in place to be more effective. The entrance did not
concern him because it would just chop up the building and would not be good for
the overall architecture of the building. Johns said the height is within the
guidelines. Johns said it has come a long way since the initial application and the 2
step process was okay.
Brandon Marion said that improving the housing in the neighborhood was a good
thing and redeveloping the site was the fight thing to do; the design variance was
okay. Marion said he would like the statistical data on parking and not just site
specific; everyone agrees there is a problem with parking in town but there is
nothing specific to isolate where it is coming from. Marion said what he was
hearing from the public was a little more parking and shrink the building. Marion
said the one or two step process did not matter.
Steve Skadron said that he would support a condition that limits residents of this
project to get parking permits and the reduction in the 5% variance. Marion agreed
with Skadron if that could be done.
Mary Liz Wilson commented that she would like to see the FAR reduced by 5%
and a stipulation about having cars without the ability to have street parking
permits.
Brian Speck stated that he could support the project with a reduction in the FAR to
code; the parking was an issue so there needed to be something that could be
tracked. Speck said the two step process was okay.
7
Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes - January 03~ 2006
Jasmine Tygre stated that she supports the four step process. Tygre said the
commission may not all agree on the direction of further tweaking and whatever
was approved at conceptual really reflects the consensus of the commission. Tygre
said that all agreed that this was a valuable project to house employees in town and
the concern was to make sure this project was as good a neighbor as can possibly
be for the surrounding properties. Tygre said that part of the parking problem was
caused by some of the surrounding existing properties, which were under parked
due to the age of the buildings. Tygre objected to the fact that people in employee
housing should not be allowed to park on the street and the double standard was
repugnant but she would have to go along with it in this particular instance because
of the representation from the applicant that it was not necessarily a hardship for
the employees housed by this project. Tygre said that there were also seasonal
employees from the United States and people from the Untied States don't get out
of their cars all that easily. Tygre wanted to see the reduction of the FAR so that it
was actually in the guidelines established in the code. Tygre would also like to see
the 5 bedroom units go, which should be part of the applicant's desire to provide a
better environment for your employees and better livability purposes. Tygre said
that was why she wanted this to come back so they knew what they were
approving and sending to Council.
Kruger said they may come back maybe one or two times more so that the
commission can really scrutinize this project now and then send it onto Council.
Kruger said the employer can scrutinize and place employees that do not have cars
in this project to be able to make that exception about parking.
Joyce Allgaier recapped the commissioners' requests for a 5% floor area reduction
and the parking mitigation measures. Augie Reno, architect for the applicant,
stated concern for the commission's case load. Kruger asked Reno if he wanted to
come back to P&Z again and then go to Council and back to P&Z or simplify and
just come back to P&Z. Allgaier asked if the parking condition could be worked
on by staff and brought back to P&Z.
Kruger said that her understanding of the parking was that they would only have
the 19 spaces and no on street parking. Tygre asked how the parking permits
would be worked out.
David Corbin stated there were 3 issues that seem to be the crux of the problem; to
constrain the number of cars parked on the street and they were willing to limit the
number of on street parking and will accept as a condition. Corbin said the
residential character had many different plane changes and felt it made more sense
to step further away from the street so they don't loom over the pedestrian way.
8
Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes - January 03~ 2006
Corbin said there were at least 3 pedestrian scale elements on the building and the
roof forms have been brgken down. Corbin said that he did not think that there
could be consensus from P&Z on the design forms of the building. Corbin said the
last issue was the FAR and the confusion was the floor area ratio, which was a
manner of controlling the size and mass of building in relation to their site. Corbin
said with the issue of density and the equivalent of warm bodies that was not
spelled out in the code. Corbin said that with respect to the FAR they can make
some adjustments if that was critical to the P&Z review. Corbin said it took 2
months to figure out how to make the changes that have been made since the last
presentation and could not say if they have a clear answer to the FAR by the 17th.
Corbin said that they can make some adjustments in FAR that would happen sub-
grade in the basement level and they would not be a seen change in the building
envelope of this building. Corbin said they would like to keep the project as is and
land use code 26.445.050B6 would support the project because it was for the
public benefit to accept the variance.
Tygre asked if they wanted P&Z to vote tonight. Corbin replied that they did.
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to extend the meeting to 7: l S pm; seconded by
Brian Speck. All in favor, motion carried.
Kruger said that if they choose to vote on this tonight she would like to see the
project again and this will be a conceptual vote for her. Johns said if5% was the
number to bring the project down to threshold then that is what P&Z should say.
Johns said there was a wide range of what P&Z wants to see.
The commission wanted to pass on something that Council will approve. Allgaier
summed up the commissioners concerns as the 5% reduction and the parking.
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve Resolution #1, series 2006
recommending City Council approve with conditions the Holiday House PUD and
associated land use requests to construct a twenty-five (25) unit affordable housing
multi-family structure on the property known as Lots C, D, E, F, and G and east
7.5' of Lot B Block 60 City and Townsite of Aspen as the request meets the review
standards of the Land Use Code with the additional conditions that the FAR of the
project be reduced by 5% to fall within the guidelines, the residents not be allowed
to apply for on-street parking permits as offered by the applicant and not a
consolidated review but a conceptual approval. Seconded by Dylan Johns. Roll
call vote: Speck, yes; Marion, yes; Johns, yes; Rowland, yes; Kruger, yes;
Skadron, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 7-0.
9
Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes - January 03~ 2006
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (12/13/05):
575 Sneaky Lane~ Special Review~ Stream Margin and Residential Design
Standards Variance
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on 575 Sneaky Lane. Proof of
notice was provided.
Jennifer Phelan stated the application was to demolish a single family residence
and detached garage and rebuild a new single family residence with an ADU,
accessory dwelling unit. The applicant was asking for Stream Margin Review and
specific variances from Residential Design Standards for building orientation,
street orientated entrance and Special Review for the ADU to be attached by a
walkway. Maps were provided in the packet showing the Top of Slope for the
Stream Margin and the review criteria was met.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to extend the meeting to 7:30; seconded by Steve
Skadron. All in favor, motion carried.
Staffrecommended approval for Stream Margin Review and the variances on the
front doorway and ADU be denied.
Joseph Spears, Studio B Architects, stated that they have been involved with the
neighbors; he handed out copies of the letters he received from neighbors. Spears
said the neighborhood was about privacy with a private road. Spears said they
wanted the attached garage because it was then a 2 car garage with a 25 foot
setback and 2 story ADU; the attachment was only a canopy. This was the only
property that had the turn around.
John Rowland and Jasmine Tygre excused themselves at 7:30pm.
MOTION: Brian Speck moved to continue the meeting to 7:45pm; seconded by
Steve Skadron. All in favor, motion carried.
Brandon Marion asked if the only physical attachment from the house to the
garage/ADU was the canopy. Phelan replied that was true.
Steve Skadron asked if this was one of the cases in trying to apply a global design
standard to a unique neighborhood. Phelan, Allgaier, Kruger and Johns answered
affirmatively.
I0
Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes - January 03, 2006
Public Comments:
1. Betsy Staradoj, public, asked what kind of lighting was on the walkway.
Spears replied it was from the deck and to just light the walkway. Staradoj asked
who monitored tree removal during construction. Phelan replied that was the Parks
Department and they review and require a permit to remove any trees.
2. Bob Staradoj, public, commented that the same standards were used for the
city blocks as for these neighborhoods; he said the commission should have
flexibility to adjust those things.
Johns said given the combination of the topography of the site, placement and
orientation of the road as well as looking at the context of this neighborhood,
which he did not feel falls into the normal perimeters of what the intent of the
design standards was trying to accomplish. Johns supported the 3 variances.
Spears said the ADU was 2 stories with a walkout patio by the river; it was about
825 square feet.
Kruger agreed with Dylan about the rules written and said that she could support
the variances because of the site constraints.
MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve Resolution #2, Series 2006,
approving with conditions, a stream margin review and a variance request from
the Residential Design Standards to construct a single-family residence located at
575 Sneaky Lane as both requests meet the review standards of Land Use Code
Sections 26.435.040 C, Stream Margin Review Standards and 26.410.020 D,
Variances. Seconded by Dylan Johns. Roll call vote: Skadron, yes; Speck, yes;
Wilson, yes; Johns, yes; Marion, yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED 6-0.
Adjourned at 7:45pm.
/~l/fickie I~othian,~ ~eputy City Clerk
11