Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20060207 Aspen Planninl! & Zoninl! Commission Meetinl! - Minutes - February 07. 2006 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST............................................. 2 920/930 MATCHLESS DRIVE SUBDIVISION/PUD............................................ 2 LONG F AMIL Y REZONING - 802 WEST MAIN ................................................2 410 SOUTH WEST END STREET - SUBDIVISION............................................ 5 1 Aspen Planninl! & Zoninl! Commission Meetinl! - Minutes - Februarv 07. 2006 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting in Council Chambers at 4:30pm. Commissioners John Rowland, Steve Skadron, Brian Speck and Jasmine Tygre were present. Dylan Johns, Brandon Marion and Mary Liz Wilson were excused. Ruth Kruger was seated at 6:00 pm. James Lindt, Joyce Allgaier, Community Development; Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk were also present. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Ruth Kruger was conflicted on the Long Family Rezoning. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (11/05): 920/930 MATCHLESS DRIVE SUBDIVISION/PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for Matchless Drive SubdivisionlPUD. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearing for 920/930 Matchless Drive Subdivision/PUD to February 28th; seconded by Brian Speck. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: LONG F AMIL Y REZONING - 802 WEST MAIN Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for 802 West Main. Joyce Allgaier explained this application was for a rezoning without any development application associated with it. Allgaier stated that it was a rezoning from R-15 to Mixed Use. Allgaier stated it was a 9,000 square foot piece of property owned by the Long Family Investments represented by Stan Clauson. Mixed Use came through the Infill Ordinance and it was found along the Main Street corridor from this end of Main Street right down to the Jerome. Currently there was a single family dwelling on the property; if it were redeveloped the single family dwelling could be developed as large as 8,080 square feet under the R-15. The allowed height was 25 feet. Allgaier said ifit were rezoned mixed use the single family house could be 3,660 square feet and a duplex would max out at 4080 square feet. There were more uses allowed under mixed use. The maximum square feet for a mixed use building would be 18,000 square feet (a 2:1 Ratio); 6,700 square feet for free market housing; a maximum of 6,750 commercial square footage within a mixed use building and affordable housing was unlimited up to the maximum 2: 1 ratio. The maximum height for mixed use or multi-family would be 32 feet; ifit were a single family or duplex the height limit would be 25 feet. Any mixed use development would be subject to the commercial design guidelines; off-street parking guidelines; the other dimensional standards set in the MU Zone District. 2 Aspen Planninl! & Zoninl! Commission Meetinl! - Minutes - Februarv 07. 2006 Allgaier said that staffrecommends approval of this project. The impacts that were associated with that intersection and the future impacts of that intersection with high traffic volumes and a neighborhood that could support a mixed use with offices, residential and affordable housing; the provisions of the AACP support the rezonmg. Steve Skadron asked if actions like this one (rezoning in an area like this) create the possibility of a domino effect of rezoning; where each adjacent R-15 property might determine itself the best use. Allgaier replied that has been known to happen especially when there is more of the opportunity for sprawl along a commercial core. Allgaier said that she didn't think that could happen here just because of the land uses that already exist and the new affordable housing. Skadron said the purpose of the mixed use zone district was to provide for a variety of different uses but it doesn't require a variety of mixed uses, does it. Allgaier replied no, but there were stringent limitations as to how much you can build. Skadron asked what the effect of the Historic Designation Overlay. Allgaier responded the floor area ratio goes from 2: I to 1: 1 with the Historic Overlay subject to design review by the Historic Preservation Commission. Allgaier said the applicant did not request the Historic Overlay. Skadron asked the height of the ih and Main Affordable Housing. James Lindt replied that it was approved at 32 feet. John Rowland asked why restaurant or food facilities were not part of the conditional use. Allgaier replied that it was more trying to give Historic Landmarks additional uses. Jasmine Tygre asked under the mixed use provision in the code what would trigger review of the project. Allgaier said the planning commission would review of the growth management quota system requirements and commercial design guidelines evaluated, so there would be a process for any mixed use building. Lindt said that if a single family house or duplex were proposed they would not need a growth management review; if they were to do a mixed use or multifamily complex would require growth management review and subdivision review. Tygre asked if you put in a 200 square foot office, would you be eligible for the 18,000 square feet under mixed use. Lindt replied that you would. Tygre asked the relative frontages of the Main Street side and the ih Street side of this property. Allgaier responded there were 100 feet on the ih Street and 90 feet on the Main Street side because it was made up of three individuallots of 30 feet by 100 feet. 3 Aspen Planninl! & Zoninl! Commission Meetinl! - Minutes - Februarv 07. 2006 Michelle Bonfiles Tevo, Stan Clauson Associates, representing the Long Family stated that in their application they are not recommending any residential use on the ground floor level of this property because of the impact of traffic. Bonfiles Tevo said that because of the traffic they were asking for mixed use; they saw this site as a transitional site from the commercial uses along Main Street into this dense residential area. Tygre stated concern for not having a specific development application, which was normal in a rezoning, but she wanted a better idea of what the commission was letting the city in for with a rezoning. Allgaier said there were many options for what the mix could be in the mixed use zone. Public Comments: 1. Neil Siegel, Villas of Aspen Board Member, said they were a townhouse community of 36 townhomes and their position was that the applicant was premature unless tied to some development plan. Siegel said that there were synergistic effects that can't possibility evaluate in terms of density, height, traffic implications and the like. Siegel said this was a tricky intersection coming from any direction. Siegel said that this was not a buffer as mixed use because the Villas of Aspen were right there and very residential. 2. Eric Cohen, co-listing agent of the subject property, said there were a fair amount of discussions on the mixed use change and what the outcomes would be. Cohen stated he did not think that the three units with a small office space would work; he suggested the first floor commercial service orientated uses, smaller free- market and significant affordable housing on the upper floor. Cohen said the mixed use was the incentive to placing affordable housing on site. Jasmine Tygre asked if affordable housing was a requirement of mixed use. James Lindt answered it was not a required component; there were incentives to doing on-site affordable housing services or mitigates both components of development (commercial and free-market). John Rowland stated that he was in favor of the rezoning; the neighborhood had a hybrid mix of different zoning categories and felt it was appropriate. Steve Skadron said that he liked the application however he was concerned for a future mixed use project with a lot of uncertainty of what the project might consist of and the impact of traffic on the neighborhood. Skadron said that he could 4 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - Februarv 07. 2006 ultimately support this with a specific development application but he was not comfortable with it as it stands now. Brian Speck said that he felt the same way John did and a mixed use project made sense in the area and supported it. Jasmine Tygre stated concern for this because she did not believe this was an appropriate site for a mixed use project; even through it was an extension of Main Street the Main Street that was east ofih was completely different, they were two different entities. Tygre said this was more of a ih Street property than a Main Street property and the uses were more in line with residential. Tygre said the impacts of deliveries was a problem for this site and did not feel this was an appropriate area for this kind of mixed use zone; it was a disservice to the other parts of the residential area. Tygre said that it was possible that a mixed use project of a particular type might be successful here in which case she would like to see another way to apply for it through a PUD or a site specific review, which could be evaluated and not the blanket rezoning approval to a kind of use for only certain circumstances. Tygre said that she could support a particular project. Michelle Bonfiles Tevo requested a continuance. James Lindt stated that the applicant could request a continuance (26.304 Common Development Procedures of the Code) and a second continuance could be by the commission's request. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearing for the Long Family PUD, 802 West Main to February 2Ft; seconded by Brain Speck. All in favor, APPROVED. PUBLIC HEARING: 410 SOUTH WEST END STREET - SUBDIVISION Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for 410 South West End Street. James Lindt stated the proof of public notice appeared to meet the jurisdictional requirements. Lindt noted the application was submitted by John Provine and Ronald Soldering living Trust subject to review for subdivision, growth managementJor affordable housing and certificate of compliance for multifamily replacement program to construct 2 free-market units and 2 affordable housing units at 410 South West End Street. Planning and Zoning was final review on the growth management for the affordable housing and recommending body to City Council on the Subdivision 5 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - Februarv 07. 2006 request. The community Development Director was the final reviewing authority on the certificate of compliance with the multifamily replacement program at the time of building permit of the other land use actions were approved. Lindt stated the applicants wanted to demolish the existing 5 plexthat exists at 410 South West End Street, on the Southeast corner of Cooper and South West End Street. The lot was 6,000 square feet zoned RMF; the 2 affordable housing units would be sub grade. The RMF dimensional requirements would be met (page 2 of the memo) and it met the residential design standards. Lindt utilized elevation drawings depicting South West End Street with the entrances to the free'-market units and the alley far;ade to the south of the structure with 2 two car garages accessed off of the alley. Lindt said there were utilities in place to serve that existing multifamily building; the parcel was flat without geologic hazards. Lindt said the applicant was providing 2 subgrade affordable units plus cash-in-lieu fee of $179,000.00 for the additional half of a unit that would be required to be replaced. The Housing Authority has reviewed the proposed affordable housing units and indicated they meet the affordable housing guideline requirements. Lindt stated that it was never codified that employee housing units be required to be above grade even though it has been the Commissions preference to be above grade. The review standards were attached as exhibit A and staff recommended P&Z approve the resolution with the conditions. A condition in the resolution was to provide a detached sidewalk from the curb. Sunny Vann stated the conditions were acceptable to the applicant as drafted. Ruth Kruger asked Sunny to speak to the livability of the affordable units. Vann replied that the units were half above and half below. Kruger asked if the bedrooms were under the garages. Vann replied the free market bedrooms were under the garages; the affordable housing was in the center portion of the site adjacent to what would be the east property line (drawing pages A2.1). Lindt explained that AO.3 showed all the different levels of the building. Steve Skadron asked the difference between the request for a subdivision approval and subdivision approval including condominiumization. Lindt answered there was not much difference, typically when a project is to be condominiumized it was a stafflevel review but this was placed in the packet for P&Z and Council. Vann said there was no way to create a multifamily structure and sell the units without condominiumization. Skadron asked if other properties were condominiums in the neighborhood. Most of the neighbors were condominiums. 6 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - Februarv 07. 2006 Tygre asked if the affordable units would be under the Housing Rental Guidelines with mandatory occupancy. Vann replied yes and said the housing units exceeded the minimum size requirements for Category 2 units; the entire structure would be condominiumized and the ownership of the 2 affordable housing units would be owned by the association subject to the deed restrictions. No public comments. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve Resolution 08, Series of2006, approving with conditions, a growth management review for the development of affordable housing, acknowledging the condominiumization of the development is to be approved the Community Development Director, and recommending that the City Council approve with conditions, the Copper Apartments Condominiums to develop a multifamily building consisting of two (2) free-market residential units and two (2) deed-restricted affordable housing units at 410 South West End Street. Seconded by Brian Speck. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Kruger, yes; Skadron, yes; Rowland, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5-0. Discussion: Kruger stated that she was disappointed to see sub grade affordable housing units. Tygre agreed with Ruth but in general this was a better solution than some of the other units that P&Z has seen. Tygre commended the applicants for staying within the dimensional requirements. Speck agreed with Ruth and Jasmine. Meeting adjourned at 6:20 pm. ~ ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 7