Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20060124 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 24. 2006 MINUTES .................................................................................................................. 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST ................................................. 2 BOOMERANG SOUTH REZONING .....................................................................2 CASTLE CREEK LOT SPLIT & PUD AMENDMENT......................................... 5 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 24. 2006 Jasmine Tygre opened the special meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at 4:35pm. Commissioners Mary Liz Wilson, Steve Skadron, John Rowland, Ruth Kruger and Jasmine Tygre present. Brian Speck arrived at 4:40 pm. Dylan Johns and Brandon Marion were excused. Staffin attendance were Joyce Allgaier, Community Development Deputy Director and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. MINUTES The commissioners postponed the reading of the minutes from 11/29/05; 12/06/05; 12/13/05 to the next meeting. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST John Rowland had a conflict on the Castle Creek Lot Split. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (01/17/06): BOOMERANG SOUTH REZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Boomerang South Rezoning; notice had been provided at the last meeting. Joyce Allgaier distributed a revised resolution (with the changes in red). Allgaier utilized the packet information booklet to show the 2 lots that would be reviewed. Allgaier stated the vacant property was acroSs from the existing Boomerang Lodge; the old proposal would be retracted and this would be a new proposal. The property would be rezoned to R-6 with a PUD and Lodge Preservation overlay and creates 2 lots developed with residential use; lot 1 would be 12,237 square feet and lot 2 would be 7, 500 square feet. Allgaier spoke of the vehicular access for Lot 1 that would come from Fourth Street and Lot 2 on Hopkins. Allgaier said the FAR for Lot 1 would be 3,450 square feet for a single family residence and Lot 2 with 2 detached residences totaling 4,274 square feet; the proposal was for 3 smaller residences on the 2 lots. There would be no lodge units in this proposal and there were ADUs or cash-in-lieu fees proposed for each of the units. A trail proposal for the area included widening the trail. Steve Skadron asked when Charlie Paterson's proposal happened. Allgaier replied that it was in 2002. Mitch Haas said that there was an approval and then a whole different application came in because the drawings were incorrect and the next 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 24. 2006 proposal was for timeshare or fractionalized with vested rights unti12009. Allgaier stated the new owner brought this application forward. Tygre asked if the parcels could be further split from Lot 1 and Lot 2. Allgaier replied that they could not be split anymore in accordance with this approval; they would have to come back but this lot split would max out their density for the lot sizes there would be no further lot split under this zoning. Haas stated the property was sold and the new owners sought bids on the previous approvals and found they couldn't find financing for that project because of the location of the factional project and the association with the lodge on the other side of the street. Haas stated the lodge units were a separate application with the existing number of rooms plus the rooms that were supposed to be on this property. Haas said that the R-6 zoning would allow for the single family homes, which fit in the neighborhood. Haas said that with a lot split you can not come in and split an already split lot; one of the provisions for a lot split was that the property had never been subject to a subdivision exemption. Allgaier said the revised resolution doesn't change any lot sizes and Section 11 talks about the trail easement. Mary Liz Wilson asked if the size of the houses included the ADUs. Haas replied that was correct; the ADUs were part of the FAR. John Rowland asked where the 15 foot radius came from. Haas replied that he thought it was engineering design standards. Skadron asked the significance of the vacation of the Lodge PUD approval. Allgaier responded that it clears the record or the way for those entitlements and places new entitlements in place when approved by City Council. Ruth Kruger asked if the same owners owned the Lodge across the street. Haas replied that currently they did. Kruger asked if there was an application for the Lodge. Haas stated that it was submitted. No public comments. Brian Speck said that his area of concern was the size of the ADUs, 300 square feet was too small. Tygre stated that the commission could make a recommendation to Council along that line. Allgaier said that the ADU had to meet the housing guidelines. Haas said that this was not something that would be normally 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 24. 2006 discussed with Council because it was an administrative growth management exemption and the code provides 6 options; anyone of the options satisfies it. Allgaier said as long as the applicant met certain criteria it was at the applicant's option, but the commission could make a recommendation to council. Tygre said that a lot of the commissioners share Brian's concern with the small ADU size and the commission could put this is as a recommendation to council. Haas said it was the code that stated minimum to be above grade and meet all of the other requirements. Skadron said that he had some reluctance to give up the zoning for what ultimately could be moderately priced rooms for 3 single family homes and he was not convinced by what was presented that something couldn't work there that better satisfies the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Skadron said that any change to a zoning should be associated with a higher degree of community benefit. Allgaier stated that the standards to judge the rezoning don't speak to public benefit they really speak to have there been some changed conditions in the neighborhood that might warrant this or changed conditions n the community. Allgaier said there was more residential type of development with Little Ajax next door; there was an existing lodge across the road. Allgaier said it doesn't speak to the public benefit as much as it was in compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; the proposed amendment would impact traffic; there were sufficient utilizes in the neighborhood to serve a different type of zoning; in many cases there was a diminished impact versus what the lodge might have. Skadron said he understood that the area would be better served with a lodge even though it would bring more traffic. Ruth Kruger agreed with Steve because she would hate to see a lodging opportunity lost but on the other hand it was her understanding that the use by right, which would be a large duplex would be likely to be built there if the application was denied. Mary Liz Wilson said that she did not object to this project; she would object to a lodge because she uses that pedestrian way and would object to the traffic that a lodge would put on Hopkins. John Rowland said that he could see where Steve was coming from but if you analyze this site it was extremely challenged for any density. Rowland said this lot split was in keeping with the patterns of the neighborhood. Rowland asked that the curb cut be looked at again. Rowland said that he supported this project. Brian Speck said that he also supported the project and dittoed what John said. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 24. 2006 Jasmine Tygre said that she was concerned about the patchwork zoning in this area and she understands Steve's point of not giving up potential lodging possibilities but LP was more designed to preserve an existing lodge use; the lot has never been a lodge use; it was associated with common ownership with an existing lodge use. Tygre said that the north and south sides of Hopkins Street have slightly different characters and the side that's closest to Shadow Mountain was always more of a transitional area. Tygre said the fact that the Boomerang might be redeveloped on an existing lodging property was more of what she considered an LP overlay than the parcel across the street, which would not be eligible for LP if it wasn't under the same ownership. Tygre said this particular proposal seems more in keeping with what has been going on in the neighborhood; she said that she would like to see 3 smaller dwellings as recommended by staff. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #3, series of2006 recommending that City Council rezone the vacant "Boomerang Parcel" located on the south side of West Hopkins Avenue between South 4th Street and South 5th Street from the R-15 Zone District with a PUD and Lodge Preservation Overlay to the R-6 Zone District and approve a lot split to divide the parcel into Lots 1 and 2 of the Boomerang Lot Split, city and townsite of Aspen with the addition to condition 9 for a smallest turning radius access and the size of the residential units be added. Seconded by John Rowland. Roll call vote: Wilson, yes; Rowland, yes; Speck, yes; Skadron, no; Kruger, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5-1. Discussion: Skadron stated that he liked the application. PUBLIC HEARING: CASTLE CREEK LOT SPLIT & PUD AMENDMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the 488 Castle Creek Lot Split and PUD Amendment. Notice was provided. Ben Gagnon said there was a vicinity map; the property was located on the left from the hospital turn off; it was about % of an acre. Gagnon provided the history of this parcel, which was annexed and zoned in 1980; the primary concern by City Council was to have some affordable housing on this site. There was a request for removal ofthe PUD overlay, which was denied by P&Z and an appeal was not actually processed or brought forward. It allows the lot split with 2 detached single family houses (3,335 square feet and 3,515 square feet) and 1 detached single family deed restricted units (RO 1,500 square feet) or Category 7 (2,000 square feet). 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 24. 2006 Gagnon said the PUD Amendment was requesting a decrease in the minimum lot area and decrease in the minimum lot area per dwelling unit for Lot 1 and 2. The PUD amendment also called for 3 smaller homes in a fairly dense area. The key to allowing the lot split was the mitigation of the steep slopes on the north and east property boundaries. Gagnon said the lot split would go to Council and P&Z was the recommending approval. Tygre asked for a map that showed the location of the structures. Gagnon stated there was no development plan or building envelop for that PUD Amendment at this time. Allgaier said that all of the dimensional standards were what was approved on the one lot, so any house would have a certain size, setback and would get a building permit for that. Tygre said that she was looking for a site plan with purposed building envelopes. Gagnon said the setbacks were in the area where the homes could be built with relation to the slopes. Allgaier said that the setbacks were included in the resolution under Section 2 Dimensional Approvals; there was not a certain style of house or certain footprint but it had the setbacks. Tygre asked for everything on one piece of paper without having to go to three different documents to find out what was allowed on the parcel. Haas showed a drawing of the setbacks. Gagnon stated that could be included as an exhibit in the resolution. Category 7 was selected by staff to make sure the Deed Restricted Unit remain Affordable and remain as a community benefit. The net livable space was 2000 square feet. No public comments. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve Resolution #4, Series of 2006, approving a PUD amendment for property located at 488 Castle Creek Road, with conditions and adding that the map be attached as an exhibit, finding that the review criteria for that application have been met, seconded by Ruth Kruger. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Wilson, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, yes; Skadron, yes. APPROVED 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 6:05 pm. 'V' J. kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 6