HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20060221
Aspen Plannill!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - Februarv 21. 2006
COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2
MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................2
LONG F AMIL Y REZONING - 802 WEST MAIN ................................................2
414 North 1 st Street, Hallam Lake ESA.................................................................... 7
HANNAH DUSTIN MIXED USE ADDITON........................................................ 7
1
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!!- Minutes - February 21. 2006
Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting in
Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30pm. Commissioners Brian Speck, Brandon
Marion, Steve Skadron, John Rowland and Jasmine Tygre were present. Ruth
Kruger arrived at 6:00 pm. Dylan Johns and Mary Liz Wilson were excused.
James Lindt, Joyce Allgaier, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy
City Clerk were in attendance.
COMMENTS
Steve Skadron complimented the Deputy City Clerk on the detail of the minutes.
Brandon Marion asked if the auto disincentives were actually working or not.
Allgaier replied that they have not taken any action at this point but it would be
appropriate to ask City Council to direct staff to pursue with assistance from the
parking department.
MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to direct staff to create a resolution on the
auto disincentives; Steve Skadron seconded. All infavor, APPROVED.
Allgaier stated that because of the Hannah Dustin's complexity it would likely take
two meetings; with that in mind that hearing would be continued.
MINUTES
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve the minutes from 12/06/05, 12/13/05,
01/03/06, and 01/17/06; seconded by Brian Speck. All infavor, approved.
MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve the minutes from 11/29/05;
seconded by Brian Speck. All infavor, APPROVED. (Steve abstained).
DE CLARA nONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Ruth Kruger was conflicted on the Long Family Rezoning.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/07/06):
LONG F AMIL Y REZONING - 802 WEST MAIN
Jasmine Tygre opened the fublic hearing for 802 West Main. Notice had been
provided at the February i Hearing.
Allgaier provided on overview noting where Main Street came into this property
with the straight shot possibility. The current zoning was R-15; a single family
dwelling could be built there of 4080 square feet. Allgaier said that if it were a
mixed use building they would be allowed up to 18,000 square feet cumulatively
for a mixture of uses; the maximum square footage for a free market component of
a mixed use 6,700 square feet or .75 floor area ratio; maximum for the commercial
2
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - Februarv 21. 2006
and office component would be the same 6,700 square feet and affordable housing
had an unlimited square footage up to the maximum 2: 1 ratio.
Allgaier said there needed to be a code amendment to make the code clearer for the
mixed use provisions so there would not be more free market residential and only a
small office component.
Allgaier provided 5 options for P&Z to proceed: (1) Deny the application for
rezoning; (2) Approve the rezoning and request staff initiate a code amendment
immediately; (3) Approve the rezoning and include in the resolution the effective
date of the rezoning; (4) Approve the rezoning with a PUD overlay requiring some
provision which precludes a lopsided mixed use development; (5) Continue the
public hearing for a six month period and initiate a code amendment immediately.
Allgaier said that staff supported the Mixed Use Rezoning and likes the idea of
designating it with a PUD and thinks that option 3 would work and does not want
to see that lopsided mode of development.
Brandon Marion asked the number of units that could be placed on the property if
it were Residential Multifamily and what height limit. Allgaier replied between 6
and 12 units with a 25 to 32 foot height limit for a multifamily structure; it
depended on the parcel density with a greater than one unit per 1500 square feet
then the building height could be 32 feet. Allgaier said it was an incentive for
more density and to intensify the use ofthe land.
Marion asked if the applicant at a later time could come in for the rezoning and a
development plan as a PUD application as opposed to approve as zoning subject to
a PUD. Allgaier replied if the applicant proposed it that way; if they proposed
both the rezoning and a mixed use development that required some approvals from
the planning commission and growth management. Allgaier said they do not have
the authority to tell someone what kind of application they need to submit.
Allgaier noted that a PUD refers to the underlying zone district, which is what is
used as a review basis. Allgaier said that if the commission wanted 3 free-market
multifamily units in the application and it covered the concerns then it could be
their PUD and they would not have to come back.
Jasmine Tygre asked if there would be dimensional requirements in the mixed use
zoning; there would be so much office or commercial square feet. Allgaier replied
yes it would include something like that to help package it better to obtain the goal.
3
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - Februarv 21. 2006
Stan Clauson introduced Ronald and Roger Long; he pointed out that the Longs
have lived in Aspen for over 45 years and grew up in this house. Clauson said this
property represents a little finger ofR-15 into one of the densest neighborhoods as
the RMF (Residential Multifamily) and continues the streetscape of Mixed Use,
which was the Office Zone. Clauson said this house contained an office at one
time.
Clauson stated that the record of decision from CDOT was that Main Street would
be continued out remains a factor for appropriate redevelopment of this property.
Clauson said the issue was what can happen in a mixed use district almost
inappropriately of having a minimal amount of commercial to avail them to a large
single family residence, which was not the point of this application. Clauson said
looking at the options numbers 1, 3 and 5 do not provide a resolution because the
code amendment could entail a considerable amount of discussion. Clauson
requested the commission look at option 2 because it was consistent with the
nature of the site and the nature of this application. Clauson said that if the
commission doesn't feel that option 2 provides enough protection then option 4 the
PUD overlay might offer that additional protection; they don't think that it is
necessary because it was inconsistent with the site and application.
Roger Long said that the Long Family Investments was truly not developers; it was
an instrument formed to protect family assets, which their father initiated. Roger
Long stated that they agreed with the way the property stands now as being
inappropriate as a residential structure and the mixed use zone was appropriate.
Ronald Long added that they felt as the development and traffic increased that this
was a house on the highway and not a house in the West End; in the future West
Main was still going to be on the highway. Ronald Long said that a mixed use
structure could also serve as a buffer to the surrounding residences and hopefully
mitigate the highway impacts.
Steve Skadron asked the impact traffic would have in the MU Zone on the adjacent
RMF zone. Clauson replied that staff provided an analysis and comment that they
don't believe that the traffic impact would be significant relative to the background
traffic that is currently there. Clauson said there was no short cut through the
Villas that would cause impact that area. Skadron inquired about the businesses
that would attract the traffic and determine the amount of traffic. Clauson said the
amount of commercial square footage was 6,700, which was the maximum amount
and most likely an office nature given the location would have a minimal impact.
Clauson stated that only a historic structure could have a restaurant and not this
structure.
4
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - February 21. 2006
Brian Speck asked if the large trees would be preserved. Ron Long replied a large
spruce and a ponderosa pine were on city property.
Public Comments:
1. Tom Melberg, co-listed property, stated the property was listed below what a
single family lot would go for in the West End. Melberg said that most of the
commissions concerns would be addressed by the real estate market forces of the
property location.
2. Neil Siegel, representing the Villas, said the traffic implications as discussed
were not predicated on a worse case condition for the property and because there
was no development plan it can't be considered under a desirable situation or what
is likely but rather what is the most pernicious potential use and evaluated on that
basis. Siegel said that it is apparent the trickiness of the 7th and Main is circulation
around and the traffic implications are real. Siegel said the purpose of the MU
district was to provide a transition between the existing commercial use and the
residential use; as presently set forth there is no commercial use whatsoever to the
West of 7th and in that district. Siegel said that rather than providing a transition it
is an encroachment.
3. Eric Cohen had questions with regards to whether they were seeing a project
or just getting an approval and subject to what ever comes in based on that project.
Cohen noted that he sat on the City Planning and Zoning Commission and on the
Infill Committee.
Tygre said that Joyce has done an admirable job on the explanations. Tygre said
that when there were additional questions to the extent to which the language of
the Mixed Used Zone really accomplished what the Infill Committee, City Council
and P&Z thought it was going to accomplish. Tygre said the loopholes put P&Z
into the stumbling block.
Marion said P&Z has never seen an application with this many options connected
with it; there was some ambiguity in what they were dealing with. Marion said
that there was no question that this was a transitional or tough property to figure
out. Marion said if there was justification of the continuation of the MU Zone
District because basically there was a finite point to it right at ih; if we extend that
one property does the next property move across the boundary. Marion said that if
the code is wrong then the code has to be fixed and look at the application in light
of that code.
5
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - February 21. 2006
Skadron asked if this will cause a domino effect for rezoning for each of the
adjacent properties. Allgaier responded that MU came down Main Street; next to
the subject property was Affordable Housing and across the street was a new
duplex.
John Rowland concurred with Brandon and Steve on the uncertainties but when
you put on the planner hat and think of this intersection as urban design, this is an
established node with an element missing that is this property. Rowland asked if
this property was on the pedestrian walking distance. Allgaier replied that Hopkins
was to the South and it was located right on the transit stop on the corner.
Rowland said that as a city we should embrace this opportunity as a welcoming
node or some sense of arrival; there were no pedestrians walking around.
Brian Speck said that he was similar to John's concerns and sympathetic to some
of the concerns about the future but as a commission we have to make decisions to
the applicant as they sit before the commission. Speck agreed that this was more
of a commercial node and liked the Mixed Use complex.
Tygre said that she did not believe this was an appropriate spot for a mixed use
project; the importance of ih Street marking an end to the Mixed Use District was
expressed well by Brandon. Tygre said the Mixed Use District ends at 7t\ that
may change but it doesn't change now and to take that one piece surrounded by
Residential Zoning on the other side of ih Street given the existing traffic
circulation problems in that area seems to be a poor location for Mixed Use
Zoning. Tygre stated the code had to be changed but it doesn't effect her decision
about this particular application.
MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve Resolution #7, Series of 2006,
recommending that City Council rezone the "long Family Property" located at
802 West Main Street to MU, Mixed Use Zone District. Seconded by John
Rowland. Roll call vote: Marion, no; Skadron, no; Rowland, yes; Speck, yes;
Tygre, no. DENIED 3-2. MOTION WITHDRA WN.
Discussion of motion: Skadron asked for clarification of option #4. Allgaier
explained the option #4 would approve a rezoning to MU with a PUD Overlay,
which is the application of zoning to a piece of property. It was not granting
approval of a specific PUD; the applicant would have to come in with a specific
development application. Allgaier said since there was not a proposed site specific
development plan because there was none proposed; the application was rezoning.
Skadron said that he was looking for control of what was going to happen on this
site. Allgaier said that you have to trust what this zoning yields what MU is
6
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - February 21. 2006
intended to do; what was allowed by right in that zone district that is appropriate
for that site. Allgaier clarified that a PUD Overlay would require the applicant
submit a complete PUD application for review with option #4. Allgaier stated that
a property cannot be rezoned contractually; rezoning means that it meets the
review standards and the commission is comfortable with that rezoning. Allgaier
said the question was do you feet the MU is appropriate here.
The commissioners discussed Option #4 and chose not to act on that option
because of the uncertainty of the MU zone district. The applicant requested a
continuance for language to be drafted for PUD wording that appropriately meets
the concerns of the commissioners.
NEW MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearing for the
Long Family Investments, 802 West Main Street to March 21'/; seconded by
Brandon Marion. All infavor, APPROVED.
PUBLIC HEARING:
414 North 1st Street. Hallam Lake ESA
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the 414 N. 1 st Street, Hallam Lake
Environmentally Sensitive Area Review. Chris Bendon stated that notice,
publication and mailing were provided.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing to March 21'/;
seconded by Brandon Marion. All infavor, APPROVED.
PUBLIC HEARING:
HANNAH DUSTIN MIXED USE ADDlTON
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for Hannah Dustin Mixed Use Addition.
Joyce Allgaier stated the applicants would provide the overview and all the aspects
of the application.
Stan Clauson, representing Hyman Avenue Holdings LLC, stated this was a
combined application including a number of parts; subdivision; growth
management for affordable housing; addition of mixed use development; free-
market residential units; commercial design review; special review and
condominiumization. Clauson said there were 4 townsite lots and the Hannah
Dustin Building occupies 2 of the 4 lots; presently there was a parking area on the
other 2 lots; adjacent to the parking area is the Benedict Commons Building.
Clauson said there is a sidewalk that goes along Spring Street but no sidewalk on
Hyman Avenue until you reach the Benedict Commons Building at present time.
7
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - February 21. 2006
Clauson said the proposal was to develop 2 additions onto this building (Hannah
Dustin), which would consist of a commercial addition located at the corner with 3
stories; each story would be approximately 870 square feet. These 3 stories would
mesh with the existing 3 stories of the Hannah Dustin Building. Clauson stated
there would be a residential addition, 2 town house units (each totaling slightly
under 4500 square feet) and 3 affordable housing units on site (each unit about 850
square feet). 2 of the affordable units would be located subgrade in the residential
addition and 1 sub grade in the commercial addition. Clauson said the residential
addition would provide parking for the free-market units and 2 parallel parking
spaces off of the alley. Currently there were 3 parking spaces on that alley but 1
will be utilized for the dumpster and recycling location required by code.
Clauson said part of the infrastructure improvements include a sidewalk to be
continued along East Hyman Avenue. There was an open space requirement,
which was largely met with a slight shortfall in open space and they propose a
pedestrian amenity in lieu of the open space. The pedestrian amenity would
consist of a pedestrian bench and additional plantings to be located at the corner of
South Spring Street and East Hyman Avenue.
Clauson displayed the architecture for the residential addition; a 3 level townhouse
with the entrance up a half of a flight of stairs onto the second level. The first level
was actually recessed about 2 feet below grade.
Clauson said the commercial addition was very narrow as it faced onto Spring
Street but it was highly glazed and would be compatible with the existing Hannah
Dustin Building.
Hans Bergland stated he was the architect for the residential portion and the units
were handicap accessible by ramp, which goes around the building and a lift for
the units and the Hannah Dustin Building. The kitchen, dining and living areas
were located on the upper levels; the entryway was located 8 feet above the street.
Jeffrey Halferty was the commercial designer for the Hannah Dustin building and
worked closely with Hans. Halferty said they were trying to create a buffer zone
between the commercial as well as the residential addition to blend into the
community. The addition of sidewalks and pedestrian elements will be a strong
improvement for this corner.
Clauson pointed out that this project meets the goal of providing infill in Aspen,
providing affordable housing combined with free-market residential and office.
8
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - February 21. 2006
Allgaier said that staffs recommendation is in favor of this mixed use
development; it implements the long term goals. Allgaier reiterated that the
application had several elements to it: subdivision, commercial design review with
one variance request, growth management for an expansion to a mixed use
development, growth management for review of the construction of free-market
units and growth management for the affordable housing, special review for
varying the size of the trash, utility and recycling area and condominiumization.
Allgaier said stafffeels that the applicant was in conformance with all of the
commercial design standards with the exception of one. The 1 st floor height should
not have any variance of more or less than 2 feet from the existing grade; the
definition of the 1 st floor was not the subgrade floor and would like to look into
that further prior to the next hearing. Allgaier said that potentially bringing the
building down would allow for the elevator shaft would be brought down to a
height that is allowed; 5 feet was allowed for a projection of this nature above the
allowed building height, which was 35 feet. They were at 38Yz feet currently and
staff would like to see the 37 feet height limit for the elevator shaft projection.
Allgaier said that staff had a recommendation that they were providing about 10%
open area, where 25% was required but they were providing a pedestrian amenity,
a pedestrian bench on the northwest corner of the property with solar access.
There was also a proposed sidewalk to be connected to the curb with the street
tress closer to the building, which staff would like to see flipped for the pedestrian
closer to the building with small green space along the curb for separation from the
road.
Allgaier said there were several criteria to be met for the growth management
review; one of which is mitigation and this was there for the commercial and free-
market residential; the office and commercial square footage was also met by the 3
affordable housing units provided on site. The free-market was met by the size of
the affordable housing units; the units count for both the free-market and
commercial office, which was an incentive for the total of 3 affordable housing
units in a mixed use project.
Allgaier said the on site parking requirement was 2 parking spaces and the
applicant provided 4; for the affordable housing they were required to provide 3
parking spaces and they proposed 0 on site and to pay cash-in-lieu for 3 affordable
spaces. For the commercial component they were required 8 parking spaces on
site and they were providing 2 on site and pay cash-in-lieu for 6 spaces. Allgaier
said they did not have issue with the commercial component for cash-in-lieu
parking spaces but the affordable housing parking could be shared by the 4 free-
market spaces by allowing 2 of those spaces for the 3 affordable housing units.
9
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! - Minutes - February 21. 2006
The location was good for access to transit but felt the parking should be shared for
this type of development.
Allgaier said the requirement for the trash area was 20 linear feet for a proposal of
this nature and 14 feet was proposed by the applicant. This was acceptable from
staff but they need to provide a trash compactor to maximize the use of that smaller
area.
Brandon Marion asked where the light for the affordable housing was located.
Hans Bergland replied there was one large light well with a common stair going
down to the affordable housing; there was a 99 square foot light well with glazing
around it for the living areas and one bedroom in each unit and the second
bedroom in each unit had a light well. Marion asked for an explanation for the
affordable housing unit in the commercial addition. Halferty responded they were
going off of the north side with ample light wells on Hyman. Marion asked why
the elevator shaft went so high above. Clauson answered that it was not a head
house for an elevator but it was actually an elevator opening so it goes the height
of an elevator door above the roof because there was a roof deck. Bergland noted
it was a private elevator for each free-market unit from the living area to the roof
for each unit. Bergland said the roof deck was in the middle of the roof
approximately 20 feet off of the front of the building and 20 feet off of the back;
the parapet extends 3Yz feet above the roof deck surface.
MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to continue the meeting until 7: 15pm;
seconded by Steve Skadron. All infavor, APPROVED.
Steve Skadron asked the distance between this project and the Benedict Commons.
Bergland said they were setback maybe 5Yz feet and Benedict Commons was
setback 5 feet. Skadron asked for visuals showing the impacts of the new building
on the Benedict Commons Building for the next meeting.
John Rowland clarified that staff was concerned about lowering the building 2 feet;
he asked if it was a design characteristic or about the height of the elevators.
Allgaier replied that it was both and to encourage its compatibility with Benedict
Commons and attain full compliance with the height regulations.
Ruth Kruger asked where the elevator was accessed. Bergland responded that the
elevators were accessed from within each free-market unit and utilized drawing to
illustrate. Kruger asked the view of the livability of the 2 affordable housing units
below the free market units. Allgaier replied that they were all subgrade with
various forms of egress and light wells; the center light well was also the stairwell.
10
As en Plannin & Zonin Commission Meetin - Minutes - Februa 21 2006
Allgaier said Housing was always sensitive to the living space but were supportive
of having 3 units downtown.
Kruger asked if the new rules required 30% affordable housing; she asked ifit was
30% square footage or units or bedrooms. Allgaier replied that it was square
footage of area. Kruger said according to the table on page 4 of the memo and the
free market was 9,000 square feet and the affordable housing was 2628 square feet;
she asked if she misinterpreted the number. Allgaier replied that was the way it
read; she would look into that for the next meeting.
Kruger asked if that was a usable rooftop deck and where was the hand railing and
how tall. Bergland replied that there was a guardrail at 42 inches high so the
surface of the deck was actually 42 inches below the height limit.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the Hannah Dustin Public Hearing to
March th; seconded by Brandon Marion. All infavor, APPROVED.
Meeting adjourned at 7:20 pm.
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
11