Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20060228 Aspen Planninl! & Zoninl! Commission Meetinl! - Minutes - February 28, 2006 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2 DECLARA nONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOTMENTS FOR 2006...................................... 2 9201930 MATCHLESS DRIVE SUBDIVISION/PUD............................................ 3 1 Aspen Planninl! & Zoninl! Commission Meetinl! - Minutes - Februarv 28, 2006 Ruth Kruger opened the special Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30pm. Commissioners Brian Speck, John Rowland Brandon Marion and Ruth Kruger were present. Dylan Johns, Jasmine Tygre, Steve Skadron and Mary Liz Wilson were excused. Jennifer Phelan, Chris Bendon, Community Development; Reed Patterson, Court Clerk were in attendance. COMMENTS Brandon Marion asked to discourage the option approach to public hearing presentations because the motions and options. Marion stated there were too many options and the options were understood differently by each commissioner. Chris Bendon responded that would depend upon how the items were presented. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to reinstate beverages and snacks to meetings; seconded by John Rowland. All infavor, APPROVED. Chris Bendon distributed amendments to the Land Use Code. Bendon said a work session with Council and P&Z was scheduled for March 20th for a follow up on the impact fees, construction management and a strategy for Dean Street; a P&Z member will be asked to participate in Dean Street discussions. Marion asked if the Lodge bed base Discussions have been scheduled. Bendon replied not yet but it was to be scheduled. MINUTES MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve the minutes from January 31, 2006; seconded by Brian Speck. All infavor, approved. (John abstained). DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. PUBLIC HEARING: GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOTMENTS FOR 2006 Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for Growth Management Allotments for 2006. Notice was in the Community Development office. Chris Bendon stated that this was a new review for P&Z and the revised Growth Management System requires P&Z to annually review the growth that happened in the year prior and decide how much of that unused growth should be carried 2 Aspen Planninl! & Zoninl! Commission Meetinl! - Minutes - Februarv 28, 2006 forward into the next year. In years past there was a provision for that but it automatically rolled forward; this was the opposite approach because it requires growth to be brought forward. Bendon noted there were two annual allotments (1) free market allotment at 37 units per year and (2) commercial allotment at 28,000 net leasable square feet per year. Tonight we were talking about the roll over allotment; how much from prior years allotments do you want to roll over. Bendon said there was what was called the development ceiling; the idea of a cap like 30,000 people on a monthly average. So there were already days (4th of July) 'that 32,000 to 33,000 people were in town; it gives an idea of the growth ceilings. Bendon said that Exhibit B showed the annual allotment for 2005 by project (the growth management year runs from the first day of March to the last day of February). Bendon stated the application date was what establishes when the project is allocated the allotment. Bendon said the second chart in Exhibit B included the Growth Ceilings for 2005. The growth rate maximum was 2% a year per the AACP; all the categories were based upon a 2% growth rate except the free-market residential which was a 1 % growth rate. Kruger asked for expected proposals. Bendon replied that could not be done until the proposals were in the Community Development. Marion asked about temporary and permanent traffic generation being included in the evaluation to think about the overall growth of the town. No public comments. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to continue the public hearing on the Growth Management Allotmentfor 2006 to March ih; seconded by Brian Speck. All in favor, APPROVED. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (2/7/6): 920/930 MATCHLESS DRIVE SUBDIVISION/PUD Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing on 9201930 Matchless Subdivision PUD. Jennifer Phelan provided the notice. Kim Raymond, architect, stated that she represented Chris and Peter Dodaro. Jennifer Phelan said this was a somewhat complicated piece of property with some history to it. The property was just under 16,500 square foot lot with 2 detached historic residential dwelling units on it. Phelan stated that currently they were a condominium association and they would like to subdivide the parcel into 2 lots 3 Aspen Planninl! & Zoninl! Commission Meetinl! - Minutes - Februarv 28, 2006 (5A & 5B) so that Lot 5A, 930 Matchless, an 8,636 square feet lot, would contain 1 of the single family residences with an addition, a detached garage and voluntary ADD. Lot 5B, 920 Matchless, a 7,756 square feet lot, would be created with an additional dwelling unit to be built; it would have 2 residential dwelling units on the property. Looking at the two houses 930 is on the right and 920 is on the left. Phelan stated these two lots were part of the subdivision (5 lots) that was rezoned medium density, R-6, in 1987 with a PUD overlay placed on two of the lots in the subdivision that affects the front yard setback and the minimum lot widths. The applicant requested Subdivision and the PUD be amended to allow the floor area of both lots to match the underlying R-6 Zone District allowable floor area. Ordinance #35-87 impacts their allowable floor area to a maximum of 2,486 square feet. Phelan said they were asking for setback variances and the ability to acquire an HPC bonus of 500 square feet for an outstanding design on the property. Phelan said the current conditions of the property were that this property was annexed in 1976 and zoned R-15. It was a subdivision with 5 lots (Alpine Acres); 3 lots were developed with duplexes. Three of the lots had miners shacks or cottages with a garage between them and therefore considered a duplex and 2 lots were undeveloped. In 1986 the owners of Lot 4 asked for a subdivision to divide' their lot into 2 lots; at this time it was discovered that the zoning map showed this zoned as R-6 and the Ordinance said it was R-15, which created a problem with the lot size. Phelan used an area map to show the subdivision; the whole subdivision came in to rezone to R-6. Lot 4 subdivided to Lots 4A & 48. Phelan said the 1987 Ordinance capped the floor area and Lot 5B, 920 Matchless, proposed for the 2 detached residential dwelling units are allowed on the small parcel because it is a historic landmarked property, which gives the density incentive but the cap on that is 3,485 square feet. Phelan said that on Lot 5A, 930 Matchless, the 1987 Ordinance caps the floor area at 2,486 square feet for the single family home; the ADU doesn't count. The applicant asked for the underlying zone district square footage to apply to 930 Matchless which would allow a 3,609 square foot floor area, which would require a PUD Amendment. Phelan said the applicant wanted the extra square footage of 623 to be turned into TDRs to sell. Kim Raymond stated that they really don't need the whole 3,609 square feet and they wanted to create a couple ofTDRs, which was an incentive from the historic preservation to offset the costs ofthe restoration and all the meetings that they have to attend. 4 Aspen Planninl! & Zoninl! Commission Meetinl! - Minutes - Februarv 28, 2006 Brandon Marion asked the total square footage for each lot. Kim Raymond replied that the Lot 5B, 920 Matchless, gets 3,485 square feet total with 2 buildings or 1 house at 2,486 square feet. Raymond stated that they went through the HPC process and the 500 square foot bonus was granted for the 2,986 square feet to build this house and the ADU on Lot 5A. Raymond said that if they go with the R-6 zoning, which would be 3,609 square feet; the extra 623 square feet would not be needed but they would like 3,486 square feet, which would allow them to build their design. Raymond said then they would end up with the same square footage as 950 Matchless, which would be congruent with the neighborhood. Raymond said it would also be the same as worked out on 920 Matchless; they would be willing to give up the 500 square feet that HPC granted because they would have enough square footage to create TDRs with the R-6 zoning and restrict the 500 square feet to be used only as TDRs; that would guarantee there would not be more density on this lot and help the Dodaros defray the cost of refurbishing their cabins. Raymond said the existing yellow Victorian and a little Victorian with add-ons, which was where Chris and Pete Dodaro lived and Chris's mother lived in the other house. Raymond stated in the future they would like to refurbish the little cabin with the add-ons by removing all the add-ons and redo a single story addition to make this a 700 to 800 square foot little unit and have the option to build a small home in back. Phelan stated the transfer of development rights concept is to keep square footage off of the historic structures and send them elsewhere. Phelan stated with 930 Matchless, the single family residence, the applicant was asking for underlying zoning so that they will have an allowable floor area of 3600 square feet; they only need just under 3000 square feet to develop what has been approved by HPC so they have an excess of 600 square feet that they would like to turn into TDRs. Phelan said if they were approved for everything they asked for is to allow 920 Matchless, which does not have a development plan yet, the HPC bonus. Phelan said the Ordinance in 1987 gave a 25 foot front yard setback for both buildings and currently neither were 25 feet so it was suggested that the setback be amended to what the current houses are setback at 930 Matchless and for the addition; they need a combined setback variance for that approved addition and garage. Phelan said that with the existing structure on 920 Matchless they need a variance from the proposed new lot line, which was included in the Resolution when the 5 Aspen Planninl! & Zoninl! Commission Meetinl! - Minutes - February 28, 2006 property gets redeveloped they either need to meet the underlying zone district setback or that HPC may grant a setback variance through the design review. Phelan said in order to obtain any variances on 920 Matchless they would have to amend the PUD through the HPC. Phelan said staff recommended the 1987 Ordinance be kept restricting 920 Matchless to 2486 square feet and allowing the granted HPC bonus for the design, approval of the setback variances and future potential waiver of the parking to be granted by the HPC. So the floor area for 920 Matchless would have a floor area of 2986 square feet and 3486 square footage for 930 Matchless. Marion asked if on 920 the setback variance was required because of the addition that was being torn down, once that is torn down the underlying setbacks are allowed to exist as non-conforming. Phelan said in the Resolution it says if when the building is torn down then it would need to meet the setbacks unless in the HPC design review they would grant setback variances. Marion asked if the non-conforming parking was allowed in the Resolution for 920. Phelan responded they will meet the underlying parking requirement with the proposal unless the HPC grants a parking waiver at the time of its review. Christine Dodaro stated that they were not a wealthy family; they were trying to stay here and she thought that TDRs were created to help people preserve the historic houses. Dodaro said it coast so much more money to preserve the house than to demolish it and start from scratch, that was why they were asking for this underlying zoning. Ruth Kruger asked how much TDRs sell for these days. Phelan replied that they have not sold. Raymond said that the city HPC TDRs were worth a lot less than the county TDRs. Dodaro stated that when they bought the houses they were not historically designated and then they became historically designated later; after that the ordinance was created; the historic incentives were not there and they probably would not have signed. No public comments. Marion said that technically speaking if 920 (Lot 5B) were to be granted with subdivision and the 3485 square feet because it has a historic residence technically could it still be allowedto apply for the 500 square foot bonus once it submits its design guidelines. Phelan replied that you can only have currently one 500 square foot bonus for a parent parcel; if they landed that 500 square foot bonus for 930 Matchless then they would not be able to apply for another bonus on 920 Matchless. Phelan said the basis for landing the bonus was for an extraordinary 6 Aspen Planninl! & Zoninl! Commission Meetinl! - Minutes - Februarv 28, 2006 design and preservation effort; the bonus needed to be included in the PUD because of the constraint of the Ordinance. Marion asked ifP&Z could direct which lot the bonus be applied to. Phelan replied yes. Kim Raymond said she was trying to simplify by getting the 3486 for both lots then they would give up the HPC bonus for either lot or gaining the bonus and using the bonus for Lot5A to obtain 2986 square feet. Raymond thought that Lot5B (920) was able to accommodate the 3486 square footage for 2 dwelling units (a small ADU and a Single Family Dwelling). Raymond said that they were willing to limit Lot5B to 2986 square feet if they could have the extra 500 square feet for the bonus for TDRs; that way they were giving up the ability to build the extra 500 square feet on 920. Raymond said they were willing to limit the FAR on the one lot. John Rowland asked why they were resorting to the Ordinance from 1987. Phelan stated the Ordinance from 1987 affects all 5 lots within that subdivision; the cap on that subdivision runs with the land; when it was created there were additional concerns for the floor area, additional development and the voluntary cap on the property owners at that time so the Ordinance in place requires anyone in that subdivision have the 2486 floor area cap. Rowland asked when the last time someone from that subdivision came in. Raymond replied that 950 Matchless was 2 to 3 years ago and HPC granted them a 500 square foot bonus. Phelan added they amended that PUD to land 500 square feet. Raymond said that 950 was already split from 940. Rowland asked the difference in square footage. Phelan replied that the underlying zoning allows 930 Matchless 3,609 square feet so it would be approximately 600 square feet more than the Ordinance allows at 2,486 square feet. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve Resolution #6, Series 2006, granting the subdivision and Planned Unit Development approval, with conditions, for the creation Lots 5A and 5B recommending that City Council approve with conditions the Dodaro Subdivision PUD Amendment granting Lot 5A 2,486 square feet plus the 500 square foot bonus and allowing Lot5B the underlying zoning at 3,485 squarefeetfor 2 residences and no 500 squarefoot bonus on 920 Matchless. Seconded by John Rowland. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Rowland, yes; Marion, yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED 4-0. Meeting Adjoumed c' kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 7