Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20060418 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission - Minutes - April 18, 2006 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2 802 WEST MAIN STREET - LONG F AMIL Y REZONING ................................ 3 17 SHADY LANE ....................................................................................................5 719 EAST HOPKINS MUL TI-F AMIL Y ................................................................. 7 1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVISION/CONSOLIDATED PUD............................. 8 1 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission - Minutes - April 18, 2006 Jasmine Tygre opened the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting at 4:30 pm in Sister Cities. Commissioners John Rowland, Dylan Johns, Ruth Kruger, Brian Speck and Jasmine Tygre were present. Brandon Marion, Steve Skadron and Mary Liz Wilson were excused. Staff in attendance were: Joyce Allgaier, James Lindt, Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Jasmine Tygre noted the attendance without a full commission was not fair to applicants; she suggested the possibility of more than one alternate. Ruth Kruger said it was difficult to attend every Tuesday. Joyce Allgaier mentioned there were two meetings in May plus a planning commission work session on the Grand Hyatt. Allgaier said that it was a lot to ask staff and the commission for all of the extra meetings. Tygre said that the overloaded agendas were a problem and the number of agenda items needed to be reduced because this was not working. Tygre stated that she received a reminder about the ski way at the Top of Mill, as part of the PUD to be restored after construction; it was the access trail down to St. Regis between Summit Place and the Villas; that ski way apparently has not been dealt with. Tygre said concerning the tree topping on East Hopkins and the rates for tree removal in general, P&Z should review the trees that are on a property to be evaluated in the application. Tygre said that it was a matter of public concern for bigger houses and less trees. Dylan Johns noted that excavation plans were now being required. The commissioners agreed that the excavation plan would take care of that problem. Tygre urged the other commission members to look at the Mona Frost House as a Historic Preservation Project. Tygre said she was curious to hear the opinions of the commission. MINUTES MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve the minutes from March i\ seconded by Brian Speck. APPROVED 4-0. (Dylan Johns abstained). DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Ruth Kruger was conflicted on 802 West Main. Dylan Johns recused himself on 719 East Hopkins. Jasmine Tygre was conflicted on 1001 Ute Avenue. 2 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission - Minutes - April 18, 2006 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (03/28/06): 802 WEST MAIN STREET - LONG FAMILY REZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing. Joyce Allgaier recapped the property location utilizing a map. Allgaier said the subject property was currently zoned R-15 and proposed Mixed Use (MU) for the rezoning without a development application; it was strictly a rezoning to evaluate on the potentia11and uses in a MU Zone District with the review criteria in the packet. Allgaier said the subject property was 3 Aspen townsite lots totally 9,000 square feet with currently a single family dwelling at about 1750 square feet. The potential of the Mixed Use (staff memo page 2) was a 2 to 1 ratio; free market could be up to a .75 to 1 of the development or 6,750 square feet; the commercial or office component at not more than the total floor area of the free market; there could be as much affordable housing as desired. Allgaier said that no one free market unit could be more than 2,000 square feet in size. The MU Zone District height could go up to 32 feet in contrast to 25 feet in the residential zone. Allgaier said when there was an application for the mixed use building they would have to go back to P&Z for the Growth Management Quota System requirements and Commercial Design Guidelines making sure there was compatibility, off street parking and ensuring that any dimensional requirements meet the code. Staff finds this property could serve as a transition between the more highly developed Main Street and the residential neighborhood behind; it could anchor the existing Main Street. This property was compromised for residential purposes because of traffic. Allgaier said that the new development had to be highly sensitive to the traffic issues and where access comes from and how newly generated traffic associated with a mixed use development would work and while this doesn't seem to be an issue now but will need to be addressed and carefully looked at when they come back for the development. Staff found the project favorable to rezoning. Stan Clauson introduced Ronald and Roger Long who grew up in this house and remember a dentist office in the house and this house was in the Office Zone, a pre-cursor to the Mixed Use Zone. Clauson said that any development plan would come back to P&Z. Clauson said that the redevelopment under MU would allow for a structure that would enhance the development; it was rezoned to R-15 in the 1970s, which included increased traffic counts at the intersection of ih and Main; a CDOT record of decision through the NEP A process that extended Main Street and future light rail past the subject property and onto a new bridge at Castle Creek; rezoning of the Office 0 Zone along Main Street into the Mixed Use Zone MU, which was a changed circumstance; the multi-family affordable housing at ih and Main; adoption of the AACP 2004, which promotes infill and increased densities to build up areas of Aspen. 3 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission - Minutes - April 18, 2006 Dylan Johns asked if the Main Street Overlay was purely an option or was there other framework. Allgaier said that the Historic Preservation Officer did not think that this property or building was contributing to the Main Street District. Jasmine Tygre asked staffs position on this property becoming Mixed Use while the other properties on the part of ih Street were all residential, why should this property become commercial. Allgaier replied the site was quite compromised for what can be developed as a single family house. Tygre asked for an explanation for the term anchor. Allgaier answered visually anchor was a substantial building that can handle what that intersection is like and not a smaller residential development but something that defines that intersection and becomes the entrance to Main Street. Allgaier submitted a letter dated March 13th from Herb Klein. Public Comments: 1. Nancy Henricks, owner at Villas of Aspen, noted that in February the president of their association sent a letter. Henricks wanted to see the Longs pleased with this but she can not see why this should be mixed use; there were a lot of kids and traffic. Henricks said that she would like to see the City purchase the property and make a park out this property. 2. Marc Friedberg asked if the corner were rezoned could the property next door be rezoned having a cascading effect all the way to the bridge, if there is a bridge there. Allgaier responded the likely hood of that was minimal because this was a brand new deed restricted affordable housing; the rezoning could be applied for in the future. 3. Fredrick Uhlr lives in the Aspen Villas and said that there was a store put in the new housing and was taken out and is now used as a living quarters; there was the Christian Science; the Hickory House; years ago there was a gas station on the side ofih Street. Uhlr asked why anyone would go through the trouble of rezoning and have no other idea about the property. 4. Rowine St. Andre said that her Aspen has been gone a long time ago; she spoke of slowing things down and keep the corner the way it is. 5. Ron Long said that somebody missed the corner on Main Street and hit one of the boulders in front of the garage; that was one reason this corner was not suitable for a single family residence. 6. Roger Long said the subject property was under contract so they were not hiding anything. Allgaier said the permitted uses under the MU Zone were not retail or restaurant uses but service, office lodging, arts, cultural, public, recreational, academic uses and child care were allowed. 4 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission - Minutes - April 18, 2006 John Rowland said that he struggled with the zoning maps but this was a terrible intersection that needs a sense of place and another residence would not apply. Rowland supported staffs decision and looked forward to this rezoning. Dylan Johns said that he shared the same concerns as John with the relationship; he did not think that R-15 was a good zone, maybe RMF to make it all whole. Johns said that this was a challenging site to develop under any circumstance and that any proposal that comes though will be seen by P&Z. Brian Speck agreed with John and Dylan because of the area he could see a mixed use development. Speck said he did not like not knowing what kind of development was going to go there and would like more restrictions like the Bavarian had for height. Speck liked the idea of anchoring that corner and would support this project. Jasmine Tygre stated that she was in direct opposition to the other members of the commission; she said this was not an appropriate spot for mixed use zoning and looking at the map she can not see how this cannot be considered spot zoning. Tygre said ih Street divides part of town that is more developed than the other side, which is primarily residential in character and doesn't follow the staff recommendation. Tygre asked why you would want to intensify uses on a corner that already has circulation and traffic problems; she thought that this was a terrible solution. Tygre said that she'll vote against it because it was inconsistent with items (page 6 & 7 staff memo) "C, D & G". MOTION: John Rowland moved to approve Resolution #007, Series 2006, recommending City Council rezone the "Long Family Property" located at 802 West Main Street to MU, Mixed Use Zone District. Seconded by Brian Speck. Roll call vote: Johns, yes; Speck, yes; Rowland, yes; Tygre, no. APPROVED 3-1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 3/7/6: 17 SHADY LANE Jasmine Tygre opened the continued hearing on 17 Shady Lane. James Lindt stated at the previous hearing the commission approved a Stream Margin Review and Design Standards Variances for a new single family house at 17 Shady Lane. Lindt explained that the commission requested more detail on the fence request. The applicants have redesigned the fence and the slight relocation of Shady Lane to the north. Lindt said the resolution approves both the fence and relocation; if P&Z chooses only the fence to be approved then Section 3 can be stricken. 5 _"~_~.___~,_."."._.",._,_,_..c~.,..._'.","_, Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission - Minutes - April 18, 2006 Heather Stone said the fence related to the safety of this corner property as cars proceed down Red Mountain Road with lights associated with those cars, noise and snow load or stacking off of Red Mountain Road. Stone said the existing wooden fence was just shy of 6 feet. Stone said the commission had concerns for a continuous fence wall, getting perforations and separations in that wall and vegetation interacting with this wall. Stone said that all of the improvements were located within the site. Stone stated that the most recent designs put forward were putting Shady Lane back in its legal easement; there was about 5 to 5\1, feet of pavement that was outside of the existing easement; they cut back the south side of Shady Lane by that amount and basically put it back into its easement and provide a significant vegetative buffer between the edge of the pavement. Ruth Kruger appreciated the site visit and her main concern was the safety of narrowing that intersection from Red Mountain on the south side with the loss of space to the road. Lindt responded that the fire marshal was consulted and it met the minimum width requirements; Shady Lane does taper down to a width of 14 feet not far into the actual road. Jasmine Tygre asked ifthe red line on the drawings represented 3.6 feet, which would be the 42 inches of the code requirement. Jay Hammond stated there were conversations with the Fire Marshal; Shady Lane was a single lane access in terms of width at 14 feet. Hammond said entering Shady Lane had a pretty straight view and further down there were pull-offs where Shady Lane crosses the trail and the old railroad tracks. Public Comments: 1. Marc Friedberg, public, commended the applicant and Design Workshop for the modifications in terms of the relocation of Shady Lane; he supports the wall variance because of the amount of traffic on Red Mountain Road and accidents. Friedberg said the snowplows damage the wooden fence on the other side of the road. Friedberg said the design was very aesthetic and the landscape plan was very attractive. 2. Rowine St. Andre, public, said she did not understand cutting down trees. St. Andre said that she liked the Lane the way it is. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #17, Series 2006, approving with conditions, a variance from the fence height residential design standards to allow for the construction of a masonry wall of up to six (6) feet tall 6 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission - Minutes - April 18, 2006 along the property line adjacent to Red Mountain Road at 17 Shady Lane and allowingfor the relocation of Shady Lane as proposed in Exhibit C. John Rowland seconded. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Johns, yes; Rowland, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, no. APPROVED 4-1. Discussion of motion: Johns asked ifthere was a specific representation as far as this variance applying to this plan. Lindt replied it was Exhibit C. Kruger liked the new plan because of the way the fence was broken up; Johns agreed that It was a nice design. Tygre said that in order to approve the variances to residential design standards the commission's finding must find the criteria as being met. Tygre said that she did not see a site specific reason for the 42 inch fence to be more than 42 inches in certain locations. Tygre said that she did not feel that the criteria had been met for the fence even though it was an improved plan. Johns said the site specific was being at the base of Red Mountain with vehicles and snowplowing was why that fence would be more than 42 inches in some spots. CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING (3/7/6): 719 EAST HOPKINS MULTI-FAMILY Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for 719 East Hopkins. Chris Bendon stated that the below grade units were allowed in the code because this application was submitted in accordance with the old code. Stan Clauson stated that this was a multifamily replacement ordinance project, which means 50% of the units and square footage of an existing free market building (rented to locals over the years) needed to be replaced. Clauson said this fully complies with the multi-family replacement ordinance; there were 3 deed restricted units and more than the number of bedrooms by a half of a bedroom. There were 3 parking spaces on the street and 4 parking spaces in garages to serve the free market units. Clauson said that the code did not require above grade affordable housing when this application was submitted and these units provide housing. Clauson said this was a constrained site at 6,000 square feet and trying to put free market and affordable housing units was difficult without meeting the requirements of the new code. Clauson said that the key issue or stumbling block seemed to be the affordable housing units below grade. John Rowland inquired about egress concerns from the DRC. Clauson responded that there were more than 4 units therefore the International Residential Code requires accessibility, so there were some design challenges. Clauson said the window wells provided the necessary light and egress. 7 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission - Minutes - April 18, 2006 Jasmine Tygre asked if the additional FAR was for the affordable housing on site. Bendon replied that was correct the free market floor area would be limited to 4500 square feet if the affordable units were not located on site. Ruth Kruger asked where the entrances were to the affordable housing units. Hans Berglund showed the plans where the stairs and elevator come down from the vestibule to the 3 apartments. Berglund said per the International Code there were window wells for egress. Kruger said the affordable units were in the back of the lower level. No public comments. Brian Speck asked if one of the conditions was the detached sidewalk and trees. Bendon responded that Section 6 included the ADA requirements for the sidewalk and Section 2 spoke to the tree p1antings. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #13, Series 2006, approving with conditions, a growth management review for affordable housing, special review for floor area, and recommending City Council approve with conditions, the subdivision application for 719 East Hopkins Avenue multi-family development. John Rowland seconded. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Kruger, yes; Rowland, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 4-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (4/4/6): 1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVISION/CONSOLIDATED PUD Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing on 1001 Ute Avenue. Chris Bendon stated the public notice was provided at the last hearing. James Lindt said the application was to construct 2 single family residences at 1001 Ute; Planning & Zoning shall be the final review authority on the 8040 Greenline Review and recommending body to City Council on the Subdivision, PUD and Growth Management requests. The parcel was vacant except for the tennis courts leased to the Gant; the parcel was located to the west of Ajax Park. The parcel was about 7 acres; the 4 acres to the south were located in the county, the 3 acres on the lower portion were in the City zoned R-15. Lindt said the proposal was to subdivide the property into 2 single family houses of about 5,040 square feet each (lot 1 and lot 2) and subdivide 4 open space parcels (one open space parcel would take care of the access, a single driveway to serve both lots); the second open space parcel would contain the tennis courts, which will be moved to the west by about 30 feet and still leased to the Gant; the third open space parcel was a common open space area and the fourth open space parcel was currently located in the County and would be deeded to the City for open space with a conservation easement. Lindt 8 Aspen Plannio!! & Zooin!! Commission - Minutes - April 18, 2006 said that they would either provide an ADU or pay cash-in-lieu for the two proposed single-family houses. Lindt said in reviewing the subdivision request, the applicant has several natural hazards on site to mitigate for mine tailings; there were conditions in the resolution that apply to that hazard similar to the Smuggler Superfund site. Lindt stated there were rock fall and avalanche concerns addressed in the proposed resolution. Lindt said that some of the review standards for the PUD speak to compatibility with the neighborhood; there were three FAR scenarios that could be applied to the proposal. The neighboring Hoag Subdivision, located just to the east, residences contain F ARs between 3800 and 3900 square feet after slope reduction; the Aspen Chance Subdivision, located to the west, with 5400 square feet average and the four houses at the bottom of Ute Avenue with between 2700 and 3200 square feet. The applicant modeled the FAR on the underlying R-15 zone district at 5040 square feet. Staff believed the FAR should be limited to the same as the Hoag Subdivision, between 3800 and 3900 square feet because the lots will be quite visible from Ute Avenue. Lindt stated the applicant proposed a conservation easement on the upper portion of the property, which is in the county, in exchange for the additional development right for lot 2. Lindt said the Open Space Board has indicated support of preserving the upper parcel; the county planning staff indicated that there would not be a second development right on the open space portion. Therefore staff can not support the Growth Management Review for the preservation of open space parcels to get the second development right instead they suggest the applicant apply for 60% affordable housing development and provide a category 4 affordable housing unit to mitigate that process. Glen Horn introduced the applicant Leathem Stern, Greg Mosian the landscape architect, Jack Miller the architect, Peter Thomas the attorney and Darryl Mackey the project manager. Glen Horn said there was strategic importance of the preservation parcel and a neighborhood compatibility issue with respect to floor area. Horn brought photos and graphics and requested the commissioners to site visit this property prior to the next meeting. Horn explained the history of the site beginning with the prior owner, Allen Chosen, who now lives on Ute Avenue and came up with a plan for the property that worked. Horn said that Leathem wanted to live on Lot I and proceed with the project as proposed. Horn said they made a presentation to the Open Space and Trails Board on this project and received unanimous support because it directly connected with open space properties in the area, Ajax Park, the Aspen Chance, 9 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission - Minutes - April 18, 2006 Pitkin County Open Space at the base of Little Nell, the Ute trail, Ajax trail and a popular ski return from Little Nell down to Ajax Park. Horn said this project represents a density reduction by 50% on the R-15 portion; the property in total is zoned for 5 units; the county portion of the site is zoned AFR-10 (1 unit per 10 acres). Horn said that covering up the mine tailings with trees would be a lot more attractive. Horn stated the surrounding land uses were on the Hoag Subdivision, the Aspen Chance Subdivision and the Newfoundland Claim in Pitkin County contained a large house with a retaining wall. The houses on the Hoag Lot 3 and Newfoundland were above the 8040 Greenline. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to continue the hearing to 7: 15pm; seconded by John Rowland. All infavor, APPROVED. Horn said the Aspen Chance looked similar to this property with mine tailing on site prior to development of the subdivision; their goal was to emulate what the Chance did. Horn noted the criteria for determining the significance of a preservation parcel and the associated development rights to be granted may include the strategic nature of the parcels for parks, trails and open space; the Aspen Area Community Plan identified the mapping as private land with preservation value; the proximity from the City of Aspen; the Growth Management Exemption used on the lower portion there would not be a development right on the upper parcel. Horn said by right they could have built a house up to 15,000 square feet on the upper portion in the county but Leathem and Allen did not want to go with that option instead they wanted to do something more compatible with the neighborhood. Leathem agreed to gift the 4.1 acres in the County to the City in fee in addition to having a conservation easement over it. Leathem Stern said that Allen did most of the leg work to preserve the character of the neighborhood and wants to have his residence on the Lot. Stern said landscaping will get rid of the pile and make the property look like a park; the intention was to have the whole thing blend in. Lindt clarified that the development rights for the property was I development right, which could be expressed as a duplex or two detached single family houses if the development right is used on the city portion; if they were to use that development right in the county they could build a single family residence. Horn said there would be changes to the county code but the base allotment in the county 10 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission - Minutes - April 18, 2006 would be 5,750 square feet with the possibility of special review for TDRs; there was only I exemption right on the entire parcel. Kruger asked the ages of the different subdivisions; when were they developed. Horn replied the Ute addition was very old; the Chance was done in the eighties, the last change was made in 1989; the Hoag was done in 1971. Kruger asked how long the Gant's lease was for. Horn replied another 80 years. Kruger asked about cleaning up the mine tailings. Lindt responded they have applied many of the conditions similar those at the Smuggler Superfund site, soils tests and possible capping or hauling away. Horn said there was certification that haulers must have to deal with material like this. Horn said as the applicant they will review soils tests and monitor with the Environmental Health Department and certified trained persons for the entire excavation process. Kruger asked about a third party easement. Horn answered that it was Aspen Valley Land Trust, which made it more complicated to undo it and the chances of getting it undone were unlikely. The commissioner questions included concern about the house sizes, the growth management exception for lot 2, the possibility of development rights on the conservation easement; the commission would like to see a graph with the possibilities for the development rights and go on a site visit. Horn said that there was the possibility of two detached duplexes at 3700 square feet each or 2 free market units and I category 4 unit (30% of the second free market unit) that would be condominimized or build on a separate lot. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to continue the hearing until 7:30pm; seconded by John Rowland. All infavor, APPROVED. Dylan John excused himself at 7:24 pm. Lindt noted that the deputy director ofthe county community development stated that there were no development rights on the upper portion after using the development rights on Lot I. Horn said that was not disputed. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to continue the public hearing for 1001 Ute Avenue to May 2nd; seconded by John Rowland. All infavor, APPROVED. 7:3~pm. ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk II