Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20060502 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - Mav 02. 2006 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 3 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 3 LODGE DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENTS ......................................................... 3 1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVISION/CONSOLIDATED PUD............................. 3 MOSES PROPERTY, 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW.............................................. 8 BOOMERANG LODGE PUD ................................................................................. 8 1 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - Mav 02. 2006 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular City of Aspen Planning & Zoning meeting in Sister Cities at 4:30 pm. Commissioners present were Mary Liz Wilson, Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns, John Rowland, Ruth Kruger, Brian Speck and Jasmine Tygre. Brandon Marion was excused. Staff in attendance were Chris Bendon, Joyce Allgaier, James Lindt, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Mary Liz Wilson asked if anything had come up regarding Tom Cardamone's comments about tightening up ACES ESA. Jasmine Tygre said that most of the members of the commission agreed that the ESA was something to be looked at with a view toward the words matching the intentions; hoping that Tom would give additional input for the revision of the SPA. Joyce Allgaier responded that they can proactive1y include the neighbors and Tom. Jasmine Tygre asked the status of the Zupancis property. Allgaier replied that it was intended to be used for the parking department. James Lindt said the overall idea was still being flushed out through the Civic Center Master Plan Discussions. Tygre asked if the idea of providing housing was abandoned. Lindt replied that it wasn't abandoned but it was still in discussions; the Civic Center Master Plan has taken a back seat because of all of the projects on Community Developments' plate right now; it was an important issue. Tygre stated that housing funds were used to purchase that property, which doesn't necessarily mean anything because the monies were moved around, but some people thought that would be a good place for an infill mixed use project with housing, ifnot mostly housing on it. Allgaier replied that staff has raised that point as part of an option. Ruth Kruger wanted to look at the ADU rules and how they were written. Kruger asked if that topic could be on a P&Z work session. The commissioners would emai1lists to the Community Development Staff. Kruger stated that P&Z would like to be included in the infill work discussion. Joyce Allgaier distributed the Moratorium Summary prepared by James Lint. Allgaier noted that Council was initiating a discussion about potential code amendments; they were trying to establish some ideas about what kind of citizen participation process they will put in place to gain public input. Kruger stated it was a conflict for council work sessions to beon the same night as P&Z. Allgaier said that they were trying not to schedule so many extra Planning Commission Meetings and have planning related issues when the Planning Commission can attend Council Work Sessions. 2 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - May 02. 2006 Steve Skadron asked if Council's decisions on code changes were sent to P&Z. Allgaier replied the normal process for a code amendment was to start at P&Z and forward a recommendation to City Council and Council holds the hearings and makes the final changes. MINUTES Skadron requested an amendment to the minutes. Dylan Johns noted that he was conflicted on the MotherLode. The changes will be reflected in the minutes to be approved. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve/MOTION WITHDRA WN The minutes will be read and approved at the next meeting. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Jasmine Tygre was conflicted on 1001 Ute Avenue. PUBLIC HEARING LODGE DISTRICT CODE AMENDMENTS 1asmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Lodge District Code Amendments. The proof of notice was provided to the clerk. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing on the Lodge District Code Amendments to May 16th; Dylan Johns seconded. All in favor, APPROVED. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 1001 UTE AVENUE SUBDIVISION/CONSOLIDATED PUD Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing on 1001 Ute Avenue. James Lindt stated that notice was provided at the last hearing. The commission and staff completed a site visit at noon. Lindt refreshed the commission and public on the application noting the several parcels; 2 for single family residential development and several other common properties. The applicant proposed to subdivide 1001 Ute Avenue; move the existing tennis courts for the Gant about 40 feet to the west; 2 single family residential parcels; provide a common driveway to the proposed single family residences; another common parcel and a conservation easement on the portion of the property located in the county. The city/county boundary bisects the property; they were proposing the conservation easement in exchange for the second development right. 3 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - Mav 02. 2006 Lindt said there were 3 discussion items. (1) The natural hazards associated with the single family development, mine tailings and avalanche and rock fall concerns; they have an avalanche expert and a geologist to review the sight and made recommendations for mitigation of the avalanche and rock fall concerns. There were conditions of approval in the proposed resolution; Section 10 regulates avalanche and rock fall and requires a low mitigation wall or berm to be placed at the back portion of the residences or an alternative would be to minimize the fenestration on the back side ofthe houses. Section 11 regulates mine tailings in the resolution; it requires any soils with greater than 1,000 particles per 1,000,000 particles oflead be removed from the site and the remainder ofthe soils to be capped with non-hazardous dirt. (2) The allowable FAR was proposed by the applicants to be 5,040 square feet for each of the single family residences. Staff believed there were several justifiable options listed in the memo on page 2; staff recommended 3,830 square feet per residential unit to be consistent with the Hoag Subdivision however they could justify a larger FAR ifthere were a category 4 housing unit and the conservation unit were proposed because of the additional community benefit. (3) The growth management request was rather confusing. The applicant proposed a conservation easement on the upper portion in exchange for the second development right in the subdivision. Lindt said on page 3 of the staff memo several options relating to the growth management review were presented. The conservation easement would provide additional protection on the upper portion of the property; it would protect the property against future development and any code changes in the county over time that could allow additional development options. Lindt said the conservation easement would also allow public use of the upper portion of the property because it would be deeded to the city and placed in a third party conservation easement. It would allow intricate trail connections from existing trails. Brian Flynn stated the benefits of the conservation easement were the open space board support because it was a tool that puts a third party in charge of protecting a property from any unknown future uses. Flynn noted there were several properties already under conservation easements around this one; there were benefits with trail connections. Flynn said that Fritz's Vision was to make a circumference of town by trails. Flynn stated this was an important connection for the trail system. Lindt stated staff understood the benefits of the providing a conservation easement but believe it appropriate to require mitigation for the second development right with a category 4 employee unit. Glen Horn introduced Allen Chosen, the prior owner of this property and with the vision for this project. 4 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - May 02. 2006 Horn stated that this project was Leathem's thinking to be a benefit to the community and consistent with the land use code. Horn said they wanted to add a category 4 house for sale subdivided and located on Ute Avenue. Horn presented graphics depicting the 8000 elevation and 8040 greenline and square footage of the houses in the area and a photo from Smuggler across to this area. Horn said that they wanted to emulate the Aspen Chance Subdivision and not the Hoag or Newfoundland. Horn prepared a landscape plan ofthe site with vegetative screening and trees and for a landscape plan for the 8040 green1ine review for the specific houses when they were actually designed. Horn said that floor area was an issue. There were photos of what the Chance looked like before the Aspen Chance project and subdivision, which was a pile of mine tailings in the 1980s. Peter Thomas said without the second development right the whole subdivision unravels. Thomas said that they were deeding in fee the land to the city and in return they were asking to build two 5,000 square foot homes in the city. Thomas spoke of the Fox Crossing and the Hunter Valley Way conservation preservation parcel with regards to the growth management development rights. Thomas requested the same treatment as Fox Crossing received regarding the value of the preservation parcel and development rights. Lindt said on the changed application they were not far off with the addition of the category 4 deed restricted unit and the second development right. Staff still had concerns on the floor area and felt some additional FAR would be appropriate. Kruger asked how staff recommended that the commission come up with that number. Lindt said that staff felt these lots were consistent with the Hoag lots, which average 3830 square feet of FAR each. Horn said that without the growth management exemption by right the property could be developed with detached duplexes and associated ADUs; there could be a 3700 square foot duplex on one lot and on the other lot it would be comparable with one-third of the square footage for an affordable housing unit. Horn said that the growth management exemption entitles you to ask for 2 single family lots and some additional floor area. John Rowland asked if the fee for the deeded conservation easement was a gift. Lindt replied that it was a fee simple gift under a conservation easement. Steve Skadron asked who the the owners of the adjacent conservation easements and parcels were. Horn replied the land to the east was the owner of Hoag Lot 3 with no conservation easement; there was forest service land above that parcel and there was unincorporated Pitkin County Land owned by the Newfoundland. Horn 5 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - May 02. 2006 said they were trying to band together open space land along the top, which was called for in the Aspen Area Community Plan, private lands with preservation value. Skadron asked ifthere were any cons to a conservation easement. Flynn replied from Open Space there were no cons in their estimation. Skadron asked once that property is deeded to the city what can it do with that property. Lindt replied the purpose of their application and representation of their application is that it would be provided to the city to be placed in a conservation easement so that the city has one option to place in a third party conservation easement. Flynn explained the same day that they acquire the property is the same day that the easement is signed. Skadron asked what benefit the applicant gains from developing and selling the category 4 unit. Lindt replied the applicant would get the income from the sale of the category 4 unit. Skadron asked what is cost to build the unit. Stern replied it was over $300,000.00. Public Comments: Alan Chosen stated that he bought the property at 1001 Ute and owned it until this March 22nd; they bought the property to protect their interests and the interests of the people around them. Chosen explained that they wanted to sell the property to the right buyer who would have the same plans as he and his family had for this property. Chosen stated they wanted to restrict what could be built on the property and utilize the conservation process on the county portion of the property by deeding the 4.1 acres to the city so no one would ever have the ability to build on that parcel. Skadron stated that it was refreshing to hear maximizing your return wasn't always priority number one, which was a rarity. Skadron complimented Glen and Pete for the clear presentation. Skadron said that the motivating factor for this application was the additional FAR; there were two 5,000 square foot houses or 10,000 square feet, which was nearly fifty percent more. Skadron said what was important to him was to understand what the benefit was to the city. Skadron asked if the conservation easement and the category 4 was enough to mitigate for that; he encouraged considering the possibility exists that another applicant similar to this one from the owners of adjacent properties could be asking for similar things. Kruger asked what could come up for adjacent property owners to ask for additional FAR or development rights. Lindt responded that the neighboring parcels have used their inherent development rights to build their single family houses on their property; they would have to obtain additional development rights. 6 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - Mav 02. 2006 Mary Liz Wilson encouraged keeping the FAR for the 2 residences at 3800 or 3900 square feet and granting the conservation easement. Brian Speck commended the applicant in stating their objectives with the conservation easement and ADU; the proposal fills a lot of the trails system goals, which was a plus. Speck said that he was concerned about the FAR and would like to reduce the FAR. Peter Thomas said that they were entitled to 5040 square feet under the R-15 zoning after the slope reduction. Kruger asked for clarification if they were zoned for 4 houses in the city and 1 in the county although they would be with mitigation. Lindt replied that was based on was the minimum lot size in the R-15 zone; there would be enough lot area to subdivide into 4 separate lots, however they would have to go through growth management. Dylan Johns said the affordable housing was a benefit in a small development; the location of the lot was prime for conservation. Johns said that he saw the comparison with the Aspen Chance subdivision house sizes and did not think it was too much to ask for with the conservation easement and an affordable housing unit being provided. Johns said the underlying zoning was the way to go with respects to the FAR. John Rowland said the application had a lot of positives to it and the FAR was the big issue but he agreed with Dylan that the underlying zoning was the right avenue. Steve Skadron agreed with Dylan and John; he would like to see the square footage as in the Chance subdivision. Skadron said that he could support this if the FAR was consistent with the Chance Subdivision. Ruth Kruger agreed with Dylan and shared concern with Steve about the neighbors possibly adding another house however it would be with the P&Z discretion. Kruger said the site inspection was helpful. MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to approve Resolution #016, Series of2006 approving with conditions the 8040 Greenline Review and recommending City Council approve with conditions the 1001 Subdivision, Consolidated PUD, and Growth Management Review for the Preservation of Significant Open Space Parcels to divide the property at 1001 Ute Avenue into two (2) residential parcels and four (4) separate common open space areas and to amend Section 6 to 7 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - May 02. 2006 required one (1) for sale category 4 unit to mitigate for the residence on Lot 2. Seconded by John Rowland. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes; Wilson, yes; Speck, yes; Johns, yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED 6-0. Glen Horn stated that there would be an 8040 Green1ine review to consider the design aspects so the Commission will see this project again. Leathem Stern appreciated the Commissioners comments. PUBLIC HEARING: MOSES PROPERTY. 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing. MOTION: Mary Liz Wilson moved to continue the Moses property 8040 Greenline Review to May 16th; seconded by Dylan Johns. All in favor, APPROVED. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING BOOMERANGLODGEPUD Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Boomerang Lodge PUD. Notice was provided. Chris Bendon stated the height and design treatment on the east wing of the development were issues to discuss. Sunny Vann, representative for the applicant, stated the project team was a joint venture represented by Steve Stunda, the architect Augie Reno and attorney Michael Hoffman. Vann said that the parcel ofland across from the Boomerang was also owned by Charlie and Fonda Paterson; Steve Stunda became interested in buying the property and assembled a joint venture group to put the lodge and adjacent property under contract. Vann said collectively they determined that an expanded project lodge unit count would comply with the new legislation and could include a free market residential component, which was a key to the projects feasibility. Vann said that the east wing of the Boomerang would be retained as a way of preserving the old Aspen without historic designation at this time. Vann stated the project complied 100% with the lodge incentive program development provisions. Vann said there were a setback variances but the rest of the lodge dimensional requirements were met. There were 20 new guest rooms to the lodge; there were 6 free market residential units (from 1800 to 2400 square feet each) within the 25% limitation imposed by the incentive lodge provisions. 39 of the existing 42 trees will be retained on the property; there will be 19% of the site as open space; there will be a sub-grade 8 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - May 02. 2006 garage with parking for 31 cars; there will be retained parking in front of the lodge (much the same parking as it exists on the east side of the Christiana Lodge). Vann said that most of the project has been discussed with neighbors (letters of support were in the packet) however six of the twenty-four Christiana Lodge owners were concerned with the height and affect on their views. Vann said this lodge is in compliance with 5410dge units at an average lodge unit size of 500 square feet. Augie Reno explained the location between 4th Street and 5th Street on Hopkins and utilized drawings with shaded areas depicting the Boomerang and the Christiana. Reno said there were roof plan drawings of the Boomerang and Christiana with 4 colors represented; every height on the Boomerang was in compliance with the height regulations. Reno said the massing was broken up and relocated to the center section of the building about 50 feet away from the neighbors; the parking ramp was also located in the front of the building. Reno said they would have moved the building even farther back but there were many large trees located behind the building. Reno explained the floors plans: the lowest level below grade contained the 31 space garage; a sitting area, restrooms and sauna will be kept; the main level will be maintained on the eastern wing with 3 of the rooms, the lobby, new lounge and renovated the pool; the second level would be maintained with hotel rooms and the multi-purpose room; the third level is new and the eastern wing of the building has 5 rooms, 3 free market units and lodge rooms The fourth level was setback from the perimeter of the floor below and varies anywhere from 9 to 13 feet in different locations so it was not seen from the street; there was a roof deck, 3 free market units and 2 lodge units. Bendon clarified that the zoning was R-6 with an LP (lodge preservation) Overlay; lodge preservation allows for lodges as a use and requires lodge development go through a PUD review. Bendon said this project was in compliance with the Lodge District with a PUD. Reno stated the desire to maintain the eastern wing has pushed the design of the entire project because of the number of rooms; they were only able to add 5 rooms to the design and needed to get the other rooms in compliance with the ordinance. Skadron asked what the FAR was compared to the allowable. Vann replied the overall FAR under the L Zone District was 3 to 1, which was 81,000 square feet and the proposed lodge was about 51,000 square feet. 9 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - May 02. 2006 MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the Boomerang Lodge PUD to May 16th; seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. All in favor, APPROVED. Meeting adjourned at 7:05pm. 10