Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20060606 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - June 06, 2006 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2 530 EAST DURANT, AJAX MOUNTAIN BUILDING - SUBDIVISION & GROWTH MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................2 LIFT ONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW................................................ 4 CODE AMENDMENT - HISTORIC PRESERVATION TDRS IN THE MUL TI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ..................................................................... 6 1 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - June 06, 2006 Ruth Kruger opened the regular City of Aspen Planning & Zoning meeting in Council Chambers Meeting Room at 4:30 pm. Commissioners present were Dylan Johns, Steve Skadron, Mary Liz Wilson, Brian Speck and Ruth Kruger. Jasmine Tygre, John Rowland, Brandon Marion were excused. Staff in attendance were Jennifer Phelan, James Lindt, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Ruth Kruger inquired about the ski easement on the Top of Mill. James Lindt replied that Joyce was working on getting Jasmine an answer but community development will follow up. Kruger asked what ever happened to the open space in the Caribou Alley that was several years old. Lindt will research that. MINUTES MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve the minutes from May 5t\ seconded by Dylan Johns. All in favor, APPROVED. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. PUBLIC HEARING 530 EAST DURANT, AJAX MOUNTAIN BUILDING - SUBDIVISION & GROWTH MANAGEMENT Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for the Ajax Mountain Building. James Lindt stated that the public notice of publication, posting and mailing that meets the jurisdictional requirements of the commission. Lindt said that the application was submitted by Ajax Mountain Associates requesting approval of subdivision, growth management review for the development of affordable housing and growth management review for free market residential units in a mixed use building. The applicant proposed construction of one free market residential unit (3,314 square feet) and one 2 bedroom affordable housing unit category 4 for sale (1,110 square feet) on the Ajax Mountain Building. P&Z was final review on the growth management requests and the recommending body to Council on the subdivision of the application. HPC already granted approval of conceptual and final design review as well as a view plane exemption from the Cooper Street View Plane because the view was already blocked by the North of Nell Building, located to the South of this parcel. 2 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - June 06, 2006 Lindt provided the floor plans of the units, which were located on the same floor (there was the existing elevation and proposed addition). The overall height of the addition was 35 feet. Staff believed that the application met all of the review standards and the application was submitted prior to the 2000 square foot cap placed on free market residential units. The Affordable Housing was about 33% in square footage of the free market unit, which exceeds the 30% requirement. Lindt said that no on site parking was provided but the Commercial Core Zone District in which the property is located has no parking requirements. Stafffelt the application met the review standards and recommends approval of the resolution in the packet. Mitch Haas said this was a straight forward application. Haas said that the growth management required affordable housing to be at least 30% of the floor area of the free market unit. Haas said that there was no parking required on site in this zone district. Haas noted the height limit in this in this zone district was 46 feet and the proposed addition was at 35 feet so it was below the height limit. Haas said the allowable floor area was 3 to 1, which would be 54,000 square feet of floor area and the proposal was 28,000 square feet less. Haas said that this proposal meets and exceeds the growth management review requirements and the subdivision review. Haas said that there was no issue with any of the conditions of approval. Jeffrey Halferty stated that it was a wonderful opportunity to work for a great client and project and affordable housing unit. Halferty said that they had the support of the neighbors. Halferty said a condition from HPC was set to conceal all of the mechanical in an obscure place. Steve Skadron asked why it was an HPC review when the building was not historic. Haas replied that it was in the historic district. Mary Liz Wilson asked if the whole Commercial Core was in the historic district. Lindt replied that was correct. Halferty said that HPC just started the view plane review this year. Haas elaborated that for HPC to review the mass, height, bulk and not the view plane seemed incomplete; so if the applicant was at HPC for conceptual and there was a view plane it should be considered at the same time at HPC. Ruth Kruger requested dialog about this change (from P&Z to HPC); she said when P&Z reviewed the Conner Cabins View Plane the commission requested more information. Kruger stated this was an issue regarding the process and had nothing to do with this application. 3 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - June 06. 2006 Steve Skadron asked if the free-market and affordable units could apply for a Street Parking pass in the Core. Lindt replied that was correct as long as they had an address. The 2005 growth management allotments were discussed. No public comments. Brian Speck stated that he would like to see parking but that was not possible for this project. Speck stated this was a project that he could support. Mary Liz Wilson said that she also could support this project. Ruth Kruger commended the applicant for coming in with a project that addresses what the infill was looking for; additional housing and respectfully placed affordable housing. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve resolution #20, Series 2006, approving with conditions, a growth management review for the development offree-market residential units within a mixed use project and a growth management review for the development of affordable housing; acknowledging the condominiumization of the development is to be approved by the Community Development Director, and recommending that the City Council approve with conditions, the Ajax Mountain Building Subdivision to develop afree-market residential unit and a two-bedroom affordable housing unit on the roof of the existing Ajax Mountain Building at 520 East Durant Avenue. Seconded by Dylan Johns. Roll call vote: Wilson, yes; Skadron, yes; Speck, yes; Johns, yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING LIFT ONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing on the Lift One. James Lindt stated that the notices were provided. Lindt stated this was a public hearing to consider an application submitted by the Lift One Condo Association; requesting growth management review for affordable housing and special review to establish affordable housing parking requirements and a consolidated conceptual final PUD. The applicant requested a continuance on the growth management review and special review for parking to amend their plans for the affordable housing unit. Lindt distributed a revised resolution for the PUD request for the applicant's to do parapet elements as well as pitched roof elements to the existing flat roofs on the existing Lift One Condo, which was over the height limit (40 feet in height). The applicant also proposed increasing the sizes and heights of the chimneys. The 4 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - JUDe 06, 2006 applicant proposed these changes to enhance the quality of the building appearance. Staff felt the chimney sizes should be scaled down. Paul Taddune showed what the building looks like now; their proposal was purely aesthetic trying to bring up the character of the building. Mary Liz Wilson asked if the chimneys were being made larger and asked for the current and new dimensions. Seth, applicant's investment representative, replied the width stays the same and they originally wanted to increase the chimney heights for better draw. Seth said that the heights would not help the chimney draw so heights for the chimneys would be increased only by 2 to 3 feet. Steve Skadron asked what the alternative was to not extending the life of a non- conforming building. James Lindt responded there were code requirements that suggest the extension of the life and use of a building by beautifYing an existing building however the other side of the coin would be if the building were demolished they would have to come back to fit into the code requirements in that zone district. Ruth Kruger asked if they were adding some more affordable housing units. Lindt replied that was the plan. Paul Taddune responded there was a free-market unit in the basement owned by the association and they were running up against housing regulations as to how big a unit was needed for a certain category. The Homeowners Association would like to have an on site manager in that unit with a six month minimum lease. Taddune said the employee housing was already there as a so called bandit unit, which has been there since the condominium was built. Taddune eXplained as the law stands now the unit cannot exist. Lindt said that Staff suggested the applicant go back to the housing board to authorize the unit. Kruger stated that it would be a shame to loose this unit as an affordable housing unit since it had been an employee unit for years. Taddune stated the association would like to have someone on site. Taddune said there would be no increase in FAR and no impact on requirements. No public comments. Wilson said the height was only in the parapet areas and felt it could improve the building and would rather see the building improved rather than tom down. Dylan Johns said this added to the character of the building and the overall impact was minimal for what it does. Johns agreed with the chimneys being lowered to 2 5 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - June 06. 2006 to 3 feet above the existing chimneys. Kruger asked for clarification on the heights of the addition to the chimneys. Skadron complimented the applicant on the improvement to the building but was not convinced this was the only design that was eclectic in the community. Skadron expressed concern for the height and would probably vote no on this application. MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to approve Resolution #21, series 2006, recommending City Council approve the text amendments to Section 26. 710. 190(D)(2)(a) Lodge Zone District with conditions the Lift One Condominiums and not to exceed the increase the height by three feet (3') for the chimneys; seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Wilson, yes; Skadron, no; Johns, yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED 4-1. Kruger requested that housing maintain the employee unit. MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the growth management review for the Lift One Condominiums to September 5, 2006; seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. All infavor, APPROVED. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT - HISTORIC PRESERVATION TDRS IN THE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for the Historic Preservation TDRs. Jennifer Phelan provided the proof of notice and stated the applicant, Dan Coleman, was represented by Eric Cohen. Staff sponsored this code amendment. Phelan said the request was to allow non-conforming, non-historic lots 5,000 square feet or less with a single family or duplex residence the ability to land one historic 250 square foot TDR in the Residential Multi-family Zone District (RMF). Phlen stated the historic TDR was created by a person who owns a historic parcel with floor area that they agree not to develop and it was turned into a TDR. The intent of the historic TDR was to create an avenue for income generation for historic property. Phelan said there were a number of historic TDR landing sites in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, R-15B and R-30 Zone Districts, which were primarily single family and duplex developments. Phelan said after working with the assessor and GIS they found approximately 9 lots that could actually land these TDRs. 6 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - June 06, 2006 Phelan said the reasons that staff would not support this code amendment were that these were non-conforming lots and the intent of the Residential Multi-family Zone District was to encourage Multi-family but not to encourage expansion of non- conformity development. Phelan said there were also merits to this code amendment. Staff recommended that the TDR be added only to existing detached residences that were conforming. Ruth Kruger asked where Mr. Coleman's property was located. Eric Cohen replied that Mr. Coleman did not own any of those lots. Eric Cohen said that when the RMF language was rewritten as a disincentive to single family construction in RMF it further encouraged multi-family. Cohen said that realistically these were geared to single family or duplex dwellings. Cohen said that this would help the historic TDR program because there hasn't been enough demand for the historic TDR. Cohen stated that most non-conformities were lot size and making a non-conformity greater would be to shrink the lot; he did not believe that the non-conformity argument was relevant in this request. Skadron asked the purpose of a non-conformity. Phelan replied the non- conforming uses were uses that should not be in that zone district and non- conforming lots of record were smaller than what was allowed in that zone district. Phelan said the purpose of non-conformity in general was to create some parameters that maintain and don't fall into disrepair and that at some point in the future were replaced with a conforming structure. Cohen stated that a 3,000 square foot lot for example should have the same rights as the R-6 land owner, which allowed the landing of historical TDRs; this program would allow the buy back of some of the area lost with replacement. Skadron asked Eric what was envisioned by the end result of this code amendment; was it larger houses on these lots. Cohen replied that they would get 250 feet more as in the Cemetery Lane area. Kruger said that she was still in a quandary as to why staff did not recommend approval. Phelan responded that staff felt this had validity but the intent was not to encourage additional investment in non-conformities. Dylan Johns said that regardless whatever brought this code amendment before P&Z right now the question still remains was this something that was wanted in this zone district. Johns said that the disincentives were put in place for a reason and it was a significant increase in the density by 250 square feet onto a 3,000 square foot lot. Johns did not feet this was a necessary code amendment. 7 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes - June 06, 2006 Skadron agreed with staff on the conflicts with the purpose of further increasing the non-conformities. Skadron stated this was unclear. MOTION: Mary Liz Wilson moved to approve Resolution #22, series of2006, recommending City Council approved the proposed land use amendments to Land Use Code Section 26.710.090 (lO)(a)and (b), Residential Multi-family (RMF) Zone District: Floor Area Ration (FAR). Seconded by Dylan Johns. Roll call vote: Speck, no; Skadron, no; Johns, no; Wilson, no; Kruger, yes. DENIED 4-1. Meeting adjourned at 6:45pm. 8