HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20070409
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 9. 2007
Ruth Kruger, Chair calls meeting to Order. Commissioners in attendance: Ruth Kruger,
Brian Speck, David Guthrie, LJ Erspamer. Steve Skadron and John Rowland were
excused.
Staff present: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director, Jessica Garrow and
Jennifer Phelan.
Kruger opens public hearing for land use hearing amendments from last week. No staff
comments. No public comment. Bendon continues public hearing, items from both April
2nd and 4th. Resolutions 10, II, 12, 13, and 15.
RMF, RMF-A Zone districts recommend unit size maximum cap of2000 sqft increasable
to 2500 with TDR and suggesting that be provision within infill areas. Discussion for
lowering single family FAR schedule and having that trigger be upon demolition. Area
outside infill 2500 up to 3000.
Erspamer asks if scrape and replace 80% is to give incentive to put up multi units rather
than a duplex or single family. Bendon confirms and its anywhere in zone district
independent of infill area. These zone districts are where we want to see residential
density and so there is desire for someone to be encouraged to build more units. Erspamer
asks if you might want to be more an;tenable to the homeowner like on Main St toward
the Hickory House. Transition area is when you have mixed uses.
Kruger asks why we are making the limit larger, if you want more density you would go
with smaller units. Bendon feels a purely residential project is different than a unit within
a mixed use building and also the unit size discussion has generated from mixed use
development and is really focused on immediate downtown. Kruger feels this doesn't
encourage density. Bendon adds this adds heights and floor area based on level of density
of project. If you have a multi family project that's less than I unit per 1500 sqft of lot
area then your height is 25 feet, you are allowed 32 feet if you have more than that level
of density. There is a sliding scale for FAR as well. Any new development is going to
have affordable housing requirement. Kruger can follow that logic.
Public Comments: Michelle Thiebault, Stan Clauson & Associates: They have at least
one project that will be impacted by proposed changes to RMF zone district. Proposed
size limitations has been seen as what is being proposed in lodging zone. Its important to
look at exactions taken against lodging development versus a residential development. In
lodge zone with 10 units 2000sqft each, parking is required Y, space per unit so only
generating need for 5 parking space. If that same building was in RMF and its residential
you have a need for I space per unit, that 10 unit has generated need for at least 10 but
more like 15 or 20 parking spaces. Parking requirement will have significant impact on
site building now in RMF residential zone. Twice as much parking and a lot less surface
space. If you add mitigation for affordable housing, underground parking will not recoup
costs as they will belong to affordable housing. She agrees with goal to increase density
on site but small units won't pay for onsite mitigation. Units will pay for underground
I
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 9. 2007
parking and affordable housing to make numbers work with small units. She has clients
say they would rather develop 2 larger duplex units to not worry about affordable housing
to degree they would with multi family building. Its more affordable to do fewer units,
meaning less exactions and less affordable housing mitigations. If you are going to do
size limitation on free markets in RMF zone, 3000 is a good start, less would be better.
Dimensional restrictions with FAR, height, setbacks, will somewhat regulate size of
units.
Guthrie asks Thiebault if she is hearing people want more density and less free market
development and will opposite by reducing the size of the units. Thiebault confirms.
Guthrie asks when she says "make it work" - Limelite had to make it work, but what does
that mean, 10% or 200% return on investment. Kruger intercepts we can't comment on
financials. Bendon hesitates dialogue about a specific project. Thiebault clarifies that they
have more than 2 properties that are under this issue. Kruger feels there is no point in
making rules that don't work but on the other hand we can't be economic judges.
Thiebault clarifies its more incentivising. Bendon advises zoning it's a tool of limitation
not creation. 2500 and 3000 are not so prohibitive in relation to square footage for single
family house or duplex.
John Rowland arrives.
3 issues: Lowering of FAR, multi family duplex and unit size cap.
Erspamer stuck on massive zone and feeling there shquld be transition to more acceptable
idea ofreplacing equal with equal. Kruger points out west end has a tiny RMF. Bendon
adds still have right to full FAR, its only upon demolition.
Rowland asks how many TDR's. Bendon expects they'll be stronger market to extent
demand is created. Kruger adds there is a substantial amount oflots. Bendon states 4
created independent of Fox Crossing Project, and has been increased interest in creating
TDR's through this discussion.
Motion to adopt Resolution 10 (April 9'h draft) which recommends changes to RMF and
RMF A zone district, Rowland moves, Guthrie seconds. No further discussion. Kruger
allows Thiebau/t to note that increased density will be pitted against existing GMQS
allotments potentially more units competing for same number of allotments. Roll: John
yes, Brian yes, David yes, LJ yes, Ruth yes. APPROVED 5-0
Commercial- Resolution No 12: common in all zone districts where range of heights,
suggesting range 38 increasable to 42 though commercial design review. Kruger asks
where incentives are written from 28-38 feet. Bendon states 28 is for two story elements
of building. There is no longer 3 to I FAR. Incentives are in FAR section.
Erspamer discusses ground floor units, confirms that existing buildings will dictate
building they are applying for, and is okay with floor to floor heights.
#7 uses in SCI - range of options heard eliminate floating 9000sqft limitation. Option A:
remove this use design studio from SCI, Option B: keep use as permitted use with
2
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 9. 2007
limitations, design studios in existence prior to adoption of ordinance _, shall not be
expanded or relocated; Option C: allow use with absolutely no limitations, Option D:
allow office use with no limitation, broader than Option C, Option E: allow office uses
with limitation on size of individual space.
Bendon advises if we are going to allow offices to not exclude a segment of those by only
allowing for a design studio. If tendency is more toward allowing for offices he suggests
D or E and not C. If inclined to now allow any offices, focus on A and B.
Letter emailed from Bill Lipsey to P&Z and City Council dated April 8th.
9: heights. Prior versions both have 32-38 range and has been captured in commercial
design review standards and encourages additional height to be on first floor amenable
for SCI businesses.
9.5: reversion to existing text. SCI zone free market housing discussed. Affordable
housing mitigation is different in recognition of SCI being things being subsidized.
Kruger questions #2, page 4: why discourage commercial or lodging use? Lodging is
moved from B to C but has much different FAR associated with it. 3 to I from 1.5 to I is
a huge discouragement. Kruger firmly thinks SCI zone district is not only appropriate for
high density but if somebody could be creative to build hotel. Bendon replies this is just
commercial core, a lodging project downtown might be perfectly fine and may be
appropriate to rezone to commercial lodge development rather than allow it outright.
Kruger would rather see 2 floors of lodging than some of other possibilities, and lodging
is higher density. Kruger thinks 1.5 to I is practical but doesn't want to limit it and would
prefer 2 to I, as you diminish you decrease flexibility.
Erspamer asks to focus on small lodging and housing as that zone district is where this
lodging would fit. Rowland asks if case study has been done on item 3. Phelan replies
floor area ratios were done based on use and mitigations and plan to go through Winter &
Company examples and integrate programs to see how it affects different uses. Bendon
replies buildings work without free market residential. Bendon feels we are looking for
some sort of ratio that allows for residential that is an accessory use.
Erspamer questions page 10, conditional uses and Bandon's suggestion. Bendon
addresses floating allotment that goes away and discernable difference between design
office and other commercial business that could argue value to community. He would
like to steer away from design studio either as allowing offices outright or not allowing
offices. Erspamer asks if it would be more acceptable if only allowed on second floor.
Erspamer thinks incentive to bring residential services down to area.
Kruger opens to public comment: Bill Lipsey, citizen and owner of business in SCI Mill
Street North. Letter submitted. He was involved with Obermeyer in the beginning and
seeing certain patterns forming in community plan and development area studied around
County building. Certain things jelled in terms of stimulating SCI production. Town
3
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 9. 2007
benefited from revitalizing run down area and benefit from replacing substandard SCI
space with new SCI space. Idea of using free market to make that happen is the only
thing that could have make that happen. That model can be successful across street from
him on Mill because of size and two large parcels are owned by a single entity who can
control access in a way that works in zoning code. They are going to have to build as
much SCI as possible to build as much free market as possible above it. That
incentivising will work. His parcel doesn't work and is the black sheep of SCI family.
They feel fortunate to be in town but its upsetting to be under that uncertain cloud. He
tried to figure a way to recognize they are different and physical constraints on parcel
don't work. He is hoping to keep his property SCI and hopes they are recognized for their
investment there. He is proposing workspace for artists and designers. Allow a category
called live/work.
Commissioner comments: _likes Option D. _likes option D as well. Notion of
live/work is extremely powerful and is concerned about abuse. Kruger feels we can't
protect an office use type. Bendon states if its not clear than you are trying to be too
precise. Kruger feels its appropriate to get association together and apply for new zoning.
Bendon comments the idea of ancillary residences and from an outward appearances are
predominantly residences. Our fear here is the value of residential versus artist studio
might be severe. There is a provision that allows anyone to work out of their residence
now with limitations. There are some professions that have modest impact on their
neighbors. No one gets kicked out in any of these options. Worst case these uses become
nonconforming.
Erspamer questions if page 8 SCI uses could be a bicycle shop. Bendon confirms and
only difference is floor area devoted to retail. Bicycle shop would have retail and repair.
Kruger states here is whether they can expand 25% of space. What is thought about
affordable commercial. Bendon states there is a provision to change the numbers under
special review.
Kruger would be in support of moving bicycles to 100% floor area. Automobiles,
motorcycles, bicycles. Erspamer asks why we are putting conditional for page 10
consignment retail establishment when it's a common use and we are encouraging our
community to recycle. Bendon states all conditional uses as you approve the conditional
use you also approve amount of square footage. Conditional use goes to P&Z for review.
SCI #7, page 9: John is in favor of option D. Kruger circled D and E and perhaps second
floor. E limits by 500 sqft and her thought is to limit to second floor only. Bendon states
that is how residential is described. You could make a statement about existing offices on
the ground floor in existence prior to adoption of this ordinance. .. Brian feels it should
generally be left alone... ..Bendon discusses grandfather issues. Option D limited to upper
floors. D on upper floors and provision about existing space.
Concern is not to create a loophole for someone to create free market residences. Kruger
believes SCI zone district is appropriate place for density and height. She would like to
see #9 stay in and would like more flexibility and density opportunity. E special review
4
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 9. 2007
standards. Instead of 32-38, leave in 35-40 and alter special review provision in code.
Kruger wants to see creativity and flexibility and there are opportunities to see
developments down there. #9 stick with existing text. All will still be legal and will be
written for Lipsey to be protected.
Moving adoption of Resolution 12 with amendment to page 8 SCI with 100% of floor
area for retail sale, adding bicycles under 1 (c) to read automobiles, motorcycles and
bikes including parts. on page 9 flat #7 desired option is D to allow for office uses on
upper floors and to add a sentence that says existing offices on the ground floor shall be
in existence prior to the adoption of Ordinance _, are permitted but shall not be
expanded or relocated. page 10 flag #9 to stay with previous text, page 11 (e) keep
language in strikeout text which provides process to increase allowable height. LJ
moves, John seconds. Discussion: LJ asks if unicycle and segway would be included.
Roll: John no, Brian no, LJ no, Ruth no. DENIED 4-0
Commercial Core Comments and Questions: John addresses height and asks if staff has
precedents for Aspen to be. Bendon states discussion has been buildings in similar
dimension and 2-3 story range. In commercial core, streets help create space, identity and
comfort. _ is concerned this language prohibits anybody from building urban city
direction. Bendon recognizes there is a desire not to diminish importance of signature
buildings. Kruger feels the political climate will keep us within the framework. Rowland
asks what staff sees as future for City of Aspen. Bendon adds the variety in height of
buildings doesn't necessarily create chaos in street. LJ expresses emotions and
discussions with community builders that like Galena Street between Cooper and Hyman,
varied building heights. This proposal meets his needs of the person.
Kruger doesn't want to strike ability to have commercial use of2 to I in commercial zone
district. If someone can be creative, she would have to limit ability to have commercial in
commercial core. Bendon suggests instead of replacing text, change 1.5 to I to 2 to I.
Discussion ensues about appropriate lots for lodging. Bendon suggests performance
standard: in residential here is allotment which requires basic mitigation and you can
increase that but we will require more affordable housing on site. Take same philosophy
and up FAR. One way is to stay at flat FAR, you can have base FAR and incentive FAR.
Its about results.
LJ thinks its unique to make it an offer. Kruger thinks second floor of Aspen Block
building is a very desirable avenue to have lodging in downtown. Bendon feels they will
have similar economic impact to project as a free market residence. You can't limit style
of ownership but as opposed to free market residence, there is a turnover. _ agrees.
Bendon suggests to consider whether or not there is a size limitation on units themselves.
Bendon states 500 is average unit size. Kruger thinks people who would use those would
be family members and wants to incentives smaller units. Bendon describes lock offs.
Free market residences handout reviewed. Floor area standards would have separate
category for lodging with base FAR of 1 to I increasable to 1.5 to I if the individual
lodge units average to be 500 sqft or smaller. Rowland liked the idea of residential hotel
5
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 9. 2007
room. Bendon adds they can be combined as market shifts. 2000 is on residential units
and are not combinable. LJ adds if you have 1500 you would have 350 or 500 per
bedroom and kitchen. Rowland feels 2000 examples have dining room too. Kruger thinks
that won't be requirement. LJ would keep it lower. Rowland thinks you can do a nice 2
bedroom with 1500 sqft for a lodge. Bendon encourages 500 and allow for combination
of units. Panel agrees.
CI comments: Kruger wants to encourage lodging. Bendon suggests same FAR's and do
in CI zone. Slight reduction in allowable floor area, be able to occupy ground floor with
offices, separate chapter in commercial design guidelines.
NC: Clarks and City Market. Rowland suggests mixed use. LJ asks about sub grade
parking. Bendon states conditional use and there are other issues besides design.
Mixed Use: Main Street and nonhistoric district downtown. Range is accommodated
within zone and allows broad use. Retail uses are only for historic landmarks. Major
character difference is floor area. Main Street historic is 1 to 1 and everything else is 2 to
1. Kruger asks about non historic on Main Street. Historic district compliments nature.
Kruger feels properties that are attractive are bigger than 1 to 1. Phelan states 1 to I ratio
is lot line to lot line per square footage and you are going to have setbacks to compliment
typical pattern. Kruger doesn't see why you can't increase it by special review and
doesn't want to strike A and AI.
Zone district allows for lodging, becomes density and massing compatibility issue.
Kruger is struggling with district by parking taken away and likes residential feel of Main
Street. Victorians are used for office and she doesn't want to disturb. Bendon replies it is
generated from Nore Winter's response to heights and FAR's, lowering to I to 1
maximum. Kruger sees the reduction of maximum square footage and prefers max at
2000. LJ asks if Ted Guy made comments and Kruger confirms. You can't design zoning
for one property but have to look at result, and is confused with parking.
LJ expresses this is where replacement should be. When you replace you shouldn't
reduce. I to I. Bendon expresses challenges and best tool is to encourage free market to
do what it does. Kruger doesn't think philosophy can be successful on Main Street. SCI
has critical mass, this is one street without flow or consistency. Bendon adds its nice to
have medical offices on Main. Kruger specifies to leave in flexibility to increase by
special review on A and Al and even A3 where free market multi family housing was .75
to 1 which could be increased 1 to 1. If you have FAR restrictions she would have to see
100%. Bendon suggests when replacing to use lower FAR or make into mixed use
project. Ifit's purely 100% residential it has to be 80% less FAR.
LJ noticed mixed use goes around white house on Hyman and Aspen street - it's historic.
It can't be less than 5 properties that have to do with replacement, let them replace their
house.
6
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 9. 2007
Unstrike stricken language in A and Al and part of A3. Free market and multi family is
.75 to I and may be increased by special review. Multi family doesn't take 80%
reduction. LJ and Rowland support.
B Schedule - reduction in single family duplex FAR upon demolition. LJ says no and
wants new single families have lower FAR but existing including tear down and
replacement existing has 100%. Rowland is in support. Brian is in support
12: leaving at 2000 feet rather than reduce to 1500. LJ asks what cost is to distinguish
TDR's. Kruger feels NU is way different than SCI and wants to strike the strike. 1500 is
replaced with 2000 and 2000 is replaced with 2500. Clarified for multi family residence.
All in support.
13: Bendon expresses legitimate concern there was much higher FAR schedule for mixed
use building than for single family building. There should be some ratio. You have to
have legitimate commercial presence for it to be truly mixed use building. Kruger
envisions first floor commercial, one and a half residential. Rowland says no residential
first floor. Free market no more than 1.5 times commercial. All in support.
Kruger confirms still no rules for residential and duplex scrape and replace and there is
25 single family or duplex projects under construction now not including Fox Crossing.
How can we not be looking at this sector? Bendon follows to carry recommendation to
City Council. Kruger wants to look beyond who is sitting in the room. You are putting all
of burden on commercial core for taxes, now trying to burden downtown development
and there is nothing to regulate construction. Not prudent to put pressure, whether taxing
or mitigations, on downtown commercial zone districts. Weare driving price of
penthouses through the roof. Bendon will act from Council direction. Kruger is looking
to phrase direction for Council to look at scrape and replace program after moratorium.
Garrow asks for feedback on miscellaneous, Resolution 13 and summarizes changes. LJ
doesn't like terminology for Community Development Director to "initiate
interpretations as sees fit". Garrow provides gazebo example.
Phelan adds Resolution for Commercial Design Review has been continued.
LJ moves to adjoun. _ seconds.
Transcibed by Tara O'Bradovich, Paralegal
7
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 9. 2007
8