HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20070904Aspen Planning & Zoning MeetinE Minutes -September 04, 2007
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST ................................................. 2
PUD AMENDMENT, MOORE FAMILY PUD ...................................................... 2
1
Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes -September 04, 2007
Dylan Johns opened the regular PBcZ meeting in the Sister Cities meeting room at
4:30 pm. Commissioners present were: Brian Speck, LJ Erspamer, John Rowland
and Dylan Johns. Staff present Jennifer Phelan, Community Development and
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
MOTION: John Rowland moved to continue the code amendment for the historic
lot splits to September 18`h; seconded by LJErspamer. All in favor.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PUD AMENDMENT, MOORE FAMILY PUD
Dylan Johns opened the public hearing for the Moore Family PUD. Jennifer
Phelan stated the application was for the Moore Family PUD; the single family lots
were allowed to have 6,000 square feet of above grade development for each
parcel. The request was to amend the PUD to allow 2 transferable development
rights to be able to be landed on each site, a total of an additional 500 square feet
above grade space. The applicant asked that the approval be that the additional
square footage land on the footprint of existing structures.
Phelan explained the houses were large houses in the subdivision on the periphery
of town; staff felt that based on the size of the lots, location and ability to create
more landing sites for TDRs this amendment could work for this specific
subdivision. Phelan said that staff supported this request however staff suggested
the request be to be able to land the TDRs within the building envelope designated
for each site within the subdivision rather than on the existing footprint. Phelan
said if the homeowners association wanted to get more technical on how that can
be landed it was something that the homeowners association handles through their
review rather than staff having to verifying that was being landed on the existing
footprint of the structure. Phelan said that with a PUD Amendment P&Z must find
that it was consistent or an enhancement of the approval of the final development.
Gideon Kaufman representing Five Trees Subdivision supplied the posting and
mailing notices. Kaufman said the intention of the historic TDRs was to take older
historic houses that were small scale understanding there was value to being able to
add to them and wanted to give the opportunity to take some of that square footage
off of those historic TDRs and still get money for them and preserve the size and
scale of those particular buildings. Kaufman said that the TDRs would be used
inside the house; he utilized drawings to show the existing house with the addition
2
ASpen Planning & Zori1nE Meetine Minutes -September 04, 2007
of the second floor with no change in the volume above grade. Kaufman hoped
that P&Z would approve the PUD Amendment as the Homeowners Association
proposed and not as Community Development proposed.
John Rowland asked when staff first reviewed this application was it bogged down
with the nuances of the homeowners request about the square footage. Phelan
replied the more simple the application the easier it was to regulate; the
homeowners association declarations and regulations can regulate even more.
Kaufman said if the two drawings were attached to the resolution it would be
crystal clear and it would avoid the situation of homeowners coming to the
homeowners association saying the city allows this one way and the HOA another.
Kaufman said that it makes sense to have the same regulations; the homeowners
association has already passed the floor area limitation (attachment 2) that says the
increased floor area can only be used internally.
Erspamer asked where else can the historic TDRs be transferred to in the
community. Phelan replied there were a number of residential zone districts R-6,
R-15A for example can also land 250 square feet of floor area; for example in the
lodge zone district an individual unit can land it as net livable area. Erspamer
asked how many homes will this affect. Kaufman replied the intention was on
existing homes, which were about 40 building sites with about 10 un-built lots.
Phelan said that there were some very specific and unique zoning amendments that
make it difficult to track over time.
Erspamer asked the number of TDRs out there and how many landing sites and
how they would match each other. Phelan responded that there were sites where
there was the potential to create some TDRs. Erspamer asked if there was a
management plan for density. Phelan said there was a baseline inventory done of
historic resources; it depended also on the development viewpoint of the property
owner.
Dylan Johns asked how this would apply to only existing residences. Phelan
replied that it was not in the staff memo. Kaufinan stated that it was in the
amendment from the homeowners association, which was the request in the
application. Phelan said that the attachment did not refer to the specific lots and if
P&Z wanted to keep the applicant's language then she suggested adding the
specific lots. Johns asked why the language was taken out. Phelan replied that
staff did not have any strong feelings either way about the additiona1500 square
feet but the down the road administration of this staff felt the additiona1500 square
feet should land on the building envelope rather and allow the homeowners
association to regulate themselves to a greater degree if they so chose. Johns asked
3
Aspen PlanninE & Zonine Meeting Minutes -September 04, 2007
if staff knew of the original subdivision with the establishing of the 6,000 square
feet. Kaufinan replied there were negotiations that went on back and forth and it
was the number that they came up with. Phelan noted that this was in county at the
time.
Johns said the code language was not specific enough to describe the example
exactly and that the code provision seemed like it could be applied broadly.
No public comments.
MOTION: John Rowland moved to approve Resolution No. 24, series of 2007,
approving a PUD Amendment for the Moore Family PUD, with conditions, finding
that the review criteria for the application have been met; seconded by LJ
Erspamer. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Erspamer, yes; Speck, yes, Johns, no.
APPROVED 3-1.
Adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
~.
ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
4