HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20071016Aspen Plannine & Zonine Commission MeetinE Minutes -October 16 2007
COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ................................................................................... 2
308 E HOPKINS (LACO) GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW ....................... 2
HIGHLANDS GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW .......................................... 3
CODE AMENDMENT WITH REGARDS TO HISTORIC LOT SPLITS ............. 5
1
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -October 16, 2007
Dylan Johns opened the regular meeting at 4:30 pm in Sister Cities Meeting Room.
Commissioners present were LJ Erspamer, Jim DeFrancia, Dina Bloom, Stan
Gibbs, Cliff Weiss, Michael Wampler, Brian Speck and Dylan Johns. Staff present
Chris Bendon, Jennifer Phelan, Sara Adams, Community Development; Jackie
Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
LJ Erspamer said there was a legal brief from the Council and asked if that
reflected the P&Z agenda. Jennifer Phelan replied no. Jessica Garrow answered
that it was a procedural issue that P&Z did review. Erspamer asked for packets for
the public. Phelan responded that as a green city we did not want to print more
than we needed; if people were present staff could always run upstairs and make
copies.
Dylan Johns explained the way that the P&Z meetings are run.
Jennifer Phelan stated that she distributed the commercial design standards to the
PBcZ mailboxes and they will distribute up to date land use codes by Friday.
Phelan said that on November 6`h there was an application to subdivide the
Centennial property and 308 East Hopkins for Commercial Growth Management.
The Puppy Smith property (Clark's & True Value) was coming up with a potential
development proposal and the Aspen Club to develop a destination wellness resort
with some bed base to it.
Chris Bendon welcomed the new members to the commission and thanked the
commission members for volunteering their time. Bendon stated that Community
Development was a resource to the Commission.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None stated.
PUBLIC HEARING:
308 E HOPHINS (LACO) GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW
Dylan Johns opened the public hearing and requested the public notice. Jennifer
Phelan replied that was actually why they were continuing this public hearing.
MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to continue the 308 E Hopkins public hearing to
November 6`~; seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor, APPROVED.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (10/02/07):
2
Aspen Planning & ZOn-nE Commission Meeting Minutes -October 16, 2007
HIGHLANDS GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW
Dylan Johns opened the continued public hearing for the Highlands Growth
Management Review and asked for proof of notice. Jessica Garrow replied that
proof of notice was provided at the previous meeting. Garrow introduced herself
to the new commission members.
Garrow noted that the applicant was Hines Highlands represented by Glenn Horn;
the applicant requests a PUD Amendment and change in use growth management
review to convert a 650 square foot meeting room to commercial space. Staff
recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve both requests.
Garrow provided the history of the Highlands project approved PUD in the county
in 1998 and the city annexed it in 2000 and an employee generation audit was
required as part of the PUD approvals in 2004. The audit revealed that the
applicant over-mitigated with affordable housing and a credit was granted to the
applicant for use in Pitkin County projects. In 2006 the applicant requested that
this space in Building 2 on the Village Core area be converted and an adjacent
commercial space to be converted to afree-market residence; at the time staff
recommended against this request because it was inconsistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan after a series of reconsiderations it was approved through the
Planning & Zoning commission but denied at City Council. Garrow stated the new
application was just for the condo meeting room space and the previous application
was null and void.
Garrow said commercial space was retail and restaurant space; condo meeting
space talked about commercial space but were mitigated at different levels, which
was why this change in use was required at this time. Staff and applicant requested
continuance at the last public hearing because some members of the affordable
housing homeowners association raised some concerns about the nature of the
condominium meeting space; the HOA members thought that condo space would
be made available for their association uses. Garrow said the finding was attached
as Exhibit D; based on that information the condominium meeting space that is the
subject of this application was never intended for public use and was intended as
an accessory use to the Ritz Carlton and that there was other meeting room space
located in Building 7, which was intended for public use.
Garrow said that because this space in Building 2 was outlined specifically for
condo meeting space so it was a deviation from the original approvals so there
needed to be a PUD Amendment. Staff recommended in favor of this PUD
Amendment because commercial space (retail/restaurant) was most appropriate in
this location. This condo meeting space for the Ritz was not used but used as
3
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -October 16.2007
storage so there has not been the need in the past and the applicant does not
anticipate the need in the future for condo meeting rooms in association with the
Ritz Carlton. Garrow said this was consistent with the mixed use development
original PUD Development. There was no mitigation requirement so it meets the
criteria for a change in use.
Garrow noted a change to the Resolution on page 2 Section 5 add if re uired under
construction management.
Glenn Horn said that he was involved with the Highlands since the very beginning
and this was a minor change to the project based upon experiences that the owner
has had trying to rent the space; the owner tried to sell this space to the Ritz for a
meeting room and they were not interested. Horn said that they were back to
where they were last year when the Planning Commission suggested that they look
at commercial rather than residential.
Cliff Weiss asked if the Ritz has made any representations to their fractional
owners about this room. Horn replied that he did not think so since the Ritz never
acquired the space and it was retained by Hines. Horn said that this space was
separately platted even though it was in the same building.
Jim DeFrancia asked about the over mitigation. Garrow replied that they over
mitigated by 14.89 FTEs and this particular space; the conversion actually
generates fewer employees than they have already mitigated for.
LJ Erspamer asked if there was a requirement to build 3,000 square feet. Garrow
replied that to her understanding there was not a requirement they build that much
but they could if they so desired. Erspamer asked if they could sell these credits.
Garrow replied no and it was a county issue. Erspamer said the space was very
broken up. Erspamer asked if there was anything about bathrooms if it was a
restaurant. Garrow responded that would be dealt with at building permit.
Erspamer asked if there was a requirement for locally owned businesses. Garrow
replied there was no requirement. Erspamer said that there were 58 parking spaces
allocated for employees and asked the historic usage of employee figures out there.
Horn replied that there was never the intent to have parking for every employee
that works out there; there was excellent bus service and a few spaces allocated to
some businesses. Horn said there hasn't been a problem providing parking for the
different businesses.
No public comments.
4
Aspen Plannine & Zonine Commission MeetinE Minutes -October 16, 2007
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #25, series 2007
approving a substantial PUD Amendment and Change-In-Use Growth
Management Review for the conversion of Condominium Meeting Space in
Building 2 to Commercial Space at 133 Prospector Road pursuant to the language
proposed by staff. Seconded by Cliff Weiss. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; Bloom,
yes; Gibbs, yes; Weiss, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Erspamer, yes; Johns, yes. All in
favor, APPROVED 7-0.
Discussion: Erspamer said with all of the beams in this space it would not be a
very good meeting room; he supported the conversion.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CODE AMENDMENT WITH REGARDS TO HISTORIC LOT SPLITS
Dylan Johns opened the public hearing. Amy Guthrie said there was interest in
designated historic properties and the people who were being designated were
calling out for a more workable solution for them; this code amendment was about
trying to make one of our existing preservation benefits the best and most valuable
that it can be for people in the mixed use zone district.
Guthrie explained in the early 1970s the city merged adjacent lots that were in the
same ownership so the original historic townsite lots were 30'x100' and if one
family owned 3 lots in a row then the city said the family owned one 9000 square
foot lot. Guthrie said the result from a preservation point of view was miner's
cottages were located on some pretty large parcels, which lead to some of the
bustle additions or additions that were criticized because the additions
overwhelmed the historic buildings. In the late 1980s the city tried to start
directing development in another way if you were a historic property you could
have 2 houses on one lot and tried to break it up into separate buildings. In the
1990s it went one step further by saying the historic lot could be lot split so there
were two fee simple properties. In 2005 this was expanded to the office zone
district, which was primarily Main Street from an HPC interest; there were a few
other pockets of that zone district throughout the city. Guthrie said that one of the
criteria that held over into the Main Street area was for the purpose of creating a
single family house. Guthrie stated the objective of keeping Main Street Office
Zone District placed disincentives on single family homes by loosing FAR.
Guthrie stated in the mixed use zone district the language to be stricken was that
section of the criteria that says that a historic landmark lot split has to be for the
purpose of creating a single family lot; they would like to have the mixed use zone
district to be able to use whatever permitted uses were possible. Guthrie said that
the FAR would not change if they did no lot split at all.
5
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -October 16 2007
Stan Gibbs asked for more of a narrative about what does this really mean in the
staff memos. Guthrie responded that the first section in the land use code that they
were amending was within the subdivision chapter and it describes how someone
would get permission to do a lot split and the specific criteria. Guthrie said the
second section was specific to historic landmark lot splits and lays out which zone
district that can be accomplished in; the development rights was only allowed the
development rights that the fathering parcel had.
Cliff Weiss stated that he was a visual person. Dylan Johns asked when there were
specific zones it would help to identify the areas.
LJ Erspamer asked if this was the final step. Guthrie replied this was a
recommendation to City Council. Erspamer asked if this had anything to do with
heights or FAR formula. Guthrie replied no, it did not increase any development
rights that already exist. Erspamer made some grammatical changes to the
Resolution.
No public comments.
MOTION.• Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #29, series
2007recommending that Council approve the amendments to the Municipal Code
related to historic preservation as amended and corrected; seconded by Cliff
Weiss. Roll call vote: Gibbs, yes; Bloom, yes; Speck, yes; Erspamer, yes; Weiss,
yes; DeFrancia, yes; Johns, yes. All in favor, APPROVED 7-0.
Adjourned 5:40 pm.
,._ -
ckie Lothian, eputy City Clerk
6