Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20080226ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2008 LJ Erspamer opened the Special Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting in Sister Cities at 4:30. Commission members present were Cliff Weiss, Dina Bloom, Stan Gibbs, Brian Speck and LJ Erspamer. Jim DeFrancia and Michael Wampler were excused. Staff present were Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer Phelan, Jason Lasser, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Jim True said that since there would be 4 voting members present that there must be 3 affirmative votes for any action to take place. LJ Erspamer asked if the 2 to 2 vote was a tie with no action taken. Jim True replied that it was P&Z provisions were a little different; a tied vote would be deemed no action and how you proceed at that point was up to you. Sunny Vann stated it was a failed motion. True said it was a failed motion because you cannot deem it as an approval because there must be 3 affirmative votes for an approval whether you want to continue it is up to P&Z. Erspamer asked if the hearing could be continued when a larger commission was present. Erspamer said that they need to elect the offices and P&Z may want to delay when more commissioners were present. Jennifer Phelan stated that Mike Wampler would become a full member. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Michael Wampler was conflicted on 300 Puppy Smith. Brian Speck stated that he had to leave at 5:30pm. LJ Erspamer said his physical therapist was with the Aspen Club; even though he hasn't been to the physical therapist in 2 years. PUBLIC HEARING: 300 PUPPY SMITH STREET -CONCEPTUAL SPA AMENDMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for Puppy Smith. Sunny Vann provided the public notice. Jason Lasser provided the sketch up of the Conceptual SPA and Commercial Design Review for 300 Puppy Smith Street. Lasser said that the SPA allowed for flexibility in design to vary uses, allow for density, access, mass and height, and is this mix okay for this area. There was some overlap between the SPA and the Commercial Design Review. The Commercial Design Review would be scale, character, streetscape, pedestrian uses, creating a better and safer environment. Lasser said with a good proposal there was a lot of development that could happen 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2008 in this area between the SCI District and the relationship or context of the neighborhood commercial; looking to this created opportunity of holding the comer of Mill and Puppy Smith. Lasser said looking at this to create a streetscape, what was the pedestrian relationship through the site. Lasser said that mass and scale and the height of the building were also to be discussed along with pedestrian amenity on the site. Lasser said the height of this building with the relationship to context; is the pedestrian space appropriate. Pedestrian amenity space was open to view, open to sky, no walls or enclosures from the code with grade limitations, pedestrian links, landscaping plan. Lasser said there were 2 pedestrian amenity spaces one facing Clark's Market and the other facing Mill Street and the park. Lasser showed the overhang of the building from the second story free market units supported by posts as the pedestrian amenity area on the ground floor. Lasser said a prominent corner was at Mill and Puppy Smith Streets. Parks requested street trees as a buffer between the street and the pedestrian path. Lasser said there was a loading dock as part of Clark's Market which was a constraint. Jennifer Phelan commented that this was a site with site constraints; it had loading and unloading constraints. Phelan stated the review was for conceptual SPA and conceptual Design Review. Phelan said the reviews were similar in looking at the site, context of the site, the uses being proposed on the site, site design, height, pedestrian areas and connections. Lasser said the proposal showed a 14 foot plate height of the ground floor; 10 and 12 foot heights respectively on the upper, whether it was free market or affordable housing with parapet heights. Lasser said the height limit for commercial in this zone was 28 foot with 32 feet allowed through commercial design review; the proposal shows up to 32 feet and staff would like a reduction of the plate heights to be able to create those variations in height and mass and scale as the guideline 3.13 says in the commercial design review and maintain everything under 28 foot height (box). The pedestrian links with a prominent corner which accesses the commercial space to create a smoother pedestrian link; was the site permeable all the way through for the pedestrian. Lasser said staff would like to see this corner permeable for pedestrians. Lasser said the pedestrian amenity space was a minimum of 8 feet and staff would like to see more exploration for outside cafe tables, handicap access and the ability of a walk through access; staff would like to see this space widened. Stan Gibbs asked if the memo dated 2/26/8 reflected all the changes. Vann replied that it did not reflect the changes. Lasser stated that staff has seen many different 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2008 changes from the applicant and these changes turned up February 11th and there was not enough time to get a referral from the different departments with the DRC. Lasser said that this was conceptual review so the discussion was on the mass, scale, uses, and was the mix appropriate for this area. Cliff Weiss asked if this was part of SCI. Vann replied NC (neighborhood commercial) was the district. Sunny Vann said there were not a lot of regulatory issues other than the height discussion in this application that were at issue; the issue is site design, pedestrian access, things that were primarily commercial design review standards; Parks was the only review agency that had comments. Vann said there were changes in the sketch up model and site design that have not been identified; the circulation issues have been major improvements to the site design. Vann said the owners of the property were approached by the city to say there was an underutilized parking lot down there; there were only 2 neighborhood commercial areas in town (City Market and this area). Vann said that this was an infill project very close to the original infill concept was trying to find underutilized sites to produce needed public benefits (additional neighborhood commercial). Vann said there was only one area under the SPA that a variance was requested and that was the pedestrian amenity space on the parcel contains the new building. Vann said that the project complies with the other requirements except the height and the architect, David Johnston, will address that. Vann said that they were underneath the FAR; the project meets the affordable housing requirements and has more than is required; the free market units comply with less than the maximum allowed on site; the setbacks meet. Vann said the pedestrian amenity is a particular problem on a site like this because of the parking lot; they have to preserve a certain amount of parking for obvious reasons and the pedestrian amenity becomes more integral to the building. Vann said there was about 8,000 square feet of new commercial floor area on the ground floor, which is orientated toward the parking lot itself; there were 9 affordable housing units (4 on the ground floor and 5 on the second floor); 5 free market units (maximum net livable size of 1500 square feet each) on the upper level as well (2 one bedrooms and 3 two bedrooms). The 9 affordable housing urriYs-censist ^f i °fi,~~^, 2 ^^° hPdrooms, 4 two bedrooms and 1 three bedroom; these may well turn out to be some of the nicest affordable housing units in the community because of their orientation, location and the size of the proposed units. Vann said they were required to house on site 15 employees to mitigate the free market residential and commercial space; this project houses 18'/z employees. Vann said in order to put additional commercial space on this property obviously it had to be in the parking lot because there was no other place to put it; there was a 25 year lease on the grocery store and long term leases on the other existing leases. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Vann said they will replace as much of the parking as possible in a sub-level parking garage so this project includes the gazage beneath the building that accommodates 26 cars; there were currently 112 parking spaces there today. Vann said the current code requirement was 76 spaces so it was presently over pazked under the existing code requirements, when this project is done there will be 86 spaces. Vann said there were 18 affordable housing units above Clark's market; they were deed restricted units to occupancy but not deed restricted to income and there was a prohibition against the units being condominiumized. Vann said those unit residents pazk in the parking lot and some of those cars sit there all winter and those cazs will be relocated to the gated entry pazking garage; this frees up spaces for use by the general public in the surface lot. Vann said use by the general public of this parking lot caused a loss of about a third of the lot; the owners of this lot have hired pazking enforcement to boot vehicles. Vann said that even though it was a reduction in parking the current parking proposal meets the city code; not only for the new building but the old building as well. Vann said the SPA was basically the PUD process; the PUD process allows variation of the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district to ideally achieve a better project. Vann stated that SPA basically says the same thing with one additional caveat, to vary the uses; the uses that are permitted in the underlying zone district in this project aze free-mazket residential, affordable housing and neighborhood commercial. Vann stated they were not asking to vary any uses or dimensional requirements with the exception of pedesMan amenity; affordable housing was a conditional use in this zone district. Vann said the SPA was being used because the original project, which was fairly unique in 1976 was approved as an SPA; so they have to apply to amend the prior SPA to add an additional commercial building on this site. Vann said that the pedestrian amenity space needed to be varied because the code required 25% of the overall parcel; they were about 22%; the code says that if you are less than you aze non-conforming. Vann said they would physically subdivide the site into 2 separate lots, the existing Trueman Center (lA) and portion of the surface parking would be on one lot and the new commercial building and it's parking and associated facilities would be on the second lot (1B); that was a request for subdivision with the final SPA application to maintain the ability to condominiumize but it wasn't absolutely required. Vann said the existing Trueman Center will comply with all the requirements of the NC zone and lot 1 B, the new commercial building, is sized such that that building complies with all dimensional requirements. Vann said if this was one parcel the total amount of 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26.2008 open space was what was there today; if divided into 2 parcels the Trueman lot remains unchanged and the amount of open space on lot 1B become it's applicable requirement; they were prepared to pay cash-in-lieu for the lost open space. Vann said that open space was defined as clear to the sky above with nothing overhanging was the open space; open space has to be a minimum depth and can't be more than "x" feet above or below grade; because they can't provide traditional open space in a parking lot so they have provided functional pedestrian amenity spaces. Vann said the pedestrian amenity space did not meet the technical requirement of the code because the restaurant space was under an overhang; as a practical matter it was desirable because it was seasonal not just anon-inclement weather use but you can use it all the time. Lasser noted that the parking (on the south side) next to the new building required an encroachment permit or an easement. Vann replied that it was all shared parking. Lasser said the ramp slope is an important issue and there were requirements for that. David Johnston, architect, introduced his partner Brian Beazley and architect Dustin from his office. Johnston said the site plan showed a landscape plan to help clean up some of the vehicular circulation that comes around the building in the existing parking lot with a one way circulation. Johnston said the Puppy Smith and Mill Street circulations would also be improved with a sidewalk added on Puppy Smith and street trees. Johnston said that pedestrian circulation was created all the way around the building; the covered space was 8 foot 6 inches from curb to glass and the columns were much thinner. Johnston said there was an emphasized open space on the east elevation to create a gathering space. The east portion included stairway access, handicap access, bike racks and sculptures up from the intersection. Johnston said the height was varied from 28 feet to 32 feet; he utilized drawings showing the overview with parapets. Johnston said the floor to floor heights were 14 feet with about 12 foot ceilings in the commercial spaces and the upper units were 12 feet and 10 feet respectfully barring any soffits; the two ends were about 32 feet. Stan Gibbs asked what the constraints were that prevents you from putting the trees where you wanted to. Vann replied the original proposal had evergreens but the Parks Department wants a 5 foot planting strip between the edge of the curb and 5 foot sidewalk and the purpose of that planting strip is for trees but also for snow removal storage. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -MINUTES - FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Cliff Weiss asked what were they planning on doing with the snow in the parking lot. Vann answered they can't accommodate this year's storm; this will require 100% snow removal. Weiss asked who will provide parking for the people who use the Rio Grande trail. Phelan replied that if people were illegally parking in this parking lot that was a private enforcement issue; the owner of the parking lot could have the vehicles towed. Lasser said that part of the ZG Master Plan was to add parking underneath the new structure. Vann said this was a rectangular box and to break it up they were using different materials; the whole ground floor facing south was storefront. Vann said the north side of the building does step along that north elevation from the street curbs. Vann noted on sheet 11 the cross-hatched spaces were public amenity spaces; on sheet 12 the checkered space was public space but did not count as public amenity space. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 1. Toni Kronberg said that she wanted to get in on this project at the conceptual level to save time and money; the project should call for a master plan for the entire area (the post office and SCI district). Kronberg said there was so much traffic and congestion in the area; she voiced concern for the traffic and parking. The commission and applicant agreed to continue the hearing. Weiss agreed with a master plan for this area. Erspamer asked for the criteria. MOTION: Stan Gibbs moved to continue the meeting to 7.•15; seconded by Cliff Weiss. All in favor, APROVED. MOTION.• Stan Gibbs moved to continue the public hearing for 300 Puppy Smith to March 18`x`; seconded by Cliff Weiss. All in favor, APPROVED. Adjourned at 7:15 pm. ` _ kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 6