HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20080318ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 18, 2008
MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2
COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................. 2
1450 CYRSTAL LAKE ROAD ............................................................................... 2
300 PUPPY SMITH STREET -CONCEPTUAL SPA AND COMMERCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW .................................................................................................... 2
1310 RED BUTTE DRIVE, STREAM MARGIN REVIEW ................................ 10
1
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 18.2008
LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission in
Sister Cities meeting room at 4:30 pm. Commissioners Dina Bloom, Cliff Weiss,
Stan Gibbs, Jim DeFrancia and LJ Erspamer were present. Brian Speck and
Michael Wampler were excused. Staff present were Jim True, Special Counsel;
Jennifer Phelan, Jason Lasser, Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie
Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
MINUTES
MOTION.• Dina Bloom moved to approve the minutes of February 26, 2008
seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor, APPROVED.
COMMENTS
LJ Erspamer asked about comments on the figures in applications and if they were
accurate. Jennifer Phelan replied the initial review should verify that the heights
and square footages being proposed are accurate.
Chris Bendon distributed a memo regarding Lift One neighborhood master plan
and said that they were seeking a P&Z representative to participate in that master
planning process. The meetings would probably be once a week for 3 hours.
Bendon said that he would send out an email to the commission.
LJ Erspamer said that he missed the first meeting of the historical task force
meeting and he would continue on if no one else wanted to attend.
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
LJ Erspamer declared a conflict of an item on April ls~ for 604 West Main.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1450 CYRSTAL LAKE ROAD
LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing for 1450 Crystal Lake Road.
MOTION.' Cliff Weiss moved to continue the public hearing for 1450 Crystal
Lake Road to April 1 S`; seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor, APPROVED.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
300 PUPPY SMITH STREET -CONCEPTUAL SPA AND COMMERCIAL
DESIGN REVIEW
LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing for Puppy Smith. Jason Lasser
provided a brief background for the conceptual SPA and commercial design.
Lasser said the SPA looked at land uses and dimensional requirements and the
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 18, 2008
commercial design looked at street, alley, parking, topography, public amenity
space, building placement, height, mass and scale.
Lasser noted this was a building on the north edge of the Clark's parking lot with a
3 story, one sub-grade for parking, the ground floor for commercial and affordable
housing and the second floor free market and affordable housing. Staff
recommended approval with conditions: widen the sidewalk on the southwest side
to approximately 8 feet; review the height and keep the height to a maximum of 28
feet; create a pedestrian link and stairs on the corner of Mill and Puppy Smith
Streets, northeast corner of the property; pedestrian permeability through the site;
create a building with a gateway ability from the north that complies with the
commercial design guideline objectives and create a public amenity space that was
open to the sky on the east edge of the building.
David Johnston said there were color photos in the handout that show the building
from a pedestrian level and street level with the massing that occurs down the
street.
Sunny Vann said that the majority of the conditions in the resolution were pro
forma but there were two sections page 2 of the resolution which has 8 affordable
units that is now 9 units. Vann said that section 4 affordable housing was really 2
parts with Housing sending an email today clarifying the existing 18 units in the
Clark's Market building and everything after that has to do with the new units in
this project. Those Clark's Market units cannot be condominiumized or sold and
are subject to a minimum 6 month lease restriction and check-in periodically to
confirm occupancy; these were 1976 requirements made into deed-restrictions to
be recorded at the end of this process.
David Johnston handed out ablow-up drawing (exhibit L) of the sidewalk and
associated dimensions of the covered walkway along the south side; it was
expanded on the two ends to be wider. Vann told P&Z these were commercial
guidelines and you should exercise your judgment and you have the ability to vary
them as necessary and in this particular case a reasonable variance of 4 inches
behind a half a dozen columns is appropriate to maximize the neighborhood
commercial square footage; there were only two places in town that neighborhood
commercial could be built one is the city market complex and the other is this
complex. Vann said the property across the street was SCI so the kinds of uses that
can be put here can't go there; they were trying to maximize the use of what was
available here.
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 18.2008
Johnston said there was an overlap between 3 and 4 looking at the pedestrian
gathering space as a whole; the eastside was pulled back into a 10 foot covered
patio and a 12 foot gathering space depending upon it's use.
Stan Gibbs asked why not push the building to make a parking space shorter by 6
inches. Vann replied it was a circulation issue; there was a minimum depth for
parking spaces and they were trying to improve circulation within the parking lot
so the semi can service the existing grocery store as well as improve overall
circulation; they would not be able to move farther into the parking lot because of
the fire department and engineering. Vann stated that there were tenants in the
existing building with long term leases and there were constraints to putting new
neighborhood commercial in the parking lot. Vann said it was not make or break
situation. Gibbs asked what was the importance that drives that 6 inches of
commercial space. Johnston replied that it was more area itself than an actual
dimension. Vann said it was not a function of depth; we just loose square footage.
Jim DeFrancia asked if the walkway was now proposed was 8 foot 4 inch or 7 foot
3 inches. Johnston replied the 8 foot 4 inch was to the curb itself consistent with
the full line of parking at the south and the 7 foot 3 inch was from the back of the
column to the glass, which occurs at the columns in the middle of this design; the
ends flared out.
Johnston said that number 3, which indicated a pedestrian link on the corner of
Puppy Smith and Mill and 4, which emphasizes the corner importance of that same
area of the building overlap each other. Staff proposed a stairway at this corner or
a pedestrian link to be located at this corner in addition to one up more to the south
where the main entrance of the building is located. Johnston said they dealt with
two areas a gathering space and a pedestrian circulation space; there was a 12 foot
destination activity space on the east side (a restaurant/cafe or bike shop) and to
introduce a stairway impacts the use of that space tremendously. Also there would
have to be handicap ramp access to the area plus 5 feet is 10 stairs. Gibbs asked if
there was enough room with the pillar to get around it with stairs. Cliff Weiss
asked if restaurants were allowed in this zone. Phelan replied yes in neighborhood
commercial they are and uses allowed in pedestrian amenity space allow for
outdoor dining; it doesn't allow for outdoor retail space on that pedestrian amenity
space.
Johnston said that #5 was a 10 foot covered space at this point in time. Vann said
that public amenity originally referred to open space, undeveloped land with
specific requirements; the definition was broadened to include other types of
amenities to meet the requirement. Vann noted they took existing open space on
the property that met the current requirements and computed it for each of the 2
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 18, 2008
lots; this involves a subdivision; the new buildings are on a separate parcel. Vann
said the parking lot and common features would all operate in common, there
would be no physical distinction; all of the dimensional requirements were based
on each building and respective lots. Vann said they took the public amenity space
that exists there today without the building on each of the 2 lots and it's less than
what would be required under the code; the code says that if it's less than today
you can maintain what's there today provided you don't provide less than 10%.
Vann said that they can ask P&Z for a reduction in public amenity subject to a
payment of cash-in-lieu. Vann noted on lot 1B the new lot there was about 21%
public amenity space currently where all the snow was and the code requirement
was 25% so the applicable requirement is 21 % unless it is reduced by P&Z, which
would occur at the final stage and cash-in-lieu is paid for the difference. Vann
stated once the building was put there it goes down to about 15%, which is a
reduction of about 6%; however the code requires it to be clear and open to the sky
and there were areas that meet the public amenity space requirement (cross hatched
on the drawing) of 15% and additional areas that can be used by the public that
don't technically meet the requirement the 10 to 12 feet tentatively to be used for
outdoor dining or a bike shop or whatever. Vann said that this space offsets the
6% and of all of the public available areas there was about 27%; they asked for the
grass area to be reduced by 6% to accommodate the building and pay cash-in-lieu
instead. Vann said that staff suggested removing the overhang then the applicant
wouldn't have to pay the cash-in-lieu; that was afree-market unit and affordable
housing upstairs; they wouldn't reduce the free-market unit and they could reduce
the 9`h affordable housing unit but there were downsides to it. Vann said as a
practical matter having a covered space was desirable and adds architectural
interest and helps break up the mass of the building as opposed to having a vertical
wall. Weiss stated that this public amenity space could be used as a restaurant or
just as easily a bike shop; the overhang was less of an issue if it were a restaurant.
Vann replied that staff suggested the outdoor space but it was never really
envisioned as meeting the requirements of the code under the definition of public
amenity because it was not clear and open to the sky; there were other outdoor
areas that were beneficial to the public but do not meet the definition of the code.
Weiss asked if the covered area were taken off on that side would it meet the %.
Vann responded that if they took it off it would not bring them into compliance;
they would still need to pay a portion in cash-in-lieu. DeFrancia asked if they were
prepared to pay the cash-in-lieu of the area not open to the sky. Van replied yes.
Vann said under the commercial design standards it says that the height maybe
increased. Johnston stated they tried to vary the height for the whole building;
offset shorter pieces that break up the whole mass and larger pieces at the third
points that create a variety down the length of this building. Johnston said they
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 18, 2008
were asking for 29 feet at the corners; a portion of the building (brick massing) was
a two story space of the building and they went up to the 32 feet; the middle was
31 feet and the separation (opaque glass pieces) were 28 feet. Johnston said if they
stayed at the 28 feet straight across it would look almost too monolithic and
doesn't allow the variety of the architecture. Vann stated that if they kept the
building height at 28 feet it would reduce the ceiling heights for the commercial
spaces and now it provides generous ceiling heights for affordable housing and as a
result the additional height gives a better product. Vann said that they could make
the building 28 feet but redevelopment across the street could be taller in the SCI
zone.
DeFrancia reiterated the summary of conditions and the amounts of variances
needed for the height at the corners was 29 feet; the next height over was 32 feet;
the next was 28 feet and then 31 feet. DeFrancia said the applicant did not think
the pedestrian link on the stairs at the corner was important and he thought that it
might even conflict with #4 to the extent of creating a gateway or monument
approach and if that were broken up with stairs could be a conflict. DeFrancia said
that #4 was agreed with and #5 the applicant wanted to stick with and he thought it
was a public space in a manner of speaking but it doesn't meet the definition to
open to the sky but the applicant was prepared to pay for the 6% variance.
Phelan said there were two issues to vote on the conceptual SPA and Commercial
Design; the massing, the site plan, the mix of uses and any conditions would be
added.
Gibbs asked if they were voting on this as the conceptual project to go forward.
Vann replied that P&Z wasn't approving anything but rather making a
recommendation, which is what the resolution should say "P&Z is recommending
conceptual SPA approval and commercial design review subject to the following
conditions"; which means P&Z is recommending approval if these conditions are
addressed. Vann said that they would modify any of these conditions if P&Z
agrees with the applicant. Phelan said that based on the direction that P&Z gives
staff and they would clean up the resolution.
Gibbs asked if there was a way to restrict the space usage to a restaurant. Phelan
replied the only way to restrict usage would be with a deed restriction and would
be voluntary and be required; any use that was allowed in that zone district could
be in that space.
Weiss asked if the delivery trucks coming out of Clark's Market would crash into
the parked cars. Vann replied that Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer was the consulting
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 18, 2008
engineer and there were changes to the islands for movements; what they were
committing to was an improvement in circulation. Erspamer asked why was that
date picked for the traffic study. Vann responded it just happened to be that date.
Erspamer asked the projections of pedestrian traffic versus vehicle traffic. Vann
replied that they were not required to compute pedestrian traffic but were required
to use certain standards adopted by the traffic institute to estimate the peak impacts
on the intersection as well as the average daily, which was an additiona1400 cars
resulting in 6 trips in the am peak hour and 28 trips in the evening. Vann stated
they were required to analyze the impact of those trips on the carrying capacity of
the street and the intersection not whether you like the additional congestion or
whether or not you think it's too much. Vann said that the goal was to create
additional neighborhood commercial space not accommodate additional cars.
Public Comments:
1. Tom Clark, owner of Clark's Market, said that originally the neighborhood
commercial zone district was more restrictive than it is now. Clark said he was not
at the meeting to be for or against the project but had a couple of concerns. Clark
said there were different kinds of retail stores and parking requirements; the
grocery store was visited more than a jewelry store. Clark said there was not a lot
of walk in-traffic; most people drove to Clark's Market and there was no street
parking. Clark said it was company policy for employees of Clark's not to park in
the parking lot and 65 spaces left in the parking lot were not that many and they
were nervous about the parking situation. Clark voiced concern for construction
phasing and parking.
Sunny Vann said that parking was problematic because of others parking in that lot
that were not shopping in the market or other stores; the parking lot will be re-
signed to one hour parking customers only. Vann said the one hour would
discourage bikers, hikers, skiers, construction employee parking and so forth.
Vann said the new building would prohibit employee parking in the lot and for the
affordable housing units there will be a rent reduction offered to those tenants who
do not have cars or store their cars in another location. Vann said there would be
about 75 to 78 spaces as opposed to 112 on the surface but controlled in such a
way that spaces will not be lost to non-customers of the project and it exceeds the
code requirements for parking and coincides with the City's disincentive for
parking. Vann said that the new parking lot was key-card limited; the circulation
for the dock and parking lot was improved.
Jim DeFrancia stated that it was a well designed and well presented project and
was pleased with the affordable housing. DeFrancia said the 5 to 6 inches of
sidewalk space did not seem significant; the commercial square footage
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 18, 2008
contributed to the financial viability of the project. DeFrancia favored the plan as
presented with respects to height variances because the last thing that you want to
see is a monolithic building; the 1 and 2 feet is almost imperceptible from the other
side of the parking lot. DeFrancia said there was more attractive street life by
creating that covered space and not interrupting through traffic; he did not think
that stairs on the corner were necessary but the monument on the corner was good.
DeFrancia said that he favored the 6% in-lieu on the open to the sky amenity
because the covering of that space adds some potential interest and it was east
facing. DeFrancia appreciated Tom's concern on the parking but it met code
compliance.
Stan Gibbs agreed with a lot of things that Jim said. Gibbs stated concern about
the building from the Puppy Smith side. Gibbs said they have done a good job in
the massing of the building and varying the mass with different heights was less
imposing. Gibbs said that a stairway did not belong on the Mill Street and Puppy
Smith corner; the access provided was adequate. Gibbs said that the amenity space
could be very attractive. Gibbs wanted a parking study with more data to know
that Tom's concerns were being addressed. Gibbs also requested a construction
plan; once this was completed it would be a nice addition to the neighborhood but
getting there is going to be a big deal. Vann replied that the construction
management plan was a specific requirement as part of the final application.
Cliff Weiss stated that the building may or may not work here; until there was a
master plan of the area he said that he could not get behind this project.
Dina Bloom stated that the building was very good but voiced concern about
setting a precedent.
LJ Erspamer said that he wasn't sure the building belonged here but if the City
improved the infrastructure in a better manner maybe this would be acceptable.
Erspamer said this building did not reflect the neighborhood buildings and the
public benefit would not be met and would create undue stress on people in the
community by trying to attend the retail stores and the market; a car is needed for
shopping. Erspamer said that the intersection needed infrastructure.
Vann stated that this project was not subject to what might happen sometime in the
future on another property; that was not the review criteria. Vann said there was
no evidence in this application that has an adverse impact on their infrastructure;
there was nothing from the review criteria that was not in compliance.
8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 18, 2008
Weiss said that there was not an actual shuttle stop on the Clark's Market side of
Mill Street and people drive to Clark's Market; parking was an issue.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #l1 amended as follows
with regards to Section I eliminating present condition #1 (8 ft minimum sidewalk)
and allowing the site variances requested; eliminating condition #2 and review
the height and setback variation relationship to the surrounding contextual
buildings with respect to the northwest corner to de-emphasize the mass of the
proposed building and to lessen reading of one structure.; eliminating #3 (doing
away with the stairs entirely); retaining #4; modifying #5 to call for the applicant
to pay 6% in lieu of open sky compliance. Seconded by Dina Bloom. Roll call
vote.• Gibbs, yes; Bloom, yes; Weiss, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Erspamer, no.
APPROVED 4-1.
Discussion: Stan Gibbs asked for an amendment to the motion retaining the height
and setback of the building. Jim DeFrancia said that reason that he did not favor
condition #2, which was holding the height at 28 feet was because of that straight
line at 28 feet across. Gibbs said that it wasn't the 28 feet but he requested
eliminating the words in condition #2 °ra *^''^'a ~''°'~°:R~.~ ~^ ° m°.,:....,.V, ^~'Q
feet. DeFrancia agreed with Gibbs to "review the height and setback variances
with emphasis on the northwest corner and strike the last part of the sentence.
Bloom asked for the motion to be repeated. DeFrancia stated it would be to review
the height and setback variation relationship to the surrounding contextual
buildings with respect to the northwest corner to de-emphasize the mass of the
proposed building and to lessen reading of one structure. Weiss stated that he
wasn't sure that a master plan can be a part of the amendment to the motion but it
can be a recommendation to Council. DeFrancia asked Cliff if he would
recommend to Council to consider the broader planning aspects of the surrounding
areas. Vann told the planning commission that if they all felt that this shouldn't go
forward unless there is a master plan then that's inconsistent with what was
represented a minute ago; if a majority of you would like to entertain Cliff's desire
to see this area master planned prior to this project going forward you can make a
separate recommendation to Council. DeFrancia said he would support a separate
motion to City Council about a greater focus on master planning considerations.
Vann said that if the motion was altogether it would burden his client with waiting
around for a master plan to be done. Weiss said that he didn't care if the motion
was attached to the motion or as a separate motion as long as City Council got the
motion or motions.
MOTION.• Stan Gibbs moved to continue the meeting until 7:30; seconded by Jim
DeFrancia. All in favor, APPROVED.
9
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 18.2008
MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to recommend to City Council that the Puppy Smith
Street Plaza be included in a master plan for the neighborhood; seconded by Jim
DeFrancia. Roll call vote: Bloom, abstain; Gibbs, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Weiss,
yes; Erspamer, yes. Approved 4-0.
Vann asked if this motion said that this project should not go forward without a
master plan. Weiss said that he could only get behind this if he knew what the
neighborhood NC and SCI zone were doing. DeFrancia stated that his
interpretation of the above motion was to be included but not conditioning this
project on a master plan; it was calling the City Council's attention that P&Z
advise and recommend there be a master planning effort in that area to include this
property. Vann asked to have staff make that clear in the recommendation. True
said that Cliff s interpretation was different. Gibbs said this was a separate motion
for a master plan for the area.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1310 RED BUTTE DRIVE. STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for the 1310 Red Butte Drive Stream
Margin Review. Jim True reviewed the notice and posting.
Jason Lasser said that any development within 100 feet of the high water line of
the Roaring Fork River is subject to review for an environmentally sensitive area.
The applicant proposed to demolish the existing single family residence
approximately 5200 square feet in the R-30 zone district. The development meets
the requirements of the zone district and staff recommends approval with one
condition: a fisherman's easement is granted and recoded prior to building permit
submission.
Jennifer Phelan added that stream margin review was basically a review within
certain designated environmentally sensitive areas and some basic review
standards that the top of slope with the bank has to be identified and it concurred
with the engineer. Phelan said that there were also criteria that there was no
development in the riparian area. The Parks and Engineering Departments looked
at the top of slope and the top of slope has been identified correctly. Phelan said
the fisherman's easement allows people to fish in the river but not access through
the property. Jim DeFrancia asked how deep the fisherman's easement was.
Phelan replied that it was to the high water line.
Lasser said there was aforty-five degree angle from the top of slope; there can't be
any roof height in that area and it meets the standard. Phelan said the way the
10
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 18, 2008
height was measured at the forty-five degree angle there was a little bit of the gable
roof but the way the height was measured it was not a problem.
Josh Smith from John Muir Architects said the client agreed to the fisherman's
easement and that building does clear.
Erspamer asked the height of the bank. Lasser replied there were contour lines and
the development was 15 foot from top of slope with notes from the Parks
Department.
No public comments.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #13, series 2008, with a
condition for a fisherman's easement, to a stream margin review to construct a
single family residence at 1310 Red Butte Drive; seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in
favor, APPROVED 5-0.
Adjourned at 7:30pm.
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
11