HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20090915Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2009
Minutes 2
Declarations of Conflicts of Interest 2
434 E Cooper 2
Regular Meetin¢ Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 15 2009
LJ Erspamer opened the regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in Sister
Cities Meeting Room at 4:30 pm. Commissioners Stan Gibbs, Brian Speck, Bert Myrin,
Cliff Weiss, Jim DeFrancia and LJ Erspamer were present. Michael Wampler was
excused. Staff in attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel; Sara Adams, Chris
Bendon, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
MINUTES
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes from the joint City P&Z and HPC
Meetings on July 21, 2009 and August 04, 2009 with amendments to the minutes of
August 04, 2009 on page 12 by L,I Erspamer for the study of the highest activity of the
year and the highest day of the year from the National Institute of Transportation;
seconded by Brian Speck. All in favor, APPROVED.
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None stated.
PUBLIC HEARING:
434 E Cooper -Mountain PlazaBidwell Growth Management
LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing 434 East Cooper. The notices were provided to
Jim True and accepted. Sara Adams said that the hearing before the Planning & Zoning
Commission was for 434 East Cooper also known as the Bidwell Building and Mountain
Plaza Building. Adams stated that P&Z was asked to review is Growth Management
Review for a new commercial development. Adams noted the project has been going on
for a little while; in 2007 HPC granted major conceptual review because this is in the
historic district. HPC granted a view plane exemption review and commercial design
standard review. P&Z granted Growth Management approvals for new commercial, for
free market residential and also for new affordable housing. P&Z also recommended
subdivision approval to City Council. Adams said that City Council denied the
subdivision approval; the applicant redesigned that project and requested Council to
reconsider the project. Council decided that it was appropriate to reconsider the
application and remanded the review of the new design back to HPC because there were
major changes to the building.
Adams said there were changes to the amount of commercial space in the building and
the approvals that P&Z made in 2007 remain valid; subdivision recommendation to City
Council is still valid. Adams said the Growth Management Review, Affordable Housing
Review, Free Market Residential and portion of the Commercial are all still valid.
Adams said since they added some new commercial they needed to come back to P&Z
and then they will travel back to City Council for subdivision.
2
Regular Meetin¢ Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 15.2009
Adams said that it was 203 square feet over on the commercial space. The existing
commercial credit (the existing building was just commercial with no residential); the
applicant was proposing was 203 square feet over the existing credit for new net leasable.
Adams said that in calculating employee generation the proposal is not required to
mitigate for the employees generated by the new net leasable because the total net
leasable area that is proposed generates the same number of employees that is generated
right now.
Adams said that in terms of the AACP and review criteria listed in Exhibit A; staff finds
that the proposal remains consistent with the AACP and applicable review standards and
they are recommending approval.
Chris Bendon said there was one change to the resolution in section 4 and proposed this
language be stricken because his concern was that they were responsible for enforcing the
rules set out for folks and creating a clear set of expectations and reinforcing the laws and
reinforcing that rule of law. Bendon said the second concern was whether or not this was
a problem with pedestrian impacts on this corner. Bendon said that he was surprised this
did not say that the construction has got to observe pedestrian patterns and safety.
Bendon recommended striking this last section that deals with traffic analysis.
Mitch Haas said that was okay with them and they were planning on dealing with the
construction management plan; transportation studies all done at the appropriate time
when it has to be done.
Cliff Weiss agreed with the pedestrian study but asked what was actually called for
because P&Z has asked for traffic studies for a number of other applications. Bendon
replied the applications that staff sees are typically PUDs that are large projects where
there was significant circulation of traffic impacts but the code predicts and expects that
the applicant will have to address that issue; this is not that kind of case. Bendon said
that the road will not exceed its capacity but it is the quality of service for pedestrian
infrastructure. Bendon said the study asks how that effects pedestrian movements and
does that relate to infrastructure that this project will install.
LJ Erspamer asked if there was any traffic or pedestrian movement in the 2005 code.
Cliff Weiss asked how you measure the quality of service.
Weiss said there was 12,081 square feet of commercial space and that required 41.9
FTEs; how does not adding the 203 more square feet have any effect. Adams replied the
way employee generation was calculated has to do with not only square footage but also
where the commercial space is located and the other 25% reduction for spaces that are on
upper floors or in the basement and what the redesign did was added a whole floor
3
Reeular Meetin¢ Asaen Plannine and Zonine Commission Seatember 15 2009
subgrade in addition to the subgrade garage. Weiss asked why there was a 25% reduction
even if it is subgrade. Bendon responded that the city did a survey of downtown
businesses and all of the FTE counts by season, by type of use and all these different
parameters and one of the parameters was where was it located in the building. Bendon
said the ground floor was more intensive and the other floors tend to be less intensive
types of commercial. Bendon said also it was not to discourage basement and second
floor commercial.
Bert Myrin asked how this construction would be staged. Adams answered they will be
required to have an approved construction management plan through the engineering
department. Bendon said there were certain provisions for working downtown and how
you occupy public parking spaces. Myrin noted that City Council had concerns about
height, mass and scale; did they have any concerns that they expressed that were not
addressed in this re-submittal. Adams replied that HPC found that the concerns were met
in the design, which deals with the height, mass and scale. Adams said there was more
public amenity space provided on site. Adams said having a higher LEED certification
the project will be bumped up for priority for scheduling for a public hearing.
LJ Erspamer asked if the traffic study could be removed from the resolution.
Mitch Haas said the LEED has a complicated scoring system; they will go for gold or
platinum if they can get there so they volunteered for silver. Haas said the current
structure was built in 1965 and is currently office and retail with no residential and the
building currently is not handicap accessible. Haas said that currently there were only 3
parking spaces on the property, which is a deficit of 9 parking spaces.
Mitch Haas and Dana presented a power point presentation. Haas showed a view from
the Paradise Bakery with general impacts on the views with a shadow of the former HPC
approval; this was a telling slide that tells how drastic the project has changed from then
until now. The new construction will be steel with a mix of office, retail and residential
with free market and affordable integrated. The net leasable goes up to 12,284 square
feet, which is an increase of 203 square feet and the majority of the increase occurs on the
second floor and in the basement so the first floor shrunk. Haas said that there have been
smaller retail spaces. Weiss said the P&Z was to review a GMQS and there is a lot of
information that has nothing to do with GMQS. Haas said the Growth Management
Review standards are 4.1 employees per 1,000 net leasable square feet on the ground
level; any other floor second or higher or lower than the ground level is mitigated at 75%
of that number or 3.875 employees per 1,000 square feet. There was a pedestrian
amenity space on the main level. The commercial space does not generate employee
generation mitigation at all. Haas said the free market units were at 9,000 square feet and
has now come down to 5,078 square feet. Haas said the affordable units were quality
4
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zonin¢ Commission September 15, 2009
units. LJ Erspamer said the units were rental units. Haas replied the renal came from the
housing office through a lottery and there were safeguards built in to insure that in terms
of paying the HOA dues. Haas said the Growth Management Review process was simple
and the applicant had no issues with the recommended conditions of approval or the
memo.
Cliff Weiss asked why the affordable housing was a studio and the same size as the other
2. Haas replied that the studio was a free market unit.
Stan Gibbs asked the differences between the current building, the new project and this
new revision and how the affordable housing works to make sure the mitigation that was
required was for in the previous opinion; in the existing building there is no affordable.
Adams responded that the affordable housing in version one was mitigating for the new
free market residences since there was no free market residential in the existing but there
was a credit for the commercial space because it is existing. Adams said in version 2 the
number of units has been reduced because the amount of free market residential units has
been reduced; it was a product of reducing the whole bulk of the building.
Myrin asked if the air conditioning units in the alley would remain or would they be on
the roof. Haas replied that the air conditioning would end up in the subgrade mechanical
room; the rooftop of this building would be green roof and solar panels depending on
how it next works out. Myrin asked if the free market units would be sold. Haas replied
that they would be sold and condominimized; the owners hoped to retain the ownership
of everything else. Myrin asked to amend and add on page 6 the fourth WHEREAS in the
third sentence after the add "proposed amendments". Myrin asked if there was employee
parking on site. Haas replied there were 10 spaces on site and they haven't figured out
the parking.
Erspamer asked if parking were an issue for GMQS. Haas replied the employee parking
would be but the code doesn't require parking in this location in the Core whether it is
free market or affordable residential. Erspamer asked for a rendering of the alley with a
south view.
Weiss asked if this GMQS was final. Adams replied that it is and next it would go to
Council for subdivision and back to HPC for final historic review for a new building in a
historic district.
Erspamer opened the public comments section and requested the public keep the
comments to 3 minutes and relevant to the P&Z hearing.
Re¢ular Meetine Asuen Plannin¢ and Zonine Commission September 15 2009
Public Comments:
1. Terry Butler stated that she was a direct neighbor to the project who lived and
worked there. Butler said that each meeting was so narrow what the commissions
were discussing that she could not bring forward what the neighborhood feels like.
Butler said that she went to every business in the neighborhood and has been
unable to find anyone who is for this project and we need to take into account the
neighbors and downtown business that will be affected by this for 3 or 4 years.
Butler said that no one is for the tearing down of this building and the rebuilding of
it. Butler said the alley was 1/3 of a block.
2. Junee Kirk reminded the P&Z that this came back for reconsideration based on the
objections that the public has made over the past and those objections haven't been
resolved. Kirk said this was the most important square in Aspen where the public
amenity has been reduced and should be at least 25% like what exists at Paradise
Bakery so they we maintain the openness and public amenity and keep this a
vibrant area and not close it in. Kirk said that she requested an elevation of Cooper
Street to fit in with the scale and mass of that street.
3. Toni Kronberg said that when the application first came to City Council she was
not in support of it because of the mass and scale and how it did not retain the
historic character of that project. Kronberg stated that she was disappointed in
what was brought forth because of the height and mass and scale. Kronberg said
that she echoed Terry Butler on the long term impacts on the downtown core.
Kronberg said that if this passed at Council they would take a referendum on it so
people have the opportunity to vote yea or no on it.
4. Paul Charate said that he was an interested in the project from New Zealand.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved the approval of Resolution 14, 2009 approving with
conditions Growth Management Review for the new commercial space for the property
located at 434 E Cooper including Bert's changes and deleting section 4; Bert Myrin
seconded. Motion remade.
Discussion: Chris Bendon asked if that included the changes as discussed. Cliff Weiss
said that this came before P&Z 2 years ago and P&Z has had little to say about design,
construction or any of the things that concerned the public and P&Z has had limited
purview over this project. Weiss said those concerns needed to be addressed to other
Commissions and Council. Bert Myrin asked if this motion included the changes in the
WHEREAS that he raised as well about it being the proposed amendment meet or
exceed. Myrin explained that P&Z does not have the chance to change this project.
Myrin asked about the employee parking. The code did not require employee parking.
LJ Erspamer said to make this contingent on the approval that the City Engineer removes
Section 4 from the Resolution. Jim DeFrancia said that Engineering was a referral
agency and should remove that section. Jim True stated that it was P&Z's authority to
6
Regular Meeting Aspen Plannin¢ and ZOning Commission September 15, 2009
remove or change the recommendation. Bendon said that if he had seen it before he left
the office he would have stricken it before he left the office. Erspamer said he was
against planting trees evenly spaced. Haas replied that Parks during the building permit
time would make them deal with it. Stan Gibbs asked why all the sections were in the
resolution if they did not pertain to the review. Adams said that the sections mirrored the
previous growth management approvals and for affordable housing previously and they
still apply to the additiona1203 square feet that you are reviewing tonight. Bendon said
that they put in all of the sections because it was easier to have them in than be worried
about them. Erspamer said that intersection was the busiest intersection.
Erspamer proposed to include the traffic analysis statement in the proposal. Jim
DeFrancia amended the motion.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved the approval of Resolution 14, 2009 approving with
conditions Growth Management Review for the new commercial space for the property
located at 434 E Cooper; Bert Myrin seconded. Roll call vote: 4 in favor and 2 oppose
(Weiss and Gibbs).
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to remove section 10; Stan Gibbs seconded. Roll call
vote: Speck, yes; Gibbs, yes; Weiss, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Myrin, yes; Erspamer, yes.
APPROVED 6-0.
The commissioners discussed code changes for below grade spaces, parking deficit, zero
requirement for downtown units, double dipping for commercial, residential and
affordable housing.
P&Z adjourned at 6:30 pm.
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
J