Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20110208 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 08, 2011 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 500 West Hopkins — Boomerang — Parking Portion of PUD 2 1 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 08, 2011 Stan Gibbs called the special meeting Tuesday February 08, 2011 to order in the Library Meeting Room. P &Z member excused was Jasmine Tygre. P &Z Commissioners in attendance were Bert Myrin, Cliff Weiss, LJ Erspamer, Michael Wampler, Jim DeFrancia and Stan Gibbs. Staff in attendance: Jim True, Special City Counsel; Chris Bendon, Community Development Director; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director Community Development Department; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments: Chris Bendon said they were scheduling the Stage 3 for a Special Meeting on March 8 Jackie Lothian said that she believed that the meeting could be in Council Chambers because Council does not usually meet the 2' Tuesday of the month but Sister Cities meets the 2 " Tuesday in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Declarations of Conflicts of Interest LJ Erspamer said on his street they have head in parking but does not have a problem with this head in parking. Bert Myrin said that he was not present at the last Boomerang Hearing and asked Jim if it was okay. Jackie Lothian asked Bert if he read the minutes from that December 14 meeting. Bert Myrin replied that he did. PUBLIC HEARING: 500 West Hopkins — Boomerang — Parking Portion of PUD Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing on Boomerang Parking Portion of the PUD. Jennifer Phelan stated the purpose of this hearing was to reconsider the parking recommendation in Resolution 22, 2010. Phelan said that there was an appeal filed by some neighbors who felt that Special Review and Parking should have been at the December 14 hearing where staff used the criteria and Council said that PUD criteria used and recommended the Commission hear this again. The parking issue could be fully vetted over the PUD criteria. The purpose of the hearing was a reconsideration and recommendation to City Council with regard to the parking of this project. The project was to redevelop the lodge site with 46 affordable housing units being a mix of studios, one bedroom and two bedroom units. Phelan said as proposed the project will provide 33 underground parking spaces, 1 alley space and with the continued maintenance of an encroachment license 13 head in spaces along 4 street for a total of 47 spaces for this project. Parking standards within the Aspen town site, which is also called the infill area, is required to have 1 space per unit or fewer spaces may be approved. Phelan noted 2 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 08, 2011 in the staff memo there was transit, a bike pedestrian way and falls close to the downtown so having a vehicle is not a requirement for someone who lives in this neighborhood. Additionally the neighborhood could accommodate additional cars according to the Parking Department and sample parking counts have been taken in the neighborhood that show that there is additional parking capacity on the streets. Phelan said it fails to recognize the number of bedrooms associated with the projects as both of these projects have higher bedroom and unit counts. The number of parking spaces for Boomerang is very similar to both Burlingame and Little Ajax. Phelan said that a PUD allows for flexibility with the development of lands to promote goals of the AACP such as development of affordable housing, development of areas server by transit, development of affordable housing in the Aspen town site and proposes development within the urban growth area. Phelan said with the existing parking plan being proposed staff finds the parking to be consistent with the neighborhood character, acceptable based on proximity to the commercial core, availability to transit, to be acceptable on the probable use of cars that the commission make a recommendation to City Council that the total of 47 spaces be acceptable for this project along with the maintenance of the encroachment license be maintained and City council make additional consideration for reducing street parking demands. LJ Erspamer said there was an ADA space in the alley that encroached and asked the width of that alley and can the Fire Marshall get through. Phelan replied the width of the alley was 20 feet and the encroachment was only a foot; she was going to ask the applicant if the ADA space could be moved out of the alley so the space would be on the property. Erspamer asked what is a maximum parking strategy and do we have one. Chris Bendon responded that Aspen has not and the value of minimum parking standards. Erspamer said that the city requires one space per unit and asked if that was for multifamily or single family. Phelan replied that was for multifamily. Erspamer said the study was dome in the morning and the afternoon what type of data do you use to approach this. Phelan responded that she counted the cars. Erspamer said that he downloaded the Denver parking strategy plan and it doesn't bias in any way and is there any reason that you didn't do it at a busy time. Phelan said that she can check the parking department because they have automatic photos of all of the streets and Phelan took her photos at 8am and 5pm. Bendon said we understood that it wasn't at the worse point. Erspamer asked if we still didn't want a car to go place. Phelan answered Transportation does not and there was a car to go at Paecpke and one at the hospital. 3 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 08, 2011 Bert Myrin said the idea of maximum parking requirements seemed like a future; how do we apply going forward like that to this application. Bendon replied that you don't really; he thought the reason that was put in was to say that this isn't the first time that we have looked parking and it has been 5 or 8 years since we have looked at our parking standards. Myrin said one of the standards was that parking not adversely affects the mobility of other properties in the area. Bendon replied that it wasn't necessarily a right to the existing parking standard but you have to look at the standard if the surrounding properties were hampered in some way to access their property. Myrin asked how many spaces the Benedict Commons had. Phelan said that she didn't know. Myrin asked if that property was bigger or smaller than this one. Bendon replied smaller than this one and it was over parked purposely to be used as an underground parking garage. Stan Gibbs asked how many parking spaces in Aspen rely on encroachment licenses. Bendon replied probably quite a few; the style of head in parking was kind of the way you did things back in the 50s and 60s; they weren't all that concerned about encroachment licenses and weren't all that concerned about exactly being on the property or in the right -of -way; it was developed that way and a neighborhood was grown accustomed to this parking style. Bendon said we have to look at each case and at how we weigh all the factors of the project and the neighborhood. Chris Bendon said that he had to leave about 5:20 and it wasn't because he didn't enjoy the company. Michael Hoffman introduced himself and Steve Stunda, the local representative of this project Aspen FES -ABR LLC. Michael Hoffman addressed why they were here today because the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed and approved the Boomerang Affordable Housing Project on December 14 of last year. Hoffman said the planning staff announced that only the Planned Unit Development standards would be applied to the parking required for this project; this was a change from what staff had originally said as shown on the pre - application summary and the staff memo from November 2" Hoffman said staff was originally under the opinion that we had to satisfy both the PUD standards and the Special Review for parking standards. Hoffman said that they were satisfied with that situation because they believed that they satisfied both sets of criteria. The opposition group felt differently; they did not believe that we had met the Special Review for parking standards; they didn't argue that we met the PUD standards applicable for parking. Hoffman said the other reason the opposition wanted to hit us hard on the special review standards was that the Planning & Zoning 4 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 08, 2011 Commission is the final decision maker on the Special Review issue. Hoffman said if the opposition could get P &Z to deny the project based on the Special Review standards the opposition would have gotten what they wanted. Hoffman said that the opponents appealed to Council; there is no question that the PUD standards should be what decided on parking for this project. Hoffman said the due process question was more important to preserve appearance to bend over backwards to meet the requirements of due process so that is why were are here pursuant to the P &Z Regulations again; what is to be decided today. Hoffman said we are here to give opponents their voice. Hoffman said they have an approved vested application to build a 4 story 54,000 square foot condominium hotel, which this project received in 2006. In conjunction with that the City granted a revocable encroachment license in the alley as well as the space in front of the hotel along West Fourth Street. Hoffman said they find it interesting that there was very little opposition to the hotel project based on parking and yet the neighborhood has gone apoplectic on the parking issue on this project; it is the same parking with the head in parking and was the same parking associated with the Boomerang Lodge. Hoffman said that dichotomy makes us wonder what the neighborhood is concerned about. Hoffman said that last November you told us that you were concerned about the number of affordable housing units proposed for this project and the associated need for parking and the response was that we eliminated the fourth floor; 12,500 square feet of floor area and the need for 8 parking spaces and in December came back with a plan for 46 units and 46 parking spaces. Hoffman said they were code compliant which comes to the ratio of parking places to units. P &Z approved our plan and listened to the opposition group and that City Council said the mass of the project be broken up and we studied the need for additional parking. Hoffman said the current staff memorandum does a good job applying the PUD standards to our application and there are a few elements that he highlighted that were Section 26.445.004(c) and (b) state that the parameters of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for this PUD; the parking requirement for the residential multifamily zone district is one space per unit, code section 26.515.030 and the table found on page 26 of the memo. Hoffman stated the 46 parking spaces with 33 underground and 14 on grade spaces that have been used for the Boomerang Lodge for over 50 years dedicated to the project by revocable encroachment licenses from the city. Hoffman said that the decision on parking licenses is to be made by City Council; for your decision making today those spaces exist and are dedicated to the project. 5 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 08, 2011 Hoffman utilized his computer to show photos that he took from December 28` to January 3`d Jim DeFrancia said that all we were doing was reconsidering the parking; we are just focused on parking. DeFrancia asked staff if they reviewed those regulations and found that the parking was in accordance with those regulations. Bendon replied yes. Myrin asked why this was before P &Z if it met all the requirements. Phelan said the there was an appeal on the resolution and Council decided that the Special Review Standards had been noticed and not reviewed so Council remanded the application so that Planning & Zoning Commission re -hear the parking solely with the criteria for parking. Bendon said the property is zoned with a PUD overlay; you have to review the project for the property zone district. Public Comment: Stan Gibbs asked every person to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Jody Edwards said with regards to the 3 minutes was why they were back here and he was told by City Council that he would have an equal amount of time as the applicant to discuss the PUD issues. Gibbs said he felt it was unfair to give one member of the public more time than others. People in the audience (John Batey and Joe Scott) gave Jody their time. 1. Jody Edwards said most of the time he is going to speak about one particular standard on page 14 of your packet; it is 3a "the probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential uses ". Edwards said if you look at the staff response underneath they reference the code at 1 to 1 which we all know what the code is going to be our guide but that issue or question asks is the probable number of cars generated; it doesn't ask you what the code is. We don't have any evidence in the record concerning what the probable number of cars is going to be used by this development; that makes it pretty much impossible for you to do your job and make a recommendation to the City Council with regard to this standard for PUD. So my first most important point is that you need more information before you can even make a decision; you don't have any facts on that particular question. In this context I would like to spend a few minutes and look at what we do have in the record. You have a large pile of letters in your notebooks or computer and almost all of those letters are from people that live there and see it on a day to day basis; those people are telling you that the parking is inadequate. Second from my letter to you I quoted the exact words from our mayor based on his 17 years of living in 6 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 08, 2011 affordable housing and his experience has taught him that you need about 1.5 spaces per unit. Third at 2 prior meetings we provided you with pictures taken during a Jewish Community Center event that shows that the streets are packed, there was not a single space available including the ones in the revocable area on Fourth Street and that was without the redevelopment of the Jewish Community Center; once that project is redeveloped it will be much larger, more busy, more frequent events and larger events. So the parking will be worse and if you look at the pictures they show actual parking not theoretical parking. On the Fourth Street side of Boomerang you only get 10 cars not 13. The fourth piece of evidence we have is the new table on page 4 of your packet; again this doesn't to the relative issue the number of cars generated by the development; it goes to the issue of is there available parking on street. Different question and there are a few problems with this chart for starters it talks only about Hopkins, now Hopkins is the last place that we want to encourage additional parking. Hopkins is a very busy pedestrian and bikeway that is a huge community asset. Second if you look at the bottom of page 3 "With blocks containing parallel parking and no curb cuts the City's Parking Department estimates that you can get 11 spaces on each side of the street ". Edwards said the fact is that there are curb cuts, there also fire hydrants and no parking zones. So 11 is an unreasonable number and the reality is you will see about 8 spaces on each side. The table fails to consider 3` 4`h 5th and 6 Streets between Hopkins and Main Street. In Resolution #22 -10 Section 4 relates to the certificates of affordable housing and talks about the number of employees housed by studio, one bedroom and two bedroom units and there will be 83 employees housed by these 46 units. So we know that the vast majority of people have a car so this is the closest probable number of cars by those needed for this development; plus the number needed for guests and service vehicles, 83 may be a good number of actual parking spaces for this 46 unit project. Edwards at a minimum you need an engineer's report to address this standard, you don't have that information. Bedrooms and units don't drive cars but adults do; it is how many of the adults in the project do drive cars. Find the data before you make a decision on this issue. Here's the picture of the Christina parking. 2. Paul Young lives with his wife and family at 413 W Hopkins. He disagreed with what Jody says about 8 spaces on a side and that would be true if there weren't any mailboxes but there's mailboxes and there has to be 32 feet on either side of a mailbox for delivery and he has no parking in front of his house because his mailbox was right in the middle. 7 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 08, 2011 3. Ron Erickson lives at 605 W Hopkins; there is plenty of parking. He said if you want make a comparison of the Christina, which is a development that is severely under parked; you shouldn't hold this applicant responsible for the shortcomings of another project in the neighborhood or a project that hasn't been built. Erickson said that this project meets standards and should be approved. 4. Doug Allen said that in the last 10 years we have lost on Main Street 80 or more parking places and the applicant is trying to convince you that you have discretion. Allen said that Hopkins is a walkway and a bikeway and to allow this applicant to not provide the parking is not right. 5. Paul Taddune said that he was an attorney on behalf of the Christiana and himself as a property owner 323 W Main. Taddune disagreed with Ron Erickson and does think that there is a parking problem. There are parking spaces consumed by snow in the winter rather than cars or spaces available. Taddune said this project should either reduce the number of units or increase the parking. 6. Charles Cunniffee stated that he supported this project and has friends in Little Ajax sometimes going over there for dinner parties and he has never has a problem finding parking over there. Cunniffee said that he disagreed with Mr. Young on the mailbox issue; then the entire West End would not be able to have mailboxes anywhere on the street. The merit of this project far outweighs the controversy from the neighbors about having it in this location. 7. John Staten said that he lived at 431 W Hopkins and responded to the reason the neighborhood was objecting with the substantial difference between negotiating with Charlie Paterson that was a project where people visited; they came for a week, a day, a month. Here we are talking about a living facility and it is all the difference in the world. Staten said we already have 2 affordable housing projects; we are going to have a 3` and a 4` There are only 8 possible parking spaces and this morning there was only 1 space not taken. 8. Scott Stewart said he and his wife live at 400 W Hopkins; they are not activists by nature and when it threatens our little community to move forward. Stewart said their concerns were not about property values, not about the employee housing it is purely about the size of the project in relation to the parking. This is going to have a huge impact on the pedestrian walkway and on the neighborhood. Stewart asked for a way to find a compromise. 9. Dick Carter said he lives at the Christiana and vice president of the homeowners association. The issue is what is going to happen after this 8 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 08, 2011 building is built; the developer is proposing the exact number of parking spaces as was proposed when it was going to be a ski lodge; yes now it is a little smaller. Carter said no one has a study to show the number of cars from public housing in the valley; let this project get delayed a little longer to do a study of housing and how many cars are being generated. 10.Martin Mata said he spoke briefly at the last meeting; he said we have to go through the process. The studies are not difficult to do, they take time but how can we begin to have this discussion without a study and take that to the next level and how can the planning department recommend an approval without getting the information. 11.Stewart Brofman said that he lives at 334 W Hopkins and there is a shortage of space on Hopkins; he can't park in front of his house. He asked to act more in the community's interest than any particular developer's interest. 12.Steve Goldenberg wanted to pick up where Jody left off; the PUD that is in effect was granted to build a lodge and as so it got all kinds of special consideration which the neighbors went along with because it was supposed to be a lodge; now you have to take this project for what it is. Goldenberg said that Jody brought up the probable number of spaces required. He said with 2 spaces per unit you would need 92 parking spaces off street; there are 83 Affordable Housing Certificates that we don't know how much each one is worth somewhere between 100 and 300 thousand dollars each times 83 that comes out somewhere between 10 and 25 million dollars. Goldenberg said that was enough of a subsidy to make him build the right amount of parking and solve the problem. The mayor thought that 1.5 would be right and if you do that you would get 69 spaces. The last example is if you use the bedroom number you come up with 57 spaces. We need to have a parking study. Stan Gibbs closed the public comments portion of the public hearing. Jennifer Phelan forwarded emails from Mr. Goldenberg and Mr. Staten. Commissioner Comments: Stan Gibbs thanked the members of the public for taking the time to give their input. Cliff Weiss asked where were you (the audience) when they were writing the Aspen Area Community Plan. Weiss said that John Staten's comment about the difference between this lodge or the previous lodge development and this affordable housing is the permanence of the residents. Weiss said that resonates with me to some degree. Weiss said there is a difference between traffic patterns 9 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 08, 2011 for lodging and affordable housing and lodging can create more traffic. Weiss said that he was concerned with things that degrade the ped -way on Hopkins; if you want us out of cars you have to give some alternatives. Weiss said he could debate that this project was in the community's interest because it was affordable housing. Weiss said he was concerned about the conversion of lodging to affordable housing and he was not here to decide that tonight; there were a lot of things on both sides of this debate. Weiss wanted to see more data on parking from Little Ajax and Hopkins and if you have a complex with "x" number of units and "x" number of cars how many cars are they really using. It concerns him to get people out of cars. Bert Myrin said the staff memo on page 5 talks about present capacity is that limited to our decision but not on future. Jennifer Phelan asked what he had in mind. Myrin answered that he did not know. Phelan said that he needed to look at the existing conditions as they are today. Jim True said that those types of hypothetical can be totally unknown and totally speculative. Myrin said that on page 14 of the staff memo it used probable so he is not just going to look to the past tonight; the question is how can he predict the future. Myrin said the Christina is clearly under parked as Ron Erickson stated. Myrin said he counted the spaces on Hopkins and there were 9 used parking spaces; it is tight. Myrin said in a PUD and as volunteers it was our job to consider the future and look at the probable number of cars. Myrin said that he would approve this resolution tonight with the following amendments 1. The 4 Street spaces be limited to 9; 2. The 4 Street spaces should be open as public parking as is the current use of the Christina spaces; 3. The number of parking spaces should equal the number of housing certificates; 4. All parking spaces with the exception of 9 spaces on 4 should be onsite and below grade, there is no room for snow storage. Mike Wampler said that living in affordable housing for the Last 25 years it all seemed to work out in the end. Wampler said that we are all going to be in smaller cars; there are going to be less cars in towns; in his neighborhood (Williams Ranch) there are less cars than a year ago. LJ Erspamer said it was a tragedy that we were all here tonight. Erspamer asked what the non - residential land issue was. Phelan replied that if a planned unit development had a mix of uses on it, residential and commercial, one of the things that you have the minimum standards to meet the 1:1 parking ratio but you don't pick a number out of the sky and say even though the standard is here. Erspamer 10 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 08, 2011 said that he would like this to move forward. Phelan noted this was a recommendation; it is not final decision and Council will hear all of this again. Weiss asked what conditions. Gibbs said that they were in an unusual situation and this was the first time he remembers having to reconsider something that had been forwarded to Council; on that basis we have a narrow decision to make basically did we make a mistake on our last decision. Gibbs said that they considered a lot of testimony, most of what we heard again tonight. Gibbs said that he did not believe that they did error; the affordable housing situation benefit in this situation is significant and wouldn't want us to go below 1:1 is the right thing to do. Gibbs said that the affordable housing benefit is what makes the parking issue less of a concern to him; the benefit to the community outweighs the concern that is expressed by the neighbors. Gibbs understood it and appreciated it but that's how he feels about it and the decision they made the last time is the correct one. Gibbs said the location weighed factors in here because it is on a ped- way, on a restricted traffic street, it is close to the best transportation system in the State of Colorado; all of those factors, the people essentially would not get in their car, they would have fight parking downtown; the proximity of the transportation is another huge factor. Gibbs said they did meet the underlying parking need at 1:1. Weiss said we had to take into consideration the proximity of the transportation and the ped -way; he wasn't sure the proximity was entirely relevant. Erspamer said that a transportation study by an independent was needed. Gibbs said he meant parking study, utilization study. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve Resolution #004, parking for the Boomerang with the following amendments: 1. Recommend to council that the 4 Street spaces should be real spaces 2. Recommend to Council that the 4` Street spaces should be open as public parking as is the current uses of the Christina spaces 3.Recommend to Council that the number of parking spaces should equal the number of Affordable Housing Certificates issued for this development 4. Recommend to Council that the parking spaces with the exception of the 9 spaces on 4` shall be on site and below grade 5. Ask City Council to support a parking and transit utilization study and 6. Ask City Council to look at 7` and Main and Little Ajax. The motion dies for lack of second. MOTION: Stan Gibbs moved to approve Resolution #004series of 2011, recommending approval of the parking for the Boomerang project with an 11 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 08, 2011 amendment that we encourage Council to consider a parking study and a public transportation data for the area around the Boomerang parking and the number of parking spaces on Fourth Street should be evaluated and not defined exclusively by the code; Cliff Weiss seconded. Roll call vote: Wampler, yes; Myrin, no; Weiss, yes; Erspamer, no; Gibbs, yes. APPROVED 3 -2. Discussion prior to motion: Michael Hoffman said that didn't sound feasible to him. Jennifer Phelan said staff could work with transportation and to see if parking gives tickets in hot spots. Stan Gibbs amended his motion to the above. Bert Myrin said as a PUD there is a lot more option to either reduce or increase and the reality is I counted the space for 9 cars today not 12. Weiss said that Council needs to further review the parking but not at a specific number from P &Z. Erspamer said they were giving a license for on street parking which they have always had and that on street parking impact the parking on the street; what if we asked them to put the parking off the street. Erspamer said he will vote no because he voted no before. Adjourned at 77 :000 pm ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 12