Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19950718 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995 Heeting was called to order by Chairperson Sara Garton. She requested roll call. Present at the meeting were: Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Sara Garton, Tim Mooney, Steve Buettow, and Robert Blaich. Excused was Marta Chaikovska. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jake Vickery stated, I was here last time and it's all relative to the review that I got for these ADU's prior to that. What I would like to do is go over some things with you, and ask you to see if you would reconsider those conditions of that approval, based on some information that I got from the City Attorney. Vickery continued saying, at the end of my review, there are a couple of comments about determining who has final word regarding parking, relative to P&Z versus HPC. There were some other issues about the fact that the code specifically states that there shall not be a parking space required for a studio or one-bedroom. Garton stated, first of all, regarding whether this is appropriate to take during public comments, because it is an agenda item. Vickery stated, they didn't put me on the agenda? Garton stated, right, because they didn't get the packet in time for review so they could get it us. Leslie Lamont of staff stated, when I first talked to John Worcester, John Worcester said it had to be reconsidered at a public hearing. We would have never made the noticing for this, we didn't have enough time. Garton stated, Jake was trying to get his "two cents" worth during public comments. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 Vickery stated, actually, it's just a request, if you would be willing to look at this, and when do you want to look at this. Garton stated, my impression was the commissioners were willing to look at it once we got a ruling from staff about clearing up some things about the parking. If HPC was in disagreement with the commissioners regarding the requirement for parking, which the commissioners can rule on with ADUs, we wanted an opinion from the attorney as to who had priority rule, I believe. Lamont stated, there are two opinions from the attorney that we needed. Whether you could, today, review a project that you gave an approval on previously, if that approval was part of a public hearing. Hy initial discussion with John Worcester was that you could not, so, that is why this is not on your agenda. However, Hary has had further discussions with John Worcester and she can fill you in. STAFF COMMENTS Mary Lackner of staff stated, Jake wants his ADUs reconsidered regarding the parking. Staff had asked, and you "guys" had added to the conditions of approval that a parking space be provided for each of his ADUs. In order to reconsider an application, the applicant comes back to the next regular meeting, which was on the llth, and Jake had wanted to ask if you would reconsider that condition on his application. I guess, at this time, he wants that answer. If you do want to reconsider it, we can either put it on tonight's meeting at the end of the agenda, or put it on the next meeting. Since it was approved at a public hearing, you may require it to be at another public hearing which we would publish for or since there was no public comment and there were no public people here for that meeting anyway, John has said it is up to P&Z what you feel most comfortable with. Garton stated, I also felt that the Commission wanted direction, though, about who ruled ultimately on parking. Lackner stated, what staff can do, is take the approval back to HPC and say, due to conditional uses requests, P&Z has gone and asked PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 for an additional parking space to deal with conditional use, does HPC strongly feel they have to waive this parking space. We would go back to them and ask, but the word from John is that, P&Z has the final say on that, but we can take it back and ask HPC if they agree, or if they see it as a substantial change in their project. Lamont stated, the Planning & Zoning Commission approves or denies an accessory dwelling unit, and your condition is for an accessory dwelling unit. HPC does not review ADUs, and parking goes with the ADUs. Lamont added, let me just tell you what your agenda is for tonight. It was short and it got shorter. We are requesting you to table the Marolt Housing Housing PUD Amendment, also. Garton asked, how does the Commission feel? Hooney stated, well, Jake is here, we have time, and everybody seems to be prepared. It is no real significant change in your design; in order to get through this parking loop-hole, you had designed a one-bedroom, now you just want to call it a studio to change whether or not you have to provide parking. Is that what you are saying? Vickery answered, well, that's basically it. Lamont stated, if you want to put in on your agenda may I suggest that you put it at the end of your public hearing, because we have a representative who is on our agenda tonight. Garton stated, I think what Tim was driving at, and I, as Chairman, would say this, Jake, if you have something new to add to this or if you just want to argue some more for eliminating that parking space, I would say, no. I would want to have new information you get from HPC or from staff. Vickery stated, the only new information that I would bring up to discuss is from John Worcester and what the rules are. Garton stated, if it is new information, then, we'll hold this in our decision about parking, and we can agree to hear it tonight. Lackner stated, also, it is not new information. Garton stated, it is not new information? PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 Lackner stated, the project is not changing, the applicant is wanting reconsideration of the requirement of the parking space. Vickery stated, when the lot was reviewed; there are two units, the A unit and the B unit. The B unit was designed originally as a one-bedroom unit and I offered to make it a studio. It turns out that the parking requirement is for a two-bedroom unit. Vickery continued, what the code says, and I can just read it, it says, a parking space shall not be required for studio and one- bedroom units and shall be required for two-bedroom units. So, first thing is, clarification of you requiring a parking space for a studio unit. The code explicitly says, that's not to be required, although you can require it, if you make the finding a fact, that the conditions are such that it is warranted. Hy point was, there is no parking problem in the neighborhood, in fact, it's basically kind of a ghost town most of the time. Garton stated, I think we will listen to this argument, then, at the end of the public hearings, as there is time for it on the agenda. It seems staff wants to work this out, too, exactly what the code says, on parking for ADUs, so we might as well get it cleared tonight. I better make a motion to that affect, though. MOTION Blaich stated, I move to make a motion to table this to later in the meeting, before the worksession. Hooney seconded, vote was unanimous in favor to amend the agenda, motion carried. Lamont stated, in our last meeting we talked about August lst; we have a 4:00 worksession with the County Planning & Zoning Commission, and we talked about adjourning to Bob's house for our celebration of the summer, and Bruce leaving, and everything like that. I just wanted to confirm that. Blaich asked, so, what time will we be there? Lamont stated, it will probably be about 5:30 p.m., because their regular meeting starts. Blaich stated, my house is located at the corner of 4th and Francis. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 VICKERY CODE AMENDMENT Garton opened the public hearing. MOTION Hunt stated, I move to continue the public hearing and table action on the Vickery Code Amendment to August 8th. Blaich seconded, voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. MAROLT HOUSING PUD AD~END~ENT Garton opened the public hearing. Lamont stated, we decided this afternoon that we were going to request tabling the review of this application. We are trying to work with them to try and come up with a more restrictive rental policy that helps restrict cars more up front, so, the necessity to increase the on-site parking is not as apparent. So, we met with them this afternoon and we are going to continue working with them finding outside storage space and seeing what else they could come up with. This may not come back to you, but they did publicly notice this, so I would like to keep it on the table, at least, until we know for sure whether it needs to come back to you or not. We should table it until October. MOTION Hunt stated, I move to continue the public hearing and table action on the Marolt Housing PUD Amendment to 17 October, 1995. Mooney seconded, voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Discussion of Motion PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 Hunt stated, I have a little discussion on this, I think you are attacking that; my reaction to that plan, Leslie, was where is the screen for the drive-in theatre, if this is the parking plan. Stan Clauson stated, maybe I could provide just a little more information on that. Basically, what we are trying to do is work with them to see if we can come up with a management plan that would involve greater inforcement, that would involve some alternative storage locations for vehicles that are brought into Aspen, and that would involve the managers that represent the housing complex to potential tenants. If we can develop that management plan, we may not need to do this expansion. Staff feels that if we can avoid doing that expansion, it is a good thing, both on Harolt open space and also to the message it sends. Of course, if we do an experiment for a year based on enforcement and based on trying to find alternative locations, and it proves after a year of intensively working on it that it still needs that expansion, then we will certainly be back asking for it. That's where it stands, right now. Hunt stated, this is sort of a little side issue. Have we progressed any further along the lines of where are we going to put an impound lot, where are we going to put a storage lot, and things like that? At one time we were looking at the Brush Creek Intersection area, where an intersect storage/impound type facility would be located. Are we progressing anywhere, because we still need an impound lot? Where are we going to put it, folks? Someone should be thinking along these lines. Clauson stated, if it certainly touches on the circumstance of this particular project, I will have an answer for you, but it is something we'll have to bring up. Hunt stated, if we can sort of crank up the heat a little bit; the problem is, how do we get this into any kind of an agenda, because we don't have the Police Department, or anything like that, as an applicant coming in saying, heh, we need an impound lot, here. We sure do need an impound lot and a storage facility, and all that. Garton asked, where is the impound lot since it has been moved from the Rio Grand Property? PLANNING & ZONING CO~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 It was answered at random the facility is located in Basalt. Hooney stated, the cost is passed onto the "guy's" car who is towed. INDEPENDENCE PLACE SPA DESIGNATION & CONCEPTUAL SPA PLAN (CONTINUED FROM HAY 16) Garton opened the public hearing. Lamont represented staff and stated, about every three months we talk about opening and closing the public hearing for Independence Place. If you recall, they came to you about a year and a half ago, with a Conceptual SPA application, and it was a fully noticed public hearing, and it was at that meeting that John Bennett circulated a letter and asked everybody to hold off review on it. He felt we were in a reactive mode versus a pro-active mode, and he just wanted to step back from the formal review process and through the series of community meetings, and kind of figure out what are the issues and where people were on any one of the issues. So, what we did, we tabled that public meeting until we had a better understanding with City Council on what issues had been resolved and what issues had not been resolved. They are reluctant to amend their application and submit a new application. In fact, one of the issues is, will the City enter into public-private partnership and be a co-applicant with the private property owners. That is why we have been keeping the public hearing open: one, because we do not have a new amended application; two, the application that they submitted was also a Growth Hanagement application that was submitted for that year's growth management, and they would like to preserve and maintain, still, that application that they based upon that code. Our code has not changed for Commercial Growth Hanagement, it has only changed for Residential and Lodge, so far. Lamont stated, so, what I thought I would do, is take this opportunity to just kind of bring you "guys" up to speed, as to some of the changes in the project that have been discussed and have them, primarily, verbally resolved. There is a tacit PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 understanding that some items can now be taken off the table as people agree with what they are. One of the big changes is Sy Kelly, who owns the Buckhorn Lodge. Just as a refresher, we're talking about the property that City Market owns, Bell Mountain Lodge, and the Buckhorn Lodge, and then we were talking about closing that Cooper Street public right-of- way for a pedestrian area. Sy Kelly's property, the Buckhorn Lodge; he has withdrawn his participation in that. We are only talking now about the City Harket property, which is approximately 27,000 sq. ft., and the Bell Mountain Lodge property, which is about 20,000 sq. ft., and we are still talking closure of Cooper Street. Lamont added, some of the other significant changes that have been made, is, I believe, when you first saw this application, it was talking about a three level parking garage, approaching 500 spaces; we are now focusing in on a two level garage with spaces that would replace the current on-site parking at City Harket, provide additional parking for the new net leasable that is proposed on the site, and then, that roughly translates out to about 128 public spaces. Lamont stated, City Council and the private property owners have gone back and forth on how you structure and management that parking, and who gets what for parking. The idea is, that someone entering the garage only goes through one gate, they don't go through multiple gates depending upon who they are. I believe the floor area that was included in the application that you saw originally; there were some pretty strong conceptual elevations and designs of buildings, and that floor area was approximately 1.75 to 1, total, on the property. That was for 54,000 sq. ft. of land. Not only has floor area been reduced, but Sy Kelly's portion of the land has been pulled out, so now we are talking approximately 47,000 sq. ft. of land. It's been reduced to a one-to-one floor area ratio with a point 35 bonus for on-site employee housing. Currently, the existing floor area ratios, except for Mr. Kelly, are all one-to-one, right now, based upon underlying zoning. So, there is an additional floor area ratio being proposed at point 35 for on-site affordable housing. Lamont continued stating, the applicants have also approached the City with the idea of converting the Bell Hountain Lodge to free market townhomes, and they are proposing 7-10 free market townhomes PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 instead of with the growth management approval, they have 40 lodge rooms that could be looked at today. So, they have approached the Council with that. We have really been working with them to preserve the first floor on the pedestrian mall as still commercial space, so, it would not be like the Aspen Square when you walk along Durant and there are private units there and it's not a great people place. So, the idea would be that the townhomes will be second and third floors and you would still have first floor of commercial space where the Bell Mountain Lodge is today. Some of the other changes that they are proposing and that they really talked hard with with Council, is this idea of expansion of neighborhood commercial uses and what it really means, a neighborhood commerical use, how do you insure that neighborhood commercial space is provided, yet, if one of the ideas is, that the increased commercial square footage is going to help build the parking garage; we go back and forth with local serving commercial space versus or conditional NC commercial space. The latest proposal from the private property owners is that they would provide neighborhood commercial space at E1 Jebel prices, E1 Jebel rents, and my sense is, that they would not like to stick within our straight permitted uses of NC, but would like to really provide an area for local serving businesses or the businesses that have been squeezed out of Aspen recently. They used Kid's Bazaar as an example. Lamont stated, the other issue that Council and private property owners have really gone back and forth on, and I believe I have included in this memorandum, now granted, there are no resolutions and no ordiances from Council saying we hereby agree with this, is the size of City Harket. Your original application proposed a significant expansion to City Harket below grade. That was part of the original application. That is still a part of the plan, that we would have approximately 22,450 sq. ft. of net leasable commercial space, City Harket, below grade. Then, they would like to have some net leasable space, above grade. This is City Harket, you would go in there, and they were talking about a bakery, or a sandwich shop, or something like that, that would be part of City Harket. Contained within that would also be the escalators and the stairways and the front entrance down to City Harket below. But then, if you were down in the parking lot, there would be a full entryway into there. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 So, these numbers that I say here on the first page, the conceptual size of City Harket, we're talking, at this point, a total gross square footage of 26,000 sq. ft., 2,500 being above grade, 22,450 being below grade, and in my discussion with John Caldwell, about 15 to 20 percent of the gross is back storage area and things like that. There's not a lot, even in this store currently, they don't think that would change. There's not a lot of storage area in the store; "stuff" comes in and its pretty regular and they put it right on the shelves. This 26,000 sq. ft., for the low grade 22,450, is roughly at little bit less than the size of the store in Carbondale. I believe the Carbondale store is 25,000 net leasable in there. Lamont stated, also, in our deliberations with Council, which have been very sporatic, for a variety of different reasons; they wanted to implement paid parking and see how paid parking did. Throughout our whole parking plan, the Transportation Implementation Committee continues to meet and to assess the Aspen Area Community Plan, the recommendations, and how we are going with our parking plan. At the end of the year, last year, they drafted and sent a resolution to Council, reminding Council that an east end parking facility is an intregal element in the overall City parking program, and that they wanted to remind Council that it is an important element and they should not forget it, they should continue to plan for an east end facility and not drop it, thinking that paid parking is so successful. Lamont stated, so, that is kind of an update of where we have been and where we have gone. I included a letter from Harry McNamara, who is here today, which is our most recent letter that we received from the applicants just kind of re-stating positions or offering new ideas to problems and new solutions to things that Council and private property owners have been going back and forth on. In closing, I just really want to remind you, because I think this gets really lost in newspaper articles and also in our reviews, that this whole process started when we were reviewing the Kraut property for the affordable housing. We were talking about an underground parking garage and we did not want to enable Kraut to proclude the Independence Place idea or an east end parking facility or the ability to do a larger site plan and exercise on that end of town; so, we invited the private property owners to come in, each property owner paid us an amount of money based upon the amount of land that they had, and we invited them to come in and start talking with us and see what were the problems with going 10 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995 forward with it. That's when we hired Jim Curtis and Jonathan Rose to help us out because they had been working on the Kraut property. Speaking of the Kraut property, one last point is, now the Kraut property, which had originally been discussed as an interim site for City Harket during the construction of Independence Place, is not on the table either, it is not an option. Garton stated, so, that option is still being worked out too, where City Harket will go during the development. Clauson stated, staff still believes that the project still has merit and probably is more palatable given its smaller scale and our intention would be to have a understanding established with Council as to the manner to which the application will be revised and brought forward. I believe that will be forthcoming. Hunt stated, a couple of points. I think the reduced size of the parking garage should be brought to the attention of the Transportation Implementation Committee. As one person on that committee, I'm a bit concerned how such a small facility will integrate with the parking plan. Number two, and I don't know how to state this exactly, except one of the rationales for keeping it the same, let's see what is going to happen with Aspen/Snowmass Transportation Plan, we don't have to make any decisions until we find out about that. You haven't mentioned it, I have. The Aspen/Snowmass Transportation Plan no longer exists, as far as I know. Therefore, it is no longer a rationale to stall this project. That was the mayor's words, basically, this rationale, we shouldn't consider it until the Aspen/Snowmass Transportation Plan is resolved. It is resolved, so, let's get off the dime here, and get this warmed up again. My concern is that the community is going to lose the potential east end parking by its "dilly- dallying" around, and arguing about who is going to pay for it. And, of course, there are people who don't want to make a decision, who are not terribly positive about this project, who prefer taking that approach. Garton asked, are there any other comments from the commissioners to staff about what has been presented tonight? Hooney asked, what is the percentage of alternate shop space in this development? Is it all just City Harket "stuff", the aisles that we normally see in City Harket are still going to be aisles, 11 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 or are they going to cut it up into smaller shops and then lease those shops out and diversify this mall, or this underground mall? Lamont stated, I know what you are asking. Let's just take the City Market property, it is 27,000 sq. ft. The allowable floor area ratio is one-to-one. So, one could build a structure of 27,000 sq. ft., theoretically. Because they are going underground with the majority of their store, that leaves a lot of additional floor area on top that they had proposed to utilize in the past and that has really not changed. Remember, the project was essentially broken up on the City Harket property into two buildings; you had the southwest building which was going to be above grade City Harket space, and then, a lot of the employee housing was on top of that, up to three floors. Then, they had a lower, two-story building next to Butcher Block. I believe, that is still a part of the proposal, but the idea of using a specially planned area overlay, would be to figure out what your total floor area is for both properties and then be able to shift that around so the idea was, you would have a lower building next to the Butcher Block, which is also a low building, and then, you would have a higher building at the other end of the parcel, and maybe, a two to three- story building shifted around where the Bell Hountain Lodge is. So, they are still planning additional square footage of commercial space above and beyond just City Harket on the property, based upon the underlying zoning. Hooney asked, what is the main reason for closing Cooper Street? Lamont stated, again, the two buildings on the City Harket property that were to be separated was to take advantage of the stairways that come down behind Jour De Fete and the Garden Shop. The idea was that you could flow through into that pedestrian area, and then, Cooper Street being closed, one end of of Cooper Street was proposed and that really hasn't changed at this point, will give you an entrance to the parking garage. But then, the rest of that would be a public mall space. Blaich asked, and the withdrawal of the Buckhorn doesn't affect that closing of the street? Lamont stated, we haven't really doved back into it, but the idea was, that it did not, at all. Sy has always been talking with them on, can I pull out at this point, and, maybe, I would like to go back in at another point and time? 12 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 Lamont stated, one other thing I wanted to mention; several Council members have been very emphatic about, that the new east end parking facility will not increase the parking that we have downtown. Rachel Richards has always said, for example, for every public space we create in the east end facility, I want to remove that from on-the-surface in our downtown area. What has been talked about is continuation of the pedestrian mall all the way down Cooper and connecting with the rest of the Cooper Street Mall, for example. Garton stated, my concern is if granting more neighborhood commercial, we are going to increase the parking needs, and I am like Roger, I'm very concerned about the number of spaces, whether that's even going to serve in a large, commercial facility. Lamont answered, well, our state implementation plan, because of our PM10, really prevents us from increasing traffic downtown. It says that you can have additional growth downtown, but you must augment the impacts of your increased traffic; better bus service, things like that. And the idea that we would have on-site employee housing for employees who work there, would also help us augment traffic coming into town. Garton stated, for me, that's a major burden for the applicant, then. He really has to do some remarkable things to prove to me that we augmented that kind of growth, because there is going to be more traffic the way you have presented it to me. Hooney stated, I have always felt that I really like the idea of parking, and I think the employee housing that's under construction now, I wanted that connected with as much parking underneath as we could possibly put there. On the other hand, I can remember not wanting to increase the commercial development just to have more stores for the sake of having more stores; just for the sake of having a mall at that end of Cooper Street. I really think that's what I envision are the community's needs. So, if this is just a share opportunity for City Harket and the developers to build as much commercial space as they can get into that end of town and give us a hundred parking spaces that we are going to take off the street, I don't see how that weighs out because the commercial 13 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 traffic is the last thing that I'm in favor of developing. I don't know how we balance that out, but I definitely agree with Sara, if we are going to break even on the parking that they have to build in order to give them the opportunity to build more commercial space there at one-to-one, I don't think that's a balanced equation for the balanced kind of community thing that I see. Lamont stated, so, let me understand your point. Your point is that, maybe, similar to Roger's is that, a parking facility of only 220 that takes care of the commercial growth and the parking that would be lost by the development on that site, with only 120 additional public spaces .... you would like to see more spaces? Hooney stated, I would, but I don't even know how much more, because the significance of the commercial that I understand that they want to develop there, is far beyond what I think they could ever put there, as far as parking. If we're saying, O.K., we'll trade a hundred parking spaces for a mall that is 47,000 sq. ft. and the shops are a variety of commercial shops, in addition to City Market, I don't think that is really what I see as the community's needs. If City Harket needs to expand, and there's a certain formula that they need to expand to accommodate the needs of the community, I can see that that's necessary, and if they put the parking in that they need for that expansion and then, they are willing to create a parking situation there that gets cars off the street, that's kind of a balance, for me. But to create a mall with additional commercial space, just so we have another mall, and so we have additional shops to give them a better return on their investment of expanding their store. I don't get that. Lamont stated, so, you don't agree with the recommendation of the AACP, that we need to expand our neighborhood commercial square footage? Hooney stated, I can see that we could use more neighborhood commercial square footage, but I'm very skeptical. To say that they are willing to regulate the prices to what is at E1 Jebel; E1 Jebel is going to be one of the biggest commercial growth areas in, probably, a three county area. I don't think that's a caveat to tranquility, to say that we are going to pace the rates at E1 Jebel. E1 Jebel is going to be one of the highest impacted areas in our Roaring Fork Valley because of Basalt's Mart, they are going to start limiting commercial growth, and Glenwood's already talking about it, so the hub is going to be E1 Jebel and those rents, as 14 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 soon as they can raise them they are going to be raised. As soon as those stores can become as "boutiquey" as possible, to catch the overflow of Aspen and the overflow of Basalt, and the upflow of Glenwood, the rates are going to go through the roof, then. It is the most volatile thing to agree to something now, and say that it's not going to be out of control five years from now; it is really crazy because commercial growth is, I think, the engine that's driving the character of the community away. Hunt stated, there's a couple of points I need to make here. One is, I tend to look at it from a transportation and parking point of view for this facility, and that to me is one of the major benefits to the community. In this balance of looking at parking, not only do we look at the parking needs of the new City Harket, the parking needs of the Bell Mountain Lodge, the new parking needs of whatever commercial use is there. But, we also need to look at the parking needs, or what we could accommodate in a way, is the intercept lot, especially in the summertime for what is coming over Independence Pass. Right now, all traffic is going through town, folks, guess what, it's here. This is, as far as I'm concerned, on of the positive rationale for that facility, to get that traffic as soon as possible, stationary, and get the people on foot or the public transportation system to enjoy the town. So, that's my thrust as far as the parking is concerned. Hunt added, the rationale for the improvement of City Harket, God knows what the square footage of the E1 Jebel City Market is, it must be 40,000 sq. ft. or something, it is immense. Lamont stated, I thought it was 55,000 sq. ft. Hunt stated, we are looking at a facility half that size. Unfortunately, right now, that is certainly becoming an attractive facility, certainly, for people who are going downvalley anyway, they are going to stop by City Market down there, because, my gosh, the choices you have. Even when I go down to Glenwood, on the way back, I'll stop by that City Harket because it is the best one around as far as choices are concerned. I would like to tend to reduce that from a choice point of view if we could have the square footage here that could at least give us the same degree of choices. Now, I don't think we need 55,000 sq. ft. to do that, but we sure need more square footage than we have right now in this facility. I don't know what will happen as far as prices are concerned, the prices of food, the prices of housing or prices of commercial space. For example, I was in Clark's Harket today and a two liter Diet Pepsi is $1.85. It has been $1.49 in City Harket here, I haven't looked at it 15 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 today, I hope it is not up to $1.85. $1.39, I think it was, in E1 Jebel the last time I looked at it; $1.22 at WalHart; $.99 in California, and sometimes they ran a special at $.89. Hy God, folks, why should a two liter Diet Pepsi cost us a dollar more than California, it doesn't make sense. The point is, we're not going to be able to control that, even with a major facility here, but if we do have a nicer City Harket facility, that does offer more choices, at least we would look at the possibility of reducing some of the traffic going downvalley. We certainly aren't going to reduce it if we don't improve it, that we can tell. Lamont stated, John Caldwell told me that they have a drop of 10-15 percent in this store since the opening of the mall. Hunt stated, those are very telling tales. Garton stated, well, Leslie, I think the Commission feels that City Market has the right to re-develop. The merit, I'm sure that staff has seen, is the idea of taking several properties and having it come in under something unified and gaining some parking for this City. I think there has also been some concern from some of the Commissioners on how much parking will be gained. That's the only kind of growth that's really been mentioned in the Aspen Community Plan, that they want commercial growth to really be restricted. I'm skeptical, too, I think that is the best way we can use, about what is neighborhood commercial Buettow stated, I'm also a little bit concerned about extending the pedestrian mall three blocks down Cooper Street to connect up with that City Market. It seems to me to be a pretty linear way to really limit the transportation possibilities throughout the City. Lamont stated, that is not part of the proposal. Part of the proposal is only that block of Cooper Street. Buettow stated, so, we're just talking about just that one block there? Lamont stated, yes. Vice-Chairperson Jasmine Tygre entered the meeting at this point and time. Blaich stated, I was, more or less, in favor of the proposal, except for the size, you have made a lot of comments about the scale and it seems that a lot of work has been done to reduce that. 16 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 I think the question of coherency is very important and what I fear is that if this doesn't apply the way it is, there will be independent developments and it will be more of the same kind of problem. So, I like the idea of approaching this as a coherent thing, I'm sorry one of the partners has dropped out because that makes it less coherent. I guess my big question is, what is the trade-off on the parking, and really, what are the number of cars that are going to that facility now, are they all parking in the lot (the answer to that is obviously, no, I can't park there, I have to park many other places to get into that store)? If we knew what the impact was by moving those cars from wherever they are parking around town while they shop, or at times they are circling the lot, looking for a place to park, which some people continue to do, getting them underground, and getting the convenience of underground, the obvious potential for beautification and synergy in that whole area, I think is something that possibly answers some of the questions that Tim was raising. If we could get a better "fix" on that, really get the implication from a traffic point-of- view. How many cars are out there, in the community, where are they parking? If there isn't any information that hasn't surfaced on that or support that, I think it would help us in this discussion. Blaich stated, the other thing is, when we talked about the kinds of tenants, I think that can be worked into whatever proposal we would approve, if we were approving one, and specifically, limit the kinds of tenants. When you were talking about the E1 Jebel prices, I think that is a little bit of a flag, too, but I think there are a number of people that would like to have businesses in this community, or have had and can't have anymore, and if the developers are willing to make less profit, it seems to me that they have to keep their prices down to allow for that. I think that this is something we should encourage, but I think we have to be more specific. Look at the discussions we just had about the other shopping center, what kinds of tenants can go in there. I think we have to be much clearer about that and it would have to be built into the program so that two years, three years, down the road we don't find that some of those people have come in, gone out, and been replaced with inappropriate renters. So, I'm not as negative as some people might be about this project. I think it has come quite a ways from where it was, and it is positive, from my point-of-view, and I would like to get more information. I think this is one of your intentions, to bring it on the table and update us. I think some of the things I'm hearing are more 17 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 positive than they were before. The traffic situation, if we can get a better handle on that, where those cars are now, and how much of that is going to go down there, but if it is only a trade-off of x number of shops and you bring in that many cars, and you still have a problem, then, we haven't really solved the long-term problem. Blaich continued saying, if we can, also, capture a number of those cars coming into town over the Pass, that now have to find someplace else to park. I would like to see some figures on these, I've heard some statistics on how many cars come across the Pass and into town, I don't know how many of those cars come in and stick around for an hour or two hours, or a day, or whatever, or whether they are passing through. I don't know what kind of information exists, maybe, Roger has more information on that, but I would like to see that statistically backed up a little bit. Haybe we have the information, maybe we have looked at it before and I have just forgotten, but I think that would help us make a determination on this. Garton asked for public comments. Harry McNamara, one of the owners of the Bell Mountain Lodge, stated, I have had two people call me and offer to come in and give public testimony to either City Council or the P&Z, of the need for additional neighborhood commercial. One was the manager of Sabbatini's Sports, who has been laid off based on their rents doubling or tripling because of the lack of other options in town. They are closing that facility and this "guy" is out of a job now and he has been trying to start a new business and dealing with the landlords in town, he is getting $100 a sq. ft. figures versus $35 a sq. ft. down in E1 Jebel, or something of that nature. So, he may start a business down there. HcNamara stated, I was approached by two other fellows who just opened a new log furniture store, but they have a story to tell about the two or three months of looking for commercial space in town and getting sticked on by a lot of the landlords because they wanted to sign up chain stores and not deal with locally owned business. They want someone with "deep pockets" that they could go after if the store went out of business. But anyhow, Leslie mentioned that this may be continued to September, or so, at another meeting, and I don't know if it would be beneficial to have 18 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 them come before this group and tell you what their impressions are. I make that offer. Garton stated, Leslie, we are going to continue this, obviously. This is a public hearing and we are going to just keep continuing, or tabling, I guess, we call it now because we have opened. Lamont stated, we continue to a date certain. Garton stated, but we have had the public hearing now, we just don't want to complete the public hearing. Tygre stated, I guess I'm confused about this because it seems that we just keep doing this. We've never actually had a formal review. Lamont stated, yes, you have. Tygre stated, we have? Lamont stated, they submitted a full GHQS SPA application and it was at that public hearing where you started the review of that application when John Bennett, at that meeting, asked us to step back from that process and hold off on any further traditional review. That's when we had two community meetings over the summer, about a year ago. Tygre stated, well, we never actually took formal action on this. Lamont stated, we continued the public hearing. And we are recommending until whether we have an amended application for the interim review or movement, one way or the other, we're recommending that you continue the public hearing. Tygre stated, I understand. MOTION Hunt stated, I move to continue the public hearing and table action on the Independence Place SPA Designation and Conceptual SPA Plan until 19 September, 1995. Blaich seconded, voting commenced, vote was four in favor, two opposed, motion carried. 19 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995 VICKERYADU DISCUSSION Garton stated, we amended our agenda, Jasmine, Jake is coming forward again with the parking discussion on his ADU amendment. Hary Lackner of staff represented and stated, let me refresh your memory a little bit. There are two accessory dwelling units, the two single-family homes that he's proposing to build. It was the historic unit, which is going to be on the smaller lot, that is proposed at five bedrooms and a two-bedroom accessory dwelling unit. In the memorandum, that's the unit that staff felt most strongly that we wanted a parking space provided for. So, it is a seven-bedroom house, two units in that house, the applicant's proposing only two parking spaces. The other unit, which is a two- bedroom single-family, new house, with a studio/ADU, staff isn't as strong to require a parking space for that as we feel it is a less intense use of the site, however, we did recommend a condition of approval that an additional parking space would be provided for each of those lots. That's where we are coming from. Lackner stated, HPC made a waiver to the parking plan in order to meet the historical integrity of the parcel, and you should take that into consideration that HPC has looked at the parcel, they have looked at how it is going to be developed, and at that same recommendation that there would be two spaces. However, because this is a conditional use you have the over-riding ability to require a parking space for a conditional use requirement. If you feel that a parking space cannot be provided on that site, or if the applicant is unable to provide a parking space on that site to mitigate his parking, then, we ask that you not approve the ADU, one of them was voluntary, and one of them was mandatory, we will just take out the voluntary one altogether, or else, if the mandatory one was a problem, then, he would just pay cash-in-lieu. So, there are other options available if it is making a problem with the site. Garton stated, I think that the other clarification that we are hoping to hear from staff is, as Jake stated during his comment from the public, a studio does not require an ADU, is that a true reading of the code? 2O PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 Lamont stated, the code sets out parking requirements for every use in the City. The code did not establish a parking requirement for an accessory dwelling unit if it was a studio or a one-bedroom. In the past, we've found if something was a fairly small site and we felt that parking would be tight, we have required parking. We discussed this with the City Attorney two Fridays ago, and he said because of that review criteria for a conditional use, if the Planning and Zoning Commission feels that in order to make the conditions comply with your review criteria, then, you can require a parking space, or two parkings spaces, or whatever. Garton stated, no matter what the size of the ADU. Garton asked, Jake, do you have anything new to present? Vickery stated, I just want to read that section of the code, it is Section 5-51081. I won't read the whole thing, it is brief, but it says, parking shall not be required if the unit is a studio or one- bedroom unit, but one space shall be provided on-site if the unit contains two bedrooms and one additional space will be provided for each additional two-bedroom unit. That's just what the code says, and it kind of threw me a curve, this being very explicit and specific about the ADUs, that you were going to require a car for the situation. I understand now that the P&Z has the right and the authority and the responsibility to impose any conditions on a conditional use that it finds necessary. I'm a little confused about why you think this particular project, this particular location and neighborhood is problematic to the point where you need to do that. I wasn't really prepared to present information on that level when I had my review. Ail I can say in regards to that is that no neighbors came, no adjacent people or anybody else on the block or across the street came to complain. That area over there, for a large portion of the year is fairly like a ghost town, pretty quiet. Haybe, for a few weeks during the high-season in summer and winter, we have people, but they need some life over there. There has been a shift in the way the City is, as you know, reviewing parking. Vickery stated, I want to talk about the rationale of the HPC a little bit, so it is clear to you "guys" why they would give this parking variance. The first thing I want to do is circulate these photos that show a house over in the west end that has six parking spaces; three of them are in a garage, and three of them are in front of the garage off the alley. If you look at the second 21 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 photograph, you will see that there is only one car occupying those six spaces and that the bulk of those garages has now been added to the bulk of the mass on the lot. These are the kind of things that I think that recent thinking about the parking is meant to try to correct or eleviate. I think providing parking on space is also in conflict with landscaping and open space and alleyscapes, because you can see that that kind of an approach, when you park a lot of cars off the alley, it destroys the alley. It also takes up all the space you might have lawns and trees, so, when HPC is looking at these kinds of projects (and, this is my opinion), they wanting to maintain the integrity of the historical landmark and the setting of the historic landmark and include some kind of open space. This project has an L-structure that we are trying to work with and the parking is detrimental to that. There are 126 properties that are landmark properties in the City, so that's the magnitude of the properties that have been able to take advantage of this incentive program. The incentive program is pervasive throughout the code, even in the GHQS. I did some research, I can read you some of this. It talks about open space is intended to maintain the prominence of an adjacent historic landmark. Lamont stated, Jake, a quick question. You said, 126 properties that have the potential to be landmarked, or are? Vickery stated, that's the current number, as far as I know, that are landmarked. Lamont stated, O.K., but anybody is on the enventory as a potential landmark, and then, can take advantage of the incentives of a landmark. Do you know how many there are? Vickery stated, there's 147, I believe. There are 126 landmarks; 147 non-landmarked properties on the enventory, totaling 273. So, you might be right there. Vickery stated, just two other points. In the GHQS section this talks about parking relative to landmarks. Any parking that cannot be provided on-site, that would, therefore, be required to be provided via cash-in-lieu shall be waived. The compatiability of how these designs run projects has to do with the character and the quality of its proposed open space and landscaping. I think there is an acknowledgment in the community, that historical landmarks provide a general community eminity, a general community value, and it seems to be the attitude of the City, that there can be a relief 22 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 from mitigations, other concessions given for the maintenance and parking and value that these historical properties bring to the town. If you are going to over-ride the HPC, which you can do, there needs to be some pretty strong "stuff", reasons, for doing that, and I was in a quandary because I didn't really understand what your rationale was on that. This particular unit is voluntary; I don't really want to put my approval at risk tonight, that's not what I'm trying to do. Vickery showed a site plan to the Commission again showing the proposed site and the parking. He stated, I guess, I need to get clear on the two units; the A Unit is the historical, old house and the B Unit is the new one. If you still wanted to require the parking, I was sort of thinking a whole that if we could provide 5 spaces on site, rather than 6, if that might be a workable compromise for you, an acceptable for you, even though I am proposing to put that fifth space around the east side, which is not the historical side which is the side that has the two bedroom unit. Garton stated, the Commission just signed a resolution granting approval for Jake's two ADUs. We voted 4 to 2 for approval with conditions, and I think the two desenting votes were that they didn't want to require the additional parking, that the rest of the Commission did. One of the conditions was a designated parking space for each ADU must be provided on-site, in addition to the two spaces provided for each free market unit, which brings it, Jake again, to a total of 6. You are asking for the 5. Garton continued saying, when Jake says he wasn't clear on why we voted that way, that's too bad, because the applicant should always be clear when he leaves the room on why those conditions were imposed. So, someone who supported their condition, do you want to support it again, and explain why this site you felt required the parking. Hunt stated, well, my problem is, I can't visualize. It is nice looking at this paper trail, I can't visualize the problem. Haybe, if I can see it visually; I can't even remember what my position was. That's my problem. Was I here? Vickery stated, I don't think you were here, I think you left the meeting, actually. 23 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 Garton stated, I voted against that condition, I am one of the two, and so is Steve. So, I need one of you to support this. Hooney stated, my recollection of why I voted to keep this condition intact was that when you came in, it was my understanding that you wanted a one-bedroom. And to me, clearly, I think that it is justifiable to have a parking space on the alley for a one- bedroom ADU. And so, in order to scuffle the cards, you said, well, I will keep the size the same, but I'll just call it a studio and then, parking isn't required for a studio. Well, that didn't help me at all, and probably hurt my attitude towards it; if it's a duck, it's a duck. Hooney stated, we also discussed the fact that on the alley it would be very simple to put these pavers, or these grass creep sectional blocks in, and it was obvious to the plan that there was room for that. It didn't seem like financially that it was such a burden to ask for this style of landscape parking space to be put in to make everybody happy; for you to keep the integrity of the balance between the historic and the new structures with landscaping that was going to be considered open space. If there ever was an impact because of a seven bedroom house and a two bedroom house on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot, with two separate ADUs, to me, basically, that's four separate living units in the maximum development capacity, that we had an extra parking space that looked like a yard. So, whether I was trying to require something that you were incapable of, I didn't think so, or whether you, basically, even want to understand what we were asking you to do, I don't know. It was very clear to me that this wasn't that severe, we're not in favor of that style of paved parking that you brought those pictures for; we gave you alternatives and because of the density that is going to be on 10,000 sq. ft., because of the size of the free market house, I thought one extra grass creep parking space was not that restrictive, from our point-of-view. I thought our intentions were, basically, simple. If we, basically, are willing to eliminate parking spaces in the west end, and we, basically, have to do it, and I hate this rationale, other places, and I don't think that's fair. Our parking is at a crisis and I think it is everybody's responsibility to assume that they have put in the number of parking spaces that are going to pertain to the unit whether it is required or not. I think it is a maximum use that you are getting without a balance in parking. Lackner stated, I think you "guys" are aware of this, but two of 24 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 the three items on the agenda tonight dealt with parking. The Harolt people wanted to double the size of their parking lot, and then, the "superblock" project is a parking garage concept. We think we are being consistent on this application, with all other ADUs that you have been looking at recently. That's why staff did recommend one parking space and when Tim's idea was first discussed last time; to maintain it looking like a yard-like setting, doing the grass creep to make it look like you have more open space when there's not a car sitting there. Vickery stated, I would like to say just one thing, and it is not rebutt, it is more just to clarify. This is the site plan (Vickery showed the site plan). Hunt stated, I'm going to abstain as I wasn't here. Vickery stated, this is for everybody's benefit. Vickery showed the site plan and showed the proposed parking, and the two units. He stated, Robert, I don't know if you saw this, but this is the site plan. This is W. Francis down here and this is the alley. This is the A Unit which is the historical one that I'm trying to get, and this is the B Unit. I put in blue here where the parking spaces would be. I don't have any problem with the parking space on the B Unit; this is the one I changed to a studio. That you've got, you got both, actually. This one is not a problem for me. What's a problem for me is this one, and only because it would make this a better residence, a better site, if this space wasn't filled in with a car. Right there is a transformer, that's the parking space, and the stairs down to the ADU, and this is the other two spaces, and this is the 3 ft. side yard, it is only 45 ft. wide. It is just packed in there, so, I'm just asking for some relief in mitigation on this "guy". (Ail referring to the site plan.) This is the only south-facing usable open space available to this house. Blaich asked, Jake, is that the house you are going to occupy or is it this one (referring to the site plan)? Vickery stated, yes. We actually need this ADU, we need to get the income from the ADU to make the deal. Blaich stated, you have one garage, one-car garage. Vickery stated, it is a two-car garage. Blaich asked, and you have two cars yourself, so, you need the additional parking for the ADU, and 25 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 if you don't have that space there, they are going to park on the street? Vickery stated, right. And I'm saying, for an historical landmark, in this particular site specific location, given the constitution of the neighborhood and the parking patterns of the neighborhood and so forth, one more space on the street is not a problem, in my opinion. Right now, there is a garage, right here, that's too old to be used, you can't drive in it, and the people park right here (showing on the site plan). So, I don't know what that does for you, but I understand your rationale. Blaich stated, I have one further question. Is there a possibility to put two parking spaces in the other spot? You can't do that legally? Vickery stated, it's not the way the whole thing has been set up. Lamont stated, his proposal is to create two separate parcels on his lot. Blaich stated, so, you couldn't do that, you couldn't designate that and hold to that. Garton stated, nice try, though. There was discussion at random between the Commission members and Vickery at this point on Commissioner Blaich's suggestion. Garton stated, Jake, you know how I voted, but I want to make clear that the Commission isn't doing anything unusual with what they have imposed on you in their vote. They look hard at that conditional parking on every single ADU; our ADU approvals, which there have been many, we have imposed parking no matter what the code says. It is nice to hear our attorney say that, indeed, is what we should be doing, when it's conditional, that we can impose. Garton asked, is there anymore discussion? We should take a vote, again, so I think I'll ask for a roll call vote. 26 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 Hunt stated, according to procedure, we have to re-consider a previous motion? Garton stated, I'm sorry, there's been no motion, that's right. It was a previous approval and we are re-considering it now. Hunt stated, we have to re-consider the previous approval. Someone who was in favor has to move to re-consider a previous motion. Tygre stated, I wasn't part of the original either, so I have to abstain. Hunt stated, I do too (have to abstain). Garton stated, does anyone want to reconsider the previous motion, which was on June 20th (1995)? There was no response from the Commission. Lackner stated, the motion was to approve the applicant's request for two ADUs with the nine conditions as recommended by staff. Garton stated, the motion was dated June 20th. Hooney stated, here, Condition #8 says, a designated parking space for each ADU must be provided on site, in addition to, two spaces provided for each free market unit. That, basically, is what we would have to change or eliminate, Condition ~8, in order to comply with Jake's request. Garton asked, is there any such motion? There was no response from the Commission. Garton stated, Jake, the resolution stands, then. The meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Following the meeting was a worksession with staff and the Commission for an AH/RO Discussion. The Commission dismissed the clerk, but the worksession was taped and is being kept in case of future reference needs. 27 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION JULY 18, 1995 Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 28