Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19951205 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. Present were: Sara Garton, Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney, Marta Chaikovska and Steve Buettow. Excused was Robert Blaich. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Chaikovska asked the status of finding a new person to serve on the Commission. Hichaelson responded he did not know, but City Council was aware of the situation. Garton stated a member of the City Council had telephoned her and said Council was not pleased with the first turnout of applicants and would review candidates again. Buettow asked regarding the Wyckoff Conditional Use Review and if the Proof of Notification Affidavit had been received by the City. Garton responded the affidavit was received by Community Development the day following the hearing. Garton commented on the approval of City Council for relocation of the snowmelter; the City Council recommended retaining the access road. Garton asked staff for further information regarding the decision. Hichaelson responded City Council had done first reading on consent with no staff presentation, and no public comment on the record. Hichaelson stated the public hearing for the snowmelter is scheduled for December 18, 1995. Garton stated she would like to follow-up on City Council's decision. Garton asked if the minutes of November 21, 1995, regarding small lodge text amendments could be distributed to each member of City Council because the minutes related a very good discussion of the Commission. Hichaelson responded he would distribute the minutes to Council members. Garton asked regarding the Rio Grande Trail follow-up by Stan Clauson, Director of Community Development, and the marking of a parcel between the trail and the river implying a driveway would be cut and a house built on the river. Hichaelson responded he did not know what Clauson had determined but would check into the matter and report back to the Commission. PLANNING & ZONING CO~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 Garton asked whether a letter had been distributed by the Housing Authority to all the ADU units. Michaelson stated he would check and report back to the Commission. STAFF COMMENTS Hichaelson presented a draft of a resolution to CDOT addressing Alternative H and asked the Commission to review and adopt by December 18, 1995. Hichaelson asked to discuss the resolution after the public hearings and obtain comments from the Commission. Hunt stated he was concerned that P&Z would be adopting the resolution in ignorance of what the present Alternative H really was, and he had concerns about the existing Alternative H proposal he wanted to be assured of. Hunt wanted assurance the new Castle Creek Bridge would be built to accommodate two rail lines in addition to the roadway. Hichaelson stated the resolution did not deal with geometry as much as getting CDOT to include the Alternative H. Hunt requested additional language be added to the third WHEREAS on the second page of the resolution where different parcels were listed which Alternative H will adversely impact. Hunt stated he wanted the Thomas Parcel, which was bought with transportation funds, to be included in the listed parcels. Garton asked who adopted the resolution. Hichaelson responded Stan Clauson and John Worcester drafted the resolution. Hunt stated the third WHEREAS on the second page of the resolution was mis-leading. MINUTES Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of November 21, 1995; Mooney seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. 610 W. HALLAHRESCIND LANDMARK DESIGNATION Garton opened the public hearing. Amy Amidon requested the Commission table the hearing to the next meeting, December 19, 1995 because there was an error in the public noticing. 2 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 MOTION ?ygre moved to table the 610 W. Hallam Rescind Landmark Designation to December 19, 1995; Hunt seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. Discussion of Motion Hunt commented one problem he had with the motion was the development that is occurring on the site used the benefit of landmark designation, yet the applicant was going to rescind landmark designation after getting the benefits. Hunt asked if that sort of thing happened. Amidon responded that was exactly the discussion scheduled in two weeks. Amidon stated this had never happened before. Buettow asked if the tabling was a request by the applicant. Amidon responded the request for tabling was by the City. RITZ-CARLTON PARKING GARAGE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Garton opened the public hearing and requested Proof of Notification Affidavit (attached in record). Michaelson, representing staff, stated the proposal was a conditional use application to allow commercial use for 100 parking spaces within the Ritz-Carlton garage and was an insubstantial amendment to the PUD. Michaelson said as required under the PUD proposal the Ritz-Carlton must provide a parking garage with 220 parking spaces; currently, utilization of those spaces ranges from 25 to 50 percent. The applicants have not made any agreements in terms of charge for that parking and there were some conditions of approval related to that. Michaelson said there were two referral comments in the packets; one from the Environmental Health and the other from the Engineering Department. In terms of compliance with portions of the code, the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan noted there was a significant number of under-utilized private spaces within the commercial core; in addition, Ordinance 7, 1993, amended the code to establish commercial use of excess parking as a conditional use and that included a finding that was consistent with both the AACP and the Transportation Action Plan. 3 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 Hichaelson stated there was a policy he noted regarding reducing the number of on-street spaces consistent with the commercial phasing out of those spaces as more private parking came on line. There was reference to compatibility; staff noted the proposed use was consistent with the existing uses in the area which are predominantly commercial and restaurant use and lodging uses on Lot 1. There was also reference to site design and operational characteristics; staff has noted there are some circulation problems that come from people driving around trying to find a place to park and some of the problems will be alleviated. Hichaelson concluded in terms of public services there did not appear to be any increase in the employee generation. Hichaelson went through some of the changes on the conditions of approval he proposed. First, on Condition 2. it read as follows: "That the fee charged for parking in the facility shall be no lower than the City's Commercial Core paid parking fee, as it may be adjusted in the future". Hichaelson suggested deleting "No weekly or monthly rate or pass will be permitted". Hichaelson stated Condition 3. would remain the same, but added three conditions for the record. Condition 4. If the applicant shall decide to terminate the commercial parking, termination shall not occur between Thanksgiving and Easter or between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Condition 5. Prior to implementation the applicant shall submit an operation plan to the Department of Transportation which shall describe the hours of operation, logistics of valley parking, a traffic plan and marketing plan. Condition 6. The Planning & Zoning Commission shall review the CUP after one year of operation and bi-annually thereafter. Hunt stated the changes to the recommendations did not recommend the spaces be available on an hourly basis. Hunt said the Transportation Advisory Committee discussed the parking at length and one of the major advantages of a facility such as the Ritz- Carlton is that it would be able to provide for people who need a lease space. Hunt stated the idea to allow hourly parking just invited more traffic circulation and the area of the proposal was not a good area to have major traffic circulation. Hichaelson responded he balanced against how one differentiates between traffic circling around trying to find parking on-street versus those vehicles that would be taken off because they would have an alternative. 4 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 Garton clarified Hunt preferred to see no hourly parking, only leased parking. Hunt stated he had a problem of why wouldn't staff want someone who was willing to lease a space on a long-term basis and lease the space less than hourly on-street rate? Michaelson responded he would have no problem with what Hunt preferred and he struck the new weekly, monthly rate for the same reason. Hooney thought it important to find out what the demand was. Hooney stated the supply was known, and it was approved, but in order to limit it and say it is not appropriate, even though it is not known if it is appropriate, to have an hourly, weekly, monthly or under-the-rate, it was subject to finding out what the demand really was. Hooney felt tap hourly and monthly parking was appropriate and would allow a positive traffic pattern, but on the other hand it would make parking available for people who would bring their cars to town and leave them sitting all day long and drive home alone at the end of the day. Hooney did not know if that would be an appropriate situation because the City provided mass transportation for that reason. Hooney felt to limit the demand would not allow anyone to find out what the spaces would really be used for. Hunt responded did not limiting the demand allow one to find out what the leasing market would be without having to compete with the hourly numbers? Mooney stated he thought the Ritz-Carlton would tell the Commission it had people standing in line for long-term leases or they were overwhelmed with people wanting to use it on an in-and-out basis just to shop. Garton stated Randy Ready, Transportation & Parking Director, had asked for a review. Hunt stated he would like to work the review on a control basis. Tygre stated she felt the applicant might want to have something to say on the issue. Garton stated the Commission did not have the expertise to make the decision and that is why there was a transportation authority, with Randy Ready heading the department, to keep track of the situation. John Sarpa, representing the applicant, stated it was always contemplated the Ritz-Carlton spaces would become commercially available, at least part of them. Sarpa stated at the end of the whole process, everybody agreed to not have one more set of public hearings to do the parking. Sarpa said it did not make any sense to have 220 parking spaces and have them all used by the Ritz- Carlton, and the Commission could be sure there would definitely be 5 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 market room. He said as comfort to Hunt, the Ritz-Carlton felt there was a high demand for monthly parking; the Little Nell Hotel had a waiting list for its monthly parking, and Sarpa felt it was important to have that option; he was glad to hear Michaelson change the recommendation because one could have monthly parking at the City facility for $100.00 a month, which is a discount over the hourly rate. Sarpa stated he would like the distinction made in the staff recommendation that the rate should be no lower than the City's commercial core, and if staff was also trying to say the Ritz-Carlton should not be competing with the City garage, that was different from the commercial core rate. Sarpa stated the applicant would like to work closely with the City and welcomed the reviews and working with Ready, the Transportation Director, but would like to be on the same basis as the City Parking Garage. Garton asked if there were any more conditions, including the three added, the applicant would like to contest. Joseph Wells, also representing the applicant, stated Condition 2. was unclear whether the option was still preserved on a daily rate, and he preferred to have that option. Wells stated under staff comment C. the applicant did not know what he was getting into, did not know if or how the project needed to be marketed, so would like to keep the flexibility that if he did signage it would fit into the code. Hichaelson responded if the applicant did put a sign up he would have to comply with two things: the PUD approval and the sign code. Hichaelson did not think it was necessary to give a condition of approval to something that would be dealt with in the code. Wells said he just did not want the subsidy read to imply that the Ritz- Carlton was not going to do signs. Garton stated she thought the Transportation Department would have input on the signage so as to match the rest of the parking signage. Hichaelson stated he thought that was what Ready was referring to when he requested a marketing plan. Hunt asked clarification if he understood Sarpa correctly when he stated he was not so concerned about the hourly parking but would like day parking. Sarpa responded he did not know yet what the hourly demand was and asked again from the Commission flexibility during some period to let him find out what that market would do. Hunt asked if Sarpa would know in a season what the hourly aspect would be. Hunt said he was concerned about the hourly rate from the point of traffic generation, but could tolerate the flexibility for a season to see what the impacts were. Tygre commented it would be good to have a winter and summer season because the useages were very different. Hunt stated he was initially opposed PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 to hourly parking, but as a test for a year he would go along with that. Garton commented Ready's recommendation was a review after the first year and at least bi-annually thereafter. Chaikovska stated the Commission was just giving the Ritz-Carlton flexibility to have any one of the options; the Ritz-Carlton may decide it wants just monthly and may not ever have hourly. Chaikovska said the Commission was saying for the applicant to decide what is best, and it sounded like the market in that area had more demand to recreate daily or monthly than ever before and asked why they would even want the traffic generation? Chaikovska stated she did not think the Commission would be losing anything by giving the applicant all the options and see what Ritz-Carlton came up with. Garton stated Ready was concerned about what does up to 100 mean; how and when will the exact number of available public spaces be determined? Sarpa responded the purpose was to put a ceiling which one could not go over, but the number of available public spaces would vary depending upon the uses of the hotel. Garton stated one condition staff had included was that the applicant may not terminate the conditional use during the peak seasons, and asked if the applicant was agreeable to that condition. Sarpa responded he had not had the opportunity to check with the Ritz-Carlton, but felt there would be no problem with the condition. Hunt stated he could see where there could possibly be a problem if the Ritz had a function that required all the spaces and yet some spaces were leased out. Sarpa responded he saw where there was the possibility of getting into a "timing jam", but the Ritz-Carlton would have to manage effectively and plan accordingly. Garton asked for public comment. There were no public comments. Hunt commented should short-term be discussed. Garton stated the applicant did not have a problem with the hourly rate being any less than the hourly rate of the City, it was the monthly rate that was the problem. Sarpa stated Garton was correct; for instance, if the Ritz gave a monthly parking rate it would not be competitive. Wells stated he preferred that phrases be added to the condition, one for hourly and one for monthly. It was concluded Condition 2 would read: "That the fee charged for parking in the facility shall be no lower than the City's Commercial Core paid parking fee, as it may be adjusted in the future, and that daily and monthly rates be available and be competitive with the City's parking facilities". PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 Garton closed the public hearing. MOTION Tygre moved to recommend approval of the conditional use for commercial parking for the Ritz-Carlton based on conditions: 1. as written in the memorandum; 2. as amended to read: That the hourly fee charged for parking in the facility shall be no lower than the City's Commercial Core paid parking fee, as it may be adjusted in the future, and that daily and monthly rates be available and can be competivite with the parking facilities; 3. as written in the memorandum; 4. If the applicant shall decide to terminate the commercial parking, termination shall not occur between Thanksgiving and Easter and between Memorial Day and Labor Day; 5. Prior to implementation the applicant shall submit an operational plan to the Department of Transportation and Parking which shall describe the following: hours of operation, logisitics of valley parking, traffic plan and a marketing plan; 6. The Planning & Zoning Commission shall review the CUP after one year of operation and bi-annually thereafter. Hunt seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. ISIS LANDMARK DESIGNATION Garton opened the public hearing and requested the Proof of Notification Affidavit from Sunny Vann, representing the applicant. The affidavit is attached in record. Amy Amidon represented the City in the hearing. Amidon stated staff and HPC recommended P&Z approve landmark designation of 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, the Webber Building, finding that standards B, D and E were met. Standard B. Architectural Importance, the building is a traditional Italianate commercial building which exhibits the traditional characteristics of that style; there were alterations made in the 1960's. Standard D. Neighborhood Character, the surrounding neighborhood is a commercial core historic district and there are a number of historic buildings in that area, including buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the structure contributes to the character of the area. Standard E. Community Character, the building is the last 19th century commercial structure in downtown Aspen which has not been rehabilitated. Restoration of the original appearance of the structure will increase its contribution to the neighborhood. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 Garton asked for public comment and there were no public comments. MOTION Hunt moved to recommend approval of landmark designation of 406 E. Hopkins Avenue, the Isis Theatre, Webber Building, finding that conditions B, D and E had been met; Tygre seconded. Vote was 5 in favor, 1 opposed Buettow), motion carried. Discussion of Motion Buettow stated almost 95 percent of the building would be demolished and asked if it was a criteria of a historic building that at least 50 percent of the building would retain its historic materials and character. Buettow stated he did not feel the building remained a historic building because of the 95 percent demolition. Amidon responded 95 percent was not an accurate demolition representation. The building is being gutted and that is true of many historic buildings in Aspen and the exterior walls are remaining except for the rear wall which does not have much integrity Amidon said. Amidon stated HPC had a conceptual review and that review did not have much to do with landmarking and she felt that the standards had been met. ISIS GMQS EXEMPTION & SPECIAL REVIEW Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, requested a favor from the Commission to allow the Linzas, owners of the Isis Theatre, to speak even though the proceeding was not a public hearing. The Commission allowed comments from the Linzas. Dominic Linza stated he and his wife had owned the theatre for 30 years. Dominic stated he would cry when the project began and loved the theatre, but it had to move forward. Dominic stated the theatre could no longer operate as a single-screen theatre; the Playhouse Theatre was a good example of that, the Wheeler Opera House could operate because it was City financed, and if it was not for the City he could not survive. Dominic stated the theatre must be multiplied in order for it to survive. Dominic stated he could PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 sell the theatre to people who want to make tea shops, galleries, etc. but he and his wife want it to stay a theatre and requested the Commission please work with the developers. Dominic said that was his request and that of the previous owner; his wife had been ill and he had to consider that also. Katherine Linza stated the theatre had been the love of their lives for the last 30 years and the Commission could not imagine how many people they had turned down who wanted to make the Isis Theatre a boutique, or tea shop. Katherine said it was the dream of she and her husband that the theatre remain a theatre and had seen the architectural model and thought it was beautiful. Dave Hichaelson represented the City and stated the application was a request for a series of approvals, including a GHQS Exemption, Special Review to exceed maximum FAR in the CC District, Reduction of Minimum Open Space and Reduction of Utility Service Area Requirements. Hichaelson said he had included in the Commission's packets the full design. The applicant proposed to historically designate the theatre and to expand it to include three additional theatres; seating would be 800 at buildout. Hichaelson included a table for Commission reference that summarized the existing floor area, the existing commercial net leasable, height, and allowable internal FAR. The existing structure would be expanded onto a lot that is adjacent to the fire station, and would include a new basement which would be excavated beneath the existing building. The Hopkin's Street facade and west wall would be preserved in their entirety. The front facade would be restored to its original configuration, including removal of the existing siding and the single roof marquee. Procedurally, Hichaelson stated he tried to summarize the relationship of the Commission's approvals, what went on in Growth Hanagement, and what the City Council would decide upon. There were referral comments from Engineering; there were some concerns on parking spaces. Hichaelson pointed out that the assumption on 11 parking spaces was a geometric calculation and everyone knew the theatre had not functioned with patron parking for some time. Comments from Housing were the same on the memorandum to the Growth Management Commission. Hichaelson stated he had included Amy Amidon's memorandum regarding HPC and Amidon was present for questions. Michaelson stated the 10 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 application had gone through five reviews with HPC and he had included in the packets all the minutes from those reviews. In terms of the GHQS Exemption, the code does allow an enlargement of the maximum floor area, including any bonus by special review, and the applicant shall provide 100 percent of affordable housing; in addition, they need to place restrictions on that housing and designate at Category 3, Hichaelson said. Hichaelson stated, in terms of special review, the applicant was requesting up to 1.8:1 FAR and providing 100 percent of that affordable housing. In terms of parking, HPC, in the minutes of August 9, 1995, recommended a landmark designation and recommended waiving of the parking standards; staff suggested the theatre had always been historically accessed by pedestrians and had no problem with the parking waiver. Hichaelson stated there was a letter from the City Engineer that indicated there is sufficient water supply, sewage disposal, drainage control, transportation and other infra-structure issues. Hichaelson noted on the bottom of page 4, Criteria D., the word design had been left out of the following: "The compatibility of the project's design with surrounding projects and it's appropriateness for the site (design) shall be demonstrated..." Staff noted there were some things about the project they liked, including returning the Hopkins facade to its historical appearance, enclosing a lobby, the service areas were cleaned up and the proposed courtyard area was an appropriate use of open space. Staff wanted to note, although HPC had given conceptual approval, the minutes and Amidon's memorandum pointed out some visual impacts and some massing issues that staff suggested might be explored further. In terms of special review for FAR, the code requires that one can go up to 2:1 FAR, provided that minimum of 60 percent of the additional floor area is for affordable housing purposes; almost 95 percent of that additional floor area above 1.5 is in the affordable units. Hichaelson stated in terms of the trash and utility area, the code requires 24 feet, the applicant proposed 20 feet by 10 feet, and staff did not have a real issue with that proposal. 11 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 The minimum required open space of the code is slightly over 2,000 square feet; the proposed open space is 540 square feet. With the provision of open space requirements in the central core, staff suggested the street edge, typically seen in historic districts, is what was wanted and the applicant indicated he would pay cash-in- lieu consistent with the code which would be calculated at the time of the building permit. Hichaelson concluded although HPC had given conceptual approval of the project, there were some clear representations that other alternatives would be looked at and staff suggested this meeting might be the time to explore those alternatives. If the Commission felt uncomfortable with the project, there were 10 conditions of approval with one change noted on Condition 3. referencing sidewalk improvements requested by the Engineering Department. Condition 8. alluded to an audit process for employees and staff had concerns that those numbers be correct, and if there was any change in use the applicant would be required to mitigate consistent with the Housing guidelines. Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, said he had been asked to look at the structure sometime before as people had assumed at sometime the theatre would come onto the market. Vann stated this was the first applicant he had been involved with that explored the possibility of retaining the building as a theatre. In order for the project to work as a theatre it had to go to a multiplex scenerio and that allowed the applicants to book major releases. Vann said the development would allow the theatre to continue to provide facilities for some of the traditional functions that occur such as the Aspen Ski Club, benefits, and the Film Fest. In order to get four theatres in the building, two threatres were put on the main floor, the basement was excavated, and two theatres put below. While the basement space did not increase the building's FAR, it did not add any mass to the building, and was still commercial space that had to be mitigated and drove the affordable housing mitigation requirements. There was a free market unit on the roof and the proceeds from the sale of that unit were designed to help offset the costs of the mitigation and restoration of the structure. In order to put two theatres in the basement the basement needed to be excavated and the roof had to be taken off the building, the floor taken off, and the rear wall taken out. Vann stated what would be done was retain most of the perimeter and restore it to its original fabric with the assistance of photographs. 12 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 Vann presented floor plans and the architect was present for specific questions from the Commission. The existing floor plan was shown with the two-story building with one large theatre. There was commercial space adjacent to the theatre on the east side of the building and the theatre occupied the main portion of the ground floor. On the second floor were the projection rooms, Linza's office and a small two-bedroom apartment in which the Linzas live. Vann stated the requested growth management exemption allowed the applicant to expand a historic landmark without having to compete in the annual commercial growth management competition, but it required the applicant to meet the same mitigation requirements as if one was going through the competition process. The Planning & Zoning Commission had the authority to approve an exemption from growth management for the expansion of a historic landmark subject to compliance with three or four criteria. Vann stated he was completely excavating the lower level of the building and putting in two theatres, with restrooms, and lobby area for circulation. Vann stated on the main level were the two largest theatres and the area behind the existing facade would become a lobby. There was a two-story lobby space which would serve not only the two theatres on the main level, but also the two theatres below. In order to preserve the building a temporary solution had been drafted. Two affordable housing units were put at the rear of the building on the top floor and a free market unit which was set back from the facade. The units on top of the building are not visible from many places in town and the idea was to put the mass at the back of the building and situate it in such a way as to reduce its visual impact. Vann stated the growth management exemption process the Commission was being asked to decide required the applicant to mitigate 60 percent of the affordable housing that would be required under growth management. Instead of using the hypothetical formula of what a theatre would generate, Vann went out and researched what actual theatre operations required and came up with a specific employment requirement for the Isis Theatre, met with the Housing Authority and staff who signed off on it, and the applicant is mitigating 100 percent of that requirement. As a safeguard in case of misjudgment or if the nature of the operation required more people, there was an audit built into the process in which the applicant would come back and provide employment records and if incorrect, the applicant would be required to provide additional mitigation. If for some reason the theatre does not work, and 13 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 someone buys it and wants to convert it into something else, then additional employee mitigation would be required based on the regulations that are in effect at the time of that conveyance. Vann stated the requirement of mitigation of affordable housing had been met. In order to place the affordable housing on-site the applicant was asking for a small special review approval; subject to approval the applicant is entitled up to 2:1 and was asking to go up to 1.8:1, and all of that square footage is in the affordable housing units. Absent the affordable housing units, the project would be about 1.5:1; with the affordable housing it is 1.8:1. Vann stated the Commission would also be asked to grant approval for that special review that allows the applicant to increase the FAR. Vann stated the primary criteria for the increase in FAR is that 60 percent of the additional square footage must be used for on-site affordable housing; the applicant is using 95 percent of that increase and clearly meets the criteria for an increase in allowable FAR. Vann stated one of the other issues that required mitigation was parking, but because the building was a historic landmark, the code contained an incentive that said the HPC may determine that the parking is not required and may waive the requirement. HPC did determine that on-site parking for this proposal was not required and it has affectively been waived, so Vann stated the P&Z had no actions to take regarding the parking issue. Vann stated additional criteria required the applicant to mitigate utility related issues and the utilities are adequate to serve the project. Vann stated pedestals would be relocated in the alley, the dumpster relocated to an enclosed area out of the alley, and an adequate area to accommodate the utility and trash service issues would be provided. The code requires a certain size trash and utility area for a building the size of the Isis Theatre and provides a mechanism by special review by which the P&Z can reduce that size. The requirement for the building would be 24 feet long by 10 feet wide, the applicant proposed 20 feet by 10 feet and Vann stated he had provided information in the application which demonstrated that area is more than adequate to accommodate the various utility requirements of the project, including the relocation of all the existing utilities behind the building that are presently in the alley and accommodate two dumpsters if necessary. The Engineering Department has recommended that a 20 foot by 10 foot trash utility access area is appropriate and Vann asked the Commission to grant approval for that reduction in length by 4 feet. 14 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 Vann stated one issue that came up and was talked about was the appropriateness of whether or not the affordable housing should be provided on-site. Vann said in order to get the FAR bonus the affordable housing must be provided on-site and the applicant wants to put it on-site so employees can be housed. Vann stated the applicant had the ability to provide the housing on-site in such a manner that it would not adversely affect the building. The issue came up if the affordable housing was provided off-site then the free market unit could be moved back and there would be some qualifiable reduction in visual impacts. The HPC granted conceptual approval of the project with both the on-site affordable housing and the free market unit, but suggested that if they had their preference that the affordable housing not be provided on- site and asked the applicant to explore if there was a way to do that. The applicant had looked at some alternatives as to whether or not the housing could be provided in another manner. Vann stated it was not an issue under the review criteria which the P&Z was being asked to consider. Item D. on page 4, which is the final review criteria, talks about the compatibility of the project's site design. Vann stated there is no discussion in the criteria of architectural compatibility, architectural bulk, architectural mass, impact on the historic resource, etc. Vann suggested the reason that is the case is because this specific review applied to historic landmarks and any modification of a historic landmark was the sole purview or responsibility of the HPC. Vann stated the Commission was asked to look at other issues that are not the prerogative of the HPC which are adequacies of utilities, the site design, whether there is sufficient open space, and whether or not the applicant mitigated the affordable housing impact. Vann stated he did not believe under these criteria that whether or not the housing should be provided on-site or off-site was a criteria which would affect the decision on the GHQS exemption. Vann welcomed comments from the P&Z, but said the ultimate decision would be made by the City Council. Vann stated he wanted to talk about why the housing needed to be on-site and the realities of developing this particular market. Vann said he understood the economics are not a review criteria but it was a very real factor in whether or not the project was feasible. In addition to renovating and restoring the entire structure the applicant had to develop something that was economically feasible and would work in the marketplace; a multi- plexed theatre. The alternatives to providing on-site housing are: go out and buy some land to build affordable housing, go out and buy a free market unit and deed restrict it to affordable housing, 15 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 or buydown an existing free market unit, and cash-in-lieu. Vann stated it was the intent to rent the units to the key employees of the theatre. Vann stated what the applicant tried to do with the project is strike a balance between competing objectives; one, to renovate and keep the theatre as it is, comply with the requirements for growth management exemption, meet the objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan in terms of actually providing housing to mitigate the employees, provide the housing on-site as recommended by the housing office, and also from the HPC perspective, go as far as possible to give on-site housing and reduce its visual impact. Hunt asked if there was going to be a stage put in to accommodate different events at different times of the year. The architect responded the existing Isis has seats that go right to the screen, the proposed plan would have the seats pulled back 15 feet which would accommodate a built-in stage. Hunt commented the proposed plan had done an outstanding job to preserve an essential function in the community, the Isis Theatre. Theatres by their very nature consume a tremendous cubit volume to accomplish what is being proposed. Hunt stated he found what was being done was more than just acceptable. Amidon clarified HPC's point of view stating Vann had mentioned the project has made infinite leaps in quality from HPC's point of view. When the project was first proposed the only wall that was being saved was the front wall of the building and there were two stories of housing on the roof. Amidon stated HPC could not be happier in how much the applicant had worked with them and after five meetings HPC has given conceptual approval to the project and it is very important to HPC that the theatre be maintained. Given the City's requirements the applicant has done a great job responding; the City is asking for on-site housing. HPC has a concern for 25 percent open space in a commercial core area where one can create a building edge. If that requirement and the cash- in-lieu issue was not there perhaps the applicant could have filled in that entire area and the housing could have fit into that space instead of on the roof. Amidon stated HPC does like the project, but finds if the free market could be to the back, if there could be another solution, then HPC would call it a great preservation project. Tygre commented as a P&Z member and as a former popcorn lady at the Playhouse Theatre, she knew that a theatre was a very specialized use; she agreed it was not only important to preserve the 16 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 structure, but preserve the use. It is an important part of the community and social center, and takes up a lot of room and everyone has to multi-plex whether one likes it or not Tygre said. One of the problems with converting to the kind of use that Stage 3 has, if one does not have on-site employees, one has a lot of problems. Tygre stated she had gone to Stage 3 various times when the projector broke down, and a light bulb burned out and there was no one on-site ready to give her her money back. Tygre stated Dominic and Kitty Linza were there all the time and that was one of the things that made the Isis Theatre such a wonderful place to go to, the Linza's were there to take care of things. Tygre said she felt this was one use where having somebody on-site was really important for the quality of the operation. Tygre stated she was willing to go along with the employee generation figure based on her own experience and was comforted by the fact that the audit was in place in case the applicant found they were doing so many special events that they would need more people. Tygre stated for many years the desirability had been discussed of living above the store as a part of revitalizing the downtown core area and what she liked about the project is that it went along with the theatre use. Tygre stated the employee units were the least visible of the roof structures because they were towards the back, but the employee units had windows, light, views, and the possibility of landscaping, so Tygre stated she felt they were very desirable employee units. Tygre said she had the opposite opinion from the HPC and felt it was desirable from many points of view to have the housing on-site and a lot of the structure could be resolved through improvements in design as the applicants had been doing all along. Tygre stated she would encourage the applicants to continue to seek what other things they could do to make the units even less obtrusive, even though they were not that obtrusive to begin with, because she liked the project and thought it important to preserve it and to have the kind of theatre use and housing there to make it a project that would not just turn into another empty building at night. Garton stated the parking had been waived by HPC, and asked the only time the Commission could require parking for an ADU was in a residential area. Hichaelson responded that statement was true. Vann stated it was part of a package for historic incentives; the City was trying to find a way to provide incentives for restoration, and there was not a whole lot one could do; affordable housing could not be waived because it would not be equitable, so the applicants looked at things they could do and one of the things 17 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 was parking. Vann stated the theatre has never functioned as patron parking and Linza parks his truck next to the Fire Department in the front, and other than that it has never been a parking area. Garton asked how Vann had come up with four theatres instead of three as good economics. Vann responded there was free space in the basement and provided the mechanism to provide a variety of different types of films. Vann introduced Sam Houston who had been working with a couple of the major film distibution companies and asked if Houston had some comments. Houston stated he had lived in Aspen full-time for 11 years and felt the responsibility to keep the project "right" and wanted to keep the feeling that it is run in the same way. Houston said the reason for theatres is when Film Fest comes, for example, such events would want to make the Isis their home. Four theatres enables the applicant to move the product throught the theatres, be able to provide a good variety of choice and have a strong art film presence; foreign films, and independent productions. Garton said a suggestion made by some was to move the apartments or free unit and bring them down to a lower level and have 3 theatres. Houston responded the configuration with the 4 theatres worked as far as movie showing but a free market unit on the roof was very desirable. Hooney asked if staff knew if the Housing Authority would be using their lease for the properties or the applicants' lease. Vann responded it would be the Housing Authority's standard deed restriction, and would provide for an audit and contain requirements for the applicants to have additional housing if the project was converted to another use. Hooney stated looking at the configuration of the units, it seemed to him there was one bedroom that had a private bathroom, and two bedrooms that shared a common area bathroom. Hooney stated if three individuals lived in the apartment the quality of life would be enhanced greatly if each person had a private bthroom and had private and separate living quarters. Vann responded the situation was difficult but sid he would explain. According to housing guidelines, for the one-bedroom, one gets credit for 1.75 employees, one gets 2.25 for a two-bedroom, 3.00 for a 3-bedroom. Vann stated HPC required the project minimize the bulk and mass on site; in other words, if the units 18 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 were put there, how could one put them there in such a way that it not only met the requirements, but minimized the bulk, so there was a trade-off. Vann stated the theory is that one of the units may house a family, the other unit might be a shared roommate situation. Hooney stated if there was a family living in one of the units, one would be the manager who has a wife and daughter; only one employee is mitigated and using half of the allowable mitigation for one person, therefore, below the minimums. Vann responded not in the way the Housing Authority calculates mitigation. There is an assumption if one has a 3-bedroom one has credit for 3 employees and if the tenants are a man, his wife and a child, that is still 3 people under the Housing Authority guidelines; whether the wife may work at the theatre or not the wife would be considered an employee of the community. Vann stated if he did not have the HPC-related consideration the applicants could perhaps provide three two- bedrooms refigured in a different manner, but this configuration had been approved by the Housing Authority and met their requirements. Hooney asked regarding tenant space deeds and if the tenant spaces were going to be leased by the theatre operator. Vann replied it had to be by the code and unless it was tenant storage for on-site tenants it did not have to be mitigated; the applicant could not go out and lease it to another commercial business across town because it would then be considered as a commercial enterprise and the applicants would have to provide additional affordable housing. The reason it was there is because it is simplier to excavate the whole basement than to excavate part of it, it is free space and Vann felt it could be used in terms of a theatre operation. Vann stated the conditions as drafted by the Planning Office were acceptable to the applicants with a clarification on Condition 3. which mentioned repair work on the curb cutter; and Condition 8. that requested a resolution from the Planning Office to memoralize the approval. Vann said in the interim the applicants would work out with Hichaelson and the Housing Authority the clarification of Condition 8. Vann stated the basic premise was fine on Condition 8., but he wanted it completely clear what additional mitigation requirements are required in the future. Garton stated she had no trouble with the reduction in open space. 19 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 MOTION Hunt moved to approve a GHQS Exemption, Special Review to exceed the allowable FAR in the CC Zone District, a Reduction of the Minimum Open Space and Utility Service Area Requirements for the Isis Theatre, with Conditions 1-10 in Planning Office memorandum dated 5 December, 1995. Condition 3. relates to sidewalk repair, if necessary. Tygre seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. Hunt excused himself from the meeting. AJAX BUILDING SPECIAL REVIEW FOR OUTDOOR SEATING Hichaelson stated the applicant was requesting to use 250 square feet in a portion of the lower mall of the Ajax Building for commercial use. The original application requested three-quarters of the mall area, but Hichaelson discussed the request and came up with an agreement with the mall manager, an adjacent mall lessee, and the applicant for a 12 by 12 foot corner as appropriate. Hichaelson stated staff recommended approval of the application with four conditions, including one, very specific in terms of where 5 tables could be, and any expansion of the seating would require another review. Garton asked the applicant, represented by Keith Herbert, if there were any objections to the conditions. Herbert responded there were no objections. Hichaelson stated there were only two employees, and room enough for only 10 people, there was no need for waitstaff, it was just a place to sit for coffee. MOTION Tygre moved to approve a Special Review for Commercial Use of Open Space in the CC Zone District for Cafe Ink! located at 520 East Durant, with the conditions contained in the staff memorandum; Chaikovska seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. Discussion of Motion Tygre stated there used to be outdoor seating at the location and there seemed to be no problem. 20 PLANNING & ZONING CO~ISSION DECEMBER 5, 1995 DISCUSSION OF RESOLUTION Hichaelson stated he was not involved with the drafting of the resolution. Garton asked if there was any objection to signing the resolution as drafted and there were no objections from the Commission. Garton signed the draft resolution to CDOT regarding Alternative H. BUCKHORN LODGE-ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE It was brought to the attention of the Commission that the Buckhorn Lodge-Order to Show Cause application was not on the agenda but had been rescheduled for February 6, 1996. David Hoefer, assistant city attorney, stated there was no objection with the rescheduling, but the problem with rescheduling in some cases was people were not getting what they wanted and tabled their projects indefinitely. Hoefer stated it was needed to get such cases off the board. Garton asked why the Buckhorn Lodge-Order to Show Cause had been rescheduled. Hoefer responded the City was letting the applicant go to February for the purpose of going forward with the application. Garton adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 21