Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20000111ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 11~ 2000 COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS ...................................................................................... 1 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .......................................................................................... 1 MINUTES ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 YELLOW BRICK REZONING AND PUB CODE AMENDMENT .................................................................. 1 7TM & MAIN STREET CONCEPTUAL/FINAL SPA/PUD, REZONING, SUBDIVISION ............................... 2 ASPEN MOUNTIAN DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN ....................................................................................... 10 11 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 11~ 2000 Bob Blaich opened the special meeting at 4:30 p.m. held in the Fire Station with Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Roger Haneman, Steven Buettow, Tim Mooney and Ron Erickson present. City staff in attendance: Nick Adeh, Engineering; Chris Bendon, Julie Ann Woods, Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; Lee Novak, Housing; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER~ STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS Jasmine Tygre stated that the newspaper reported moving the Youth Center to the Maroon Creek area. She noted that P&Z voiced concerns with the original approval process for this building because this was not a good location for a Youth Center; the Rio Grande property was a park and open space. Tygre stated that the main concern was that this would be turned into an office building; it was not zoned for office and it should either be made into housing or otherwise it should be torn down. She said the reallocation of this resource (the space the building occupies) should be given a good deal of thought because it should be used for a true community benefit. Roger Hunt agreed and stated that there were maj or reservations about the Youth Center being in that space to begin with and it was important to find the proper use for that building. Bob Blaich asked if the commission wanted to take it forward with recommendations. Julie Anne Woods responded that the SPA did not allow office use; whatever use would proposed would have to go through P&Z and Council as an amendment to that SPA. Blaich noted the flags in town were not truly representative of the visitors to Aspen and felt it might be taken as an insult to those not displayed. He said that it would be worth researching what countries were actually represented. Chris Bendon noted upcoming meetings. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Chris Bendon, staff, disclosed that his girlfriend, Sheri Sanzone, worked at Design Workshop. He said that Sheri had no involvement on this project. MINUTES MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of 30 November 1999 and 14 December 1999. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: YELLOW BRICK REZONING and PUB CODE AMENDMENT Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearings. Nick Lelack stated that the applications were withdrawn. 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 11~ 2000 MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to terminate the public hearings for the Yellow Brick Rezoning and the PUB Code Amendment. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 7TI-I & MAIN STREET CONCEPTUAL/FINAL SPA/PUD~ REZONING~ SUBDIVISION Bob Blaich opened the public hearing and the proof of notice was received. Chris Bendon explained that the public hearing was for the 7th and Main affordable housing and corner store conceptual/final, subdivision, SPA/PUD and rezoning. It was a 9,000 square foot lot located in the office zone district. There were 11 units: 10 one-bedrooms and 1 two-bedroom with 8 parking spaces on site and the ability for off-site parking spaces at Benedict Commons. The store was about 650 net leaseable square feet with storage in the basement. Bendon noted that the action was a recommendation from P&Z to City Council. Bendon said there were 2-story and 3-story elements with a fiat roof structure at about 30 feet high located in the historic district, which required HPC review. HPC granted conceptual approval for the massing, height, scale, proportions and architectural style. It would still be required to go through final with HPC to consider the smaller details at that time. HPC stated approval for the commercial store as a way to bring vitality to the area. Bendon presented slides of examples of community spaces. He noted the segregation of land uses has created the need to use the automobile to get from one use to another. Bendon utilized area maps depicting housing and commercial uses. He noted that the planning staff was positive on the commercial use proposed on this project because it was positive social growth. He said that this created a 3rd place which was not where a person lived or worked but where the person socialized. Lee Novak, Housing, introduced Mark Mahoney and Scott Lindenau from Studio B Architects. Novak stated that this project would begin to address the affordable housing need. He illustrated the history of the project and that the city purchased it in 1998. Novak noted the architect was selected through an RFP. There were 2 alternatives developed from neighborhood, Council, HPC, P&Z and Housing meetings with input for over more than a year. Novak mentioned that the unit mix from the last lottery required mostly categories 1 and 2 one-bedrooms, which was the majority of this proposal. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 11~ 2000 Scott Lindenau explained the architectural design regarding the mixed-use project and reduction of the mass of the project including landscape with HPC directives; the materials were consistent with the neighborhood. Novak said the scale matched the Hopkins project behind this one, with similar height. He said the parking element removed from the project was to allow higher unit density on site. He noted that the in-town location provided easy access to your car at the proposed location. Novak stated that he believed it was important for the 3raplace of this project to maintain community character. He said the idea of an affordable commercial space, below market rents but enough to cover the costs of operating the space, to serve locals was their goal. Novak said that the commercial space would go through an RFP with selection reflecting the community goals. He noted the Shadow Mt. and Moore surrounding neighborhoods supported the commercial space idea as an amenity. Novak reiterated the unit mix and placement utilizing drawings. He stated they were using green technology for the mechanical systems and the rest of the basement provided between 60-90 feet of storage per residential unit. Novak said the order of the street trees, ditch and sidewalk changed since the application; they have worked with the HPC Officer, Engineering and Parks to preserve the ditch in place with a small culvert. He noted the courtyard space utilized private space away from the busy corner. Jasmine Tygre inquired about the unit square footage. Novak replied the one- bedrooms ranged from 570 to 630 sf and the two-bedroom was 800 sf. Bendon noted these units were about 100 sf larger than the one-bedrooms at West Hopkins. Ron Erickson questioned the use of living space in the upper southwestern unit because the deck took square footage from the small bedroom; perhaps the deck could be replaced with living space and larger windows added on that side so the views were not lost. He also questioned the subsidized commercial space; there might be the possibility of legal ramifications. Erickson asked specifically how and who would make up the panel for the RFP development and selection. Novak responded that City Council would determine who would serve on the panel; he said the committee would decide the questions needed to ask. He said they would use Don Fliesher for assistance as the commercial real estate broker to solicit the responses and the organization of those respondents. Erickson stated there were many different ideas of what the commercial space should accomplish; he stated that he would like to understand that definition prior to final approval of the commercial space. He said he knew that this was a new area but it was an important aspect of the whole project and solicited the most comment without any answers flushed out. Erickson said that prior to loading in groceries, he would like to see what that final RFP would look like. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 11~ 2000 Erickson asked how the parking plan would work and what would prevent anyone from obtaining a permit to park on the street. Bendon responded that the Benedict Commons parking spaces were condominized and could be sold to 7th &; Main unit owners. He said that the approval could include the elimination of on-street parking without providing parking passes, but that it was not part of this approval process. Novak stated there were concerns about the fairness of denying parking permits to a certain group of people. Erickson stated that if this was subsidized housing, then it was within the rights to limit parking. Roger Haneman asked for the names of the off-site parking programs that were in effect and if they were successful. Bendon replied that examples were they rented off-site parking at the golf course for Marolt and MAA Seasonal. Bendon said that since the gate was placed at Marolt, it worked better because of the limited number of spaces. Novak noted that Truscott would include some remote parking for other projects. Roger Hunt stated that he looked at the serviceability of the commercial aspect because the grocer's semis would have to park on Main Street, which would not be acceptable. He voiced concern about the trash location. Novak responded that there were two 15-minute parking spaces on 7th Street and proposed that those would serve as delivery spaces with direct access to the commercial space storage. Hunt noted that one plan indicated that that space was closed off and there was no delivery space. Novak replied there were many ideas because there were different plans for Main Street, the Entrance to Aspen and the rail design. Tim Mooney agreed with Roger Hunt and stated that there was no place for delivery vehicles. Bendon said that the entrance to Aspen was across the Marolt property with the straight shot regardless of the mode of transit chosen. He said the rail needed protected intersections, which would close off 7th Street. Steven Buettow noted the height of 30 feet exceeded the height limitation of 25 feet, the current zoning. Bendon answered that the current zoning was 25 feet, but height could be set through the PUD and the height was consistent with other buildings in the neighborhood, which were above 30 feet. Haneman asked why the boxiest building was placed on the corner and most visible as opposed to reversing the project. Novak responded that the mixed use topology was the rational because of the importance of the corner with the gable stepping down to the building next door. Lindenau said there were snow-shedding concerns and the reduction of livable square footage with a gable roof. Haneman stated concern for the billboard effect of the proposed building configuration, lack of windows and flat roof. Tygre asked if there were no commercial components, would the project have been designed differently. Novak responded that he thought that the design would have been different. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 11~ 2000 Blaich asked what number of people would be served by this commercial component, including the proposed. Novak said the estimated the number of people would be 650; the figure reflected the proposed Forest Service (50-80), West Hallam (23), Bavarian (48), Graminger (25), West Hopkins (21), Uhlr (27 units), Marolt (300 beds). Blaich inquired if the people who ran the store would be candidates for this housing. Novak answered that a recommendation forwarded to council would be a good, if the commission wanted to do that. Blaich said that the commercial entity would balance if housing were supplied for mitigation. Mooney asked what was the mitigation number for this store. Bendon responded that it would be a little less than one unit. Blaich noted that the commercial entity had no limit on the storage devoted to the store. Novak stated that it was 250 sf for the store and the rest was divided for storage for the residential units. Hunt asked if any mechanical equipment would be located on the roof and asked if the mechanical would also support the store. Novak responded that there wasn't any air-handling equipment that he knew of being installed and if anything was placed on the roof, it would be a small chimney structure (not shown on drawings). Novak stated that the ditch be maintained in it's historic condition as part of the conditions of conceptual approval from HPC. Public comments: Denny Vaugh, 221 South 7th Street, stated that he did not oppose affordable housing on this site but was concerned with the design. He said that he had the highest regard for Scott Lindenau and felt the design aspects were attractive, but voiced concern for the density and the store. Vaugh said parking was a problem and the children played in the street in the neighborhood. He said this location was an easy walk into town with bus service every 20 minutes did not think the convenient store was necessary. Vaugh asked the applicant to reconsider the plan having only 9 units with parking on the site. Suzannah Reid, HPC Chair and neighbor, stated that the mixed-use in a residential neighborhood should be brought back to allow interaction in the neighborhood. She said the vision statement from the character committee of the community plan said the genuine character of our community should be measured by the quality of our human interactions. Reid said this was the opportunity to create the place for those things to happen. She commented that HPC supported this endeavor and this would add to the dynamic of the neighborhood. Reid stated the historic character was for modest buildings and the architecture of this project 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 11~ 2000 accomplished that. She said that HPC was concerned about mechanical equipment on the roof and was conditional for the HPC approval. Reid stated that as a neighbor she would utilize the convenient store. Linda Vaugh, 221 South 7th Street, stated that when she lived in Washington, DC for a time that the meeting places were not convenient stores but the places were the coffee shops and parks. Mary Lackner, 709 West Main, stated that the 7th and Main site was currently being used as a parking and a playground for kids (she provided photos). She said that she was not opposed to housing on the site but stated that what was happening in the neighborhood needs to be addressed. She said that the West Hopkins project did not provide enough parking and could be used to learn from with respects to parking. Lackner noted that there was only one parking space on 7th Street, the rest was signed No Parking. She said there was no overnight parking on Main Street and parking was a big concern; she said that one space per unit should be provided on site. She said that off-site parking wouldn't work for grocery shopping, where do you park to unload the groceries. Lackner stated the commercial space also needed a dedicated parking space on-site. She said this was a dense area with full- time residents and there was parking rage already happening in the neighborhood. Lackner commented that the West Hopkins project had a zero set back on the alley. This project asked for a 3-foot variance, which would create that canyon effect. Rob Wayne, 709 West Main, stated that he has lived there since the early 1980s and stated that his objection was the rear yard setback. He said that he did not oppose the commercial space but did not think a convenient store would be a gathering place for the neighborhood. He said it was an easy commute into town by bike, foot or bus. Wayne noted that even the Ben & Jerry's truck was a semi and there was no parking for cars or delivery vehicles on site. Danny Abbott, West Hopkins, stated that he was on P&Z a few years back and now worked at city market. He said that he did not have a problem with the convenient store but there would be many different delivery trucks that needed parking. He said there were not enough parking spaces for this project and that there were not enough spaces at the West Hopkins project either. He said that parking was a huge problem in this neighborhood. Abbott noted that trash would be a problem also. Hunt stated that the concept of a corner grocery was nice but problematic in this area because of the delivery vehicles and trash. He requested that the landscape architect be aware of the trees planted for future growth. Hunt said that he did not 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 11~ 2000 like the architecture and preferred the earlier plan. He noted the parking problems in the area and the fact that there were not enough parking provided on-site. He said that the units being condominized brought owners' rights questions regarding owning parking spaces. Hunt commented that if the grocery space were rental space there was more control from the city. Novak said that he thought the city was going to own that commercial space and then be the lessor. Tygre stated that she agreed with Roger's comments about the serviceability and said the public comments were very thoughtful with legitimate concerns about the traffic and circulation. She said her other concerns were with the impacts of the commercial space as opposed to the benefits. Tygre said that there was validity to a 3rdplace as a planning concept, but maybe the 3rdplace should be something other than a grocery store. She noted that 3~ places needed to be utilized more creatively. Tygre asked if the city wanted to be in the business of subsidizing commercial space. She said this issue had not been discussed and opened the door to things that the city may not want to be involved with. She asked what made the convenient store so wonderful that we could give-up a unit of housing when there were 800 applicants for the Snyder lottery. She said the parking problem needed to be solved to get the right number of units on site. Tygre stated that if the commercial element was removed many other problems would fall into place. She said there should be more care for the faCades since this was the entrance to town and that was the reason why so many of the affordable housing projects were criticized by neighborhoods. Buettow stated the design did not allow flexibility on the commercial space and it seemed that the commercial portion was driving the project, forcing people to buy condominiums and live above a store rather than more residential occupancy. Mooney stated that he was disappointed that conceptual and final were asked for at this time because it doesn't seem that there was any balance in the process. He agreed with Jasmine that there hasn't been a grocery store since the 60's or like Tom's Market. He said that the design was focused around something that didn't work here. Mooney commented that the store area should be residential with enough parking for the whole project on site. He said the idea that the residents would park at Benedict Commons and walk or bus back was an ill-conceived idea. He said that the architects could have done a better job if the commercial component wasn't there. Mooney said that the packet contained ~too many probabilities". He said he liked the mining design but the buildings could have had some stronger design added to the project. He said that glass sliding doors could replace the too small windows in the bedrooms. Mooney asked why not add a 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 11~ 2000 third floor to the back building to add housing. Mooney reiterated that the project couldn't go forward without the parking. He was glad to see the 2 ADA units. Erickson stated that it was easy to criticize a project but he asked if this was a commercial project or an employee housing project. He said that he liked the plan and because Snyder came out so well, he now had more faith in the housing office than he did 6 months ago. Erickson said this was an idealistic experiment with really good goals and would give this project a chance even with all the problems. Blaich said that there was a point made about impacts vs. pluses, there would be impact problems. He said the whole neighborhood, all the way to the Mesa Store, had parking problems. Blaich reiterated the parking of delivery trucks and only 2 spaces for 15-minute parking would not cover the impacts. He also asked for a residential unit instead of the commercial and asked if any designs had been done for that. Novak said there were not any designs done but the commercial space and the unit above it, were the same footprint and that it could be done. Blaich said that he suggested the design be done prior to going to council. He said that he had faith in the Historic Preservation Commission's role in this project. Lindenau explained the history of the project's designs. Woods stated that intent of the slide of the grocery store was to illustrate that a variety or mix of things could be incorporated into 650 sf. She said that a grocery was not to be locked into that space, it could be any number of commercial uses as a bookstore, coffee shop or something else. Novak stated that there were valid concerns about the serviceability of the commercial space and they would continue to work on those issues. He said that the density vs. parking issue was always the pivotal issue with any affordable or multi-family project. He said that he personally felt the parking at Benedict Commons would work. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to extend the meeting to 7:30. Roger Hunt second. APPROVED 6-1. Bendon asked if the issues of the commercial use with respects to the serviceability, trash and parking could be solved and would the commission be willing to come back and look at it again. Tygre stated that this was one of the problems of having conceptual and final together in one process. She said that they would not be in this dilemma if the processes were separated. Bendon stated that he did not want to postpone the vote if the commission just did not want the commercial aspect. Erickson stated that until the commercial aspect was defined, 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 11~ 2000 how could anyone make a decision tonight. Blaich stated that these arguments have been heard before and it comes out at some sort of food service. Blaich said the basic issue was having any kind of commercial aspect on this site; he said they could approve it taking out the commercial unit. Mooney said the architect already stated that the project would have been designed differently without the commercial; this was a busy corner with headlights. Blaich stated that council needed to know that the commission did not want the commercial aspect. He said the commission voted for the alternate solution of housing. Novak said that the housing office was always in favor of all housing with the same goal of density. Hunt stated that if this were a rental unit project he would be in favor of off-site parking; he said the ownership rights come with condominized units, people believe they have the right to park on the street or on-site. There was discussion of what commercial space was; the serviceability; additional parking; 3raplace,· community needs. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to recommend city council approve Conceptual and Final PUD and SPA, Subdivision and Rezoning for the 7th and Main Affordable Housing and corner store project, with the conditions outlines in P&Z Resolution #00-01. Steven Buettow second. Roll call vote: Erickson, yes; Hunt, no; Haneman, no; Tygre, no; Mooney, no; Buettow, no; Blaich, no. DENIED 6-1. Discussion of motion: Bendon stated that the commission might make a motion to approve without the commercial use or another use. The commissioners stated that they couldn't approve anything without conceptual review of the design. What were the fatal flaws causing this denial to relate to Council. The commissioners felt this project should go forward without the negative vote, but couldn't do that without holding the project up. Redesigning the project, moving the building back to be farther back from the street and positively supporting affordable housing. The commission asked staff to relate the issues to council. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to direct staff to bring back a Resolution to City P&Z for approval outlining the issues on the Conceptual and Final PUD and SPA, Subdivision and Rezoning for 7th and Main Project. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 7-0. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to extend the meeting until 8:00. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 6-1. 9