Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20000229ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29, 2~ ~00 Bob Blaich opened the regular meeting at 4:I0 p.m. with Roger Hunt, Tim Mo°i tey and Ron Erickson present. Jasmine Tygre, Steven Buettow and Roger Haneman were excused. Staff present: David HOefer, Assistant City AttOrney; Joyce Ohls?n, Chris Bendon, Nick Lelack, Sarah Oates, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Ron Erickson asked if there was a clear violation of the housing rules, how were the restrictions enforced. If a person owned an employee housing unit, then that person cannot own another piece of property on Aspen. There would be a time period for the sale of the free-market unit and staffwould check into the rules. David Hoefer stated that there have been problems receiving notice So that the affidavit of notice would now be required prior to the commencement of any hearing. If the notice was n0t provided the hearing would be continued. PUBLIC HEARING: DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT - AFFORDABLE HOUSING and DEFINITIONS Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. Chris Bendon and Nick Lelack presented the notice. Lelack said the affordable housing, definitions and special review sections of the code would be taken out and replaced the section for mitigation for off-site afforda.ble housing. The second provision Would allow referrals on GMQS exemptions on affordable housing projects by the executive director of the housing authority. The 3rd reason was to provide historic landmark owners more flexibility in how affordable housing mitigation was provided when a special review on increased floor area was requested. This was just for historic landmark owners when applied in the Office, Commercial and Commercial Core Zone Districts: This would allow P&Z orHPC to consider off-site or cash-in-lieu affordable housing mitigation. Lelack stated the amendment proposed raising the annual GMQS allotments for affordable housing form the current 43 per year to the ceiling (approx. 550 units). The amendment was in response to the GMC's request to adjust the cap as an interim measure prior to revising the GMQS Section in its entirety. Lelack noted / 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29, 2000 that GMC approved this amendment 11-0 and the County was revising their text amendments to their land use code similarly. Lelack said the amendments to Section 26.430.040(d) included that 60% of an addition to a project would have to be for affordable housing. He distributed the revised Section 26.430.040(A) & 26.470.070 (D)(5) Exhibit 5. Bendon explained the amendments to the definitions. The commission stated concerns for the GMQS allotments and allocations by each year and taking the allotments offthe back. Other concerns were the exceptional project requirements, design elements and competition levels. The discussions included the team concept eliminating the review process, that a City Council project had the abilitg for exaction, and deviations from the process on certain projects. No public comments. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to table and continue action of the Code Amendment Affordable Housing Definitions to the end of the meeting tonight. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 4-0. Blaieh re-opened the hearing. Bendon stated that the review process followed the rules for land use from the code especially for general life-safety, general PUD and parking standards. Mooney stated that there were portions that were being thrown out that were more important. Mooney said the pool and going above the annual allotments were just for exceptional projects. He said that just because a project was affordable housing did not make it an exceptional project; it had to be determined on the merits of each project. Erickson noted there could be applications that would take up the entire year's allotment, which would basically deny any other project from applying. Bendon said that ifa large project was deemed exceptional then it would come out of the ceiling. Blaich stated that the guidelines and rules had to be followed. Mooney said that this might eliminated a lot of legitimate long-range planning. Mooney said that cash-in-lieu or off-site housing mitigation should be done privately instead of the public forum. Bendon replied that the code supplied the criteria for increased floor area to be mitigated 100% for affordable housing of what the threshold was. Ohlson stated that only City Council could waive the fee. Mooney stated concern for waivers of parking. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29, 2~00 MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing for ~ hour. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 4-0. Hunt corrected language in the memo. Bendon stated the corrections would be reflected in the code amendment resolution. Mooney stated concern for the essential public facility and the impacts should be offset. Bendon responded that the essential public facilities were exempt from Growth Management but not exempt from mitigation. Bendon noted that certain essential public facilities could be viewed as growth generators. Ohlson said that some language needed to be let~ in the definitions to qualify the essential public facilities. MOTION: Roger Itunt moved to approve Resolution #00 - 10 with Sections 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7, Definitions and affordable housing text amendments. Ron Eriekson second. APPROVED 4-0. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing to April 18th on Sections 4 and 6 for the Definitions and affordable housing text amendment. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 4-0. PUBLIC HEARING: EXPLORE BOOKSELLER CONDITIONAL USE and SPECIAL REVIEW Bob Blalch opened the public hearing for the Explore Bookseller conditional use and special review. David Hoefer stated for the record that the notice and affidavit were provided; the commission had the jurisdiction to proceed. He provided the criteria sheet for review. Nick Lelack explained there were two issues. The Conditional Use to expand the bookstore and restaurant uses which were both conditional uses in the Office Zone District. The Special Review was to increase the floor area for the Explore Building from 0.75 - 1 to 0.85 - 1; FAR in this zone district was allowed at 1 - 1. He said that the approval for this project was dependent upon the Code Amendment that was just discussed in the previous hearing, in whether or not affordable housing was provided for mitigation via a cash-in-lieu payment because it would be incompatible with this structure to provide on-site mitigation. Lelack stated that P&Z made final decisions on the review procedures for special review and conditional use; the Growth Management Commission would review the exemption for Historic Landmark; Historic Preservation Commission for conceptual and final review; City Council to approve the method of mitigation. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29. 2000 Lelack stated that this project essentially enclosed the back deck, becoming a Victorian conservatory enclosed by glass and would separate the dining facilities from the bookstore. Theplans also included adding an elevator, which would a~d handicap access to the 2n~ floor dining facilities. The memo from the housing ~ authority and the recommendation was supplied as Exhibit 4. Alan Richman asl4ed if comments could be taken from the public prior to the commissioners comments. Nick Lebby, LaCocina, stated support for this project as a small locally owned business in Aspen and he noted that they were becoming extinct. He stated that long-time local business should be given every consideration to stay in town and keep their business. He said this was an asset to the community. Ellen Hunt, public, agreed with Nick Lebby. Barbara Convisor, public, stated that she wished to add her voice in support and noted that it was very sad that Aspen was being changed by chain stores, loosing the character of town. She said that Katharine was being held ransom with the employee housing trade-off and that it was a sad trade-off if it made no economic sense to improve her business. Phyllis Bronson, public, stated support for Explore because it was a bastion of local energy with a joiner's table based upon reading and learning. James Salter, public, said that it was more than a business because this bookstore had the cultural value that Aspen has always been proud of and supported. He said that it should be given special consideration because of the value of Explore. Jesse Boyce, public, said that Explore was a place in town that guaranteed a great vegetarian meal and books. He agreed with Phyllis that it was a great place to get together with friends at the joiner's table as was the Main Street Bakery. Mike Behrendt, public, said that for years he had asked Katharine to expand to that back deck and she explained that it was difficult to do that. Behrendt stated there should be some flexibility with the addition of the elevator which did not add square footage but rather was an asset to the community. Alan Richman said there was an area to focus on, which was the amount of the affordable housing impact fees required to be paid. He said that they believed that they could provide justification for the flexibility that the folks in the audience raised. David Hoefer stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission did not have jurisdiction on fees. Richman stated that he wanted to speak to the commission to 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29, 2000 determine if they could waive the fee. Hoefer reiterated that P&Z could not legally waive the fee; City Council could be argued with on the fees but not P&Z. Richman asked if the commission could recommend that council waive the fee. Hoefer responded that it was not appropriate for P&Z to look at the issue. Richman stated that this was a surprising development because he had discusser this with staffmaking about this presentation to P&Z. Richman said that he could make the argument and P&Z could make the determination for themselves whetl they had jurisdiction or not. Hoefer said P&Z made the decision if the criteria have been met and the city attorney's office made the legal determination. Richman said that he felt they could demonstrate that the criteria would be met d that affordable housing would not be required. Lelack asked if a determination could be met as to the number of employees. Hoefer replied that was done by formula. Ron Erickson said that the procedures for dealing with employee housing mitigation were determined by the Housing Authority for cash-in-lieu because it was a historical structure. Erickson stated that P&Z would not discuss mitigation at all. Roger Hunt stated that ifP&Z had no purview of fees why was 4b in the Resolution # 11. Bob Blaich stated that there was no legal position to take even though the commission could be in favor or not in favor of the project because it had no b~aring on it; Council made that determination. Blaich said that the aspects could be reviewed that were in the P&Z purview. Richman stated that there was a requirement render the conditional use criteria that he said if the finding was made that no additional employees were generated by this project, then no employee mitigation was needed. He said that he should have the right to speak on that point and that the commission should hear that point and make a finding on that point. Richman said that ifP&Z agreed with that position, then that position could be used by the council, which could accept or waive the cash-in-lieu and P&Z was charged with looking at affordable housing under the conditional use review criteria. Richman said the only reason that P&Z was looking at the addition of the 40%/60% for the affordable housing requirement imposed by the code. Blaich said that P&Z could hear the arguments knowing full well that council made that determination and it was not P&Z purview. Hoefer reiterated that was his point and the criteria simply stated that the applicant committed to meeting the need for affordable housing. Richman responded that if there was a need, but there were no employees generated, then there was no need. Hoefer reiterated that this board did not have the authority to waive that. Richman replied that he understood that, but if there was a determination that the applicant was required to pay cash, then they met that requirement. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29, 2 BOO Tim Mooney stated that what P&Z was determining was that there was an expansion in the size of the building. He said that if there was no mitigation at his point, when would the mitigation come forward. Mooney noted that if another operator would go into that space and determined a different way of operating, ti ~is space might need more mitigation. Richman responded that the conditional use was based upon this operation. Mooney asked if the building Was sold, what would happen to the conditional use approval. Richman replied that if the buildihg was sold and operated in a different way, to change what was approved with the conditional use, then the conditional use would have to be amended or go away. He noted that conditional use was not just site specific but operation specific. Mooney stated that this did not get at the point that there was an increase in the available space and that the operation could change at any time. Richman said the #1 point was that this was not a project that was intended to increase or expand this business; there would not be an increase in seating associated with this proposal. He said this was to make the dining and shopping experiences more comfortable for both patrons and employees who have to function in this space. He said there were presently 3 rooms within the building that had seating as well as book functions and 2 of those 3 rooms will be eliminated as seating for the dining area; they will be solely functioning as areas where books are sold. The area in the middle, in the back where the kitchen was, will remain as a seating, area and the seats get replaced outside on the deck. Richman said the net loss was 1 seat, so there was no additional seating but rather reduction of seats to the bistro because there would no longer be outside seating 'in the summer. He said that since there was no increase in Seating to the bistro and no increase to the bookstore, there would not be an increase in employment. He said the basis of the fee should not be mitigation because there were no employees to mitigate. Richman stated they would be happy for the business to be audited as a condition of approval to demonstrate that there would not be an increase in the business as a result of this change. Richman said if the mitigation was not based upon employee generation but rather floor area increase from .75 to .85, that was a different argument and that was the argument that he would now have to make to Council and not to P&Z. He said that was not appropriate here. He said the $90,000.00 fee was a significant fee for a project of this size; he said the total construction cost of this enclosure was $200,000.00 excluding the fees. Richman stated that it makes the project infeasible. He said that this was a highly visible landmark structure that has been maintained and appreciated by residents and visitors because of the business that occupies it. Richman said that this wasn't an expansion but an enclosure of a space that was already being used; it was not growth but an enhancement of an existing experience. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29. 2000 Ron Erickson asked if there were drawings to visually illustrate the floor plan. Lelack said there was a resolution that allowed only 50 seats for the restaurant. The architect explained the loss of seating utilizing a blue line for illustration. Mooney inquired about additional parking and the mitigation requirements. Richman stated that the way the code was written, ifHPC ruled that there was no room for additional parking on site, then parking would be waived. Richman stated that there was not anywhere on site that additional parking spaces could b~ provided. He said that when the Katie Reid Building was preserved the city determined that if parking could not be accommodated on site, HPC waived the parking requirement. Richman said that HPC approved the conceptual addition of 440 square feet. Lelack noted that HPC has not yet discussed the parking mitigation issue. Joyce Ohlson explained the criteria sheet and the P&Z Resolution conditions. The commission amended several of the conditions, which were reflected in the motio~t including the need to address the employee mitigation and annual audit. Mooney/ asked how many employees were being mitigated for at the present time. Richmari replied none. Mooney requested that the number of employees be documented now and after the addition. Richman responded that all representations made in this meeting were part of the approval process. Bill Stifling, public, explained the P&Z role to Council was advisory. He stated that he was an interested party and also a co-author of the legislation that applied this particular application. He stated that was drafted in the spirit of growth paying its own way and not designed to stop local businesses from improving and becoming more dynamic. Stifling stated this was the chance to keep local business local protecting the character of town. John McBride, public, stated a whole-hearted support for this application and encouraged P&Z to support it. He stated that he had just been through a similar situation with the County and believed in fair and equal rules. He said that the City and County violated their own rules for their own benefit. McBride implored P&Z to preserve old Aspen by approving this request. MOTION:Roger Hunt moved to approve Resolution 11, 2000 for the Explore Booksellers and Bistro, consisting of an affordable housing unit addition to the existing lodge, is approved to expand the existing book store and restaurant conditional uses by a total combined 440 square feet an increase the Floor Area Ratio for the site to 0.85:1, finding the criteria have been met and subject to the conditions of approval 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29, 2~}00 described hereinafter. ConditionsofApprovai: 1.)Unlessotherwiseherein amended, all prior conditions of approval contained in City Council Ordinance 61, 1976 and Planning and Zoning Resolution 89-23 remain in full force and effect. 2.) The buih lng permit application shall include: a.) A copy of the recorded P&Z Resolution. b.) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. 3.) The building plans shall demonstrate a fire suppression system approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal and Chief Building Official. 4.) Prior to issuance of a building permit: a.) The/ primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director statin.g/ that the conditions of approval have been read and understood, b.) All affordable hoasit g mitigation payments, tap fees. impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. 5.) No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines. 6.) Ail construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-way unle specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, . including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the 2 hour residential parking limitation of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. 7.) The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. 8.) The City of Aspen Land Use Code is amended to allow the ppplicaut to mitigate for affordable housing with a cash-ia-lieu p.ayment. 9.) The Historic reservation Commission approves the final plan, including making the determination tha~ locating the affordable housing on site would not be compatible with the design, scale, massing, or volume of the historic landmark structure. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be .complied with as if fully set forth herein, .un/ess amended by an authorized entity. Section 3. This Ordinance shall not effect any ex~sting litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereoL Ron Erieksol~ second. Roll call vote: Mooney, yes; Erickson, yes; Hunt, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 4-0. The Aspen Plann'mg & Zoning Commission adjourned to meet with the County Planning & Zoning Commission as the Growth Management Commission and reconvened at 6:25 p.m. as the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission. Blaich requested that the chair review the agendas prior to publishing and posting. He requested that the attorney be present for the entire meeting. Mooney noted that it didn't matter since the commission did not follow his advise. 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29, 2~00 PUBLIC HEARING: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS Bob Blaich noted that because ,of time this public hearing would have to be rescheduled. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the Development Review Process to MarCh 14th. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. ffckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 29. 2000 COMMISSIONER, STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ....... DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .................................................................................................. 1 CODE AMENDMENT - AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND DEFINITIONS ....................................................... 1 EXPLORE BOOKSELLER CONDITIONAL USE AND SPECIAL REVIEW .................................................. 3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS ................................................................................................. ; ................ 9 10