Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apgm.20020115 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 15~ 2002 615 East Bleeker - GMQS Commercial Scoring: ................................................. 1 Former"'Aspen Municipal GOlf Course Pro Shop" GMQS Exemption for an Essential public Facility .............................................................. , ........................... 5 The Asper~Pitkin Growth Management Commission meeting opened with Jasmine Tygre, Ron Erickson, Steven Buettow, Roger Haneman, Bob Blaich, Ruth Krueger, Eric Cohen, Peter Martin, Peter Thomas, Paul Rudnick, Jolma HoWard and Michael Augello present. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Ohlson, Chris Bendon, James Lindt, Community Development and Kathryn Koch, City Clerk. PUBLIC HEARING: 615 East Bleeker - GMQS Commercial Scoring Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing and the notice was provided. Chris Bendon described the scoring process (Exhibits A), which will be part of the record. The categories for scoring were the ® quality of design, ® availability of public facilities of services, ® provision of affordable housing and @ bonus points. The points must total 40% (4 of the 10 points) for those sections ® and ® and combining sections ® and ® there must be 60% of the points available scored. There was no competition since this was the only applicatio[~; the bonus points did not apply towards making up any extra points needed to me6t threshold. Bendon said that there was an initial scoring and then the final scoring (which actually counted). Bendon stated that the conditions of approval were important for the scoring. The project was known as the "T-Man" building behind the Concept 600 building. It was located in the Service/Commercial/Industrial (S/CA) Zone District and the project involved about 1,000 square feet of commercial space, conversion of about 1200 square feet of storage and new construction of about 600 square feet. The Land Use Code required reconstruction of space as if it were new space for mitigation for affordable housing and parking. 2800 square feet was used for the mitigation number; there were 3 affordable housing units planned and reviewed and approved by Housing. Since the Telluride case over-ruled rental unit control by goverrunents; the units would be for sale under the housing guidelines unless the applicant could come up with a plan for a rental provision with the city attorney approval. ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 15, 2002 Bendon stated that the application met all the threshold scores; the amended parking plan was acceptable. Bill Murphy, applicant, introduced Jim Wilson as a technical advisor. Murphy presented the amended parking plan with the designated spaces £or the employee units and the garage being his own space. Murphy stated that the housing o£fice shall not fill the units hut rather quali~y the applicants for the 3 affordable units but he wanted the right to choose the renter. Tygre stated that the renter needed to be qualified; Bendon said the last phrase was stricken ~om the conditions the applicant shall fill the units with applicants (employees) that quali~y. Murphy requested clarification on condition 13 a). changes to architecture of the proposal n,aay.be approved by the Con~"nu~.ity Development Director. Murphy said the drawing suhnn2tted was not approved because there was a door on the north elevation that was omitted from the final plans. Murphy said that he might want to change the siding on the east elevation with stucco. Murphy said that the roof of the other building might be slanted to help in the current drainage problems on his deck. Murphy asked if these changes to the siding either wood or stucco or flat roof vs. a slanted roof would be considered substantial. Bendon replied that minor modifications could be incorporated into the plans. John Howard asked for the possible changes. Murphy replied that the changes would be to the west, east and north elevation might have stucco, wood or pre-cast concrete. up the side, which would be a firewall. Murphy said that the north elevation door would be eliminated on the first level conmaercial space and the roof change with a garden on top of it. Murphy said the employee housing units would remain the same. Steven Buettow asked how parking spaces 12, 13, 14, and 15 Worked if spaces 9, 10 and 11 were full. Murphy responded that they were stacked parking spaces. Bendon replied that if stacking occurred it was better with commercial parking spaces; it was not a perfect scenario but there was only so much land to work with on the site where cars could be placed. Murphy noted that the nature of the businesses had few employees that were provided with bus passes or parking permits. Murphy noted that he lived on site and would be responsible for controlling the parking. Ron Erickson asked about the existing commercial storage and the number of parking spaces required by code for that 2-story building. Bendon replied tha)~ it was 7.2 additional. Erickson stated objection to the parking spaces being usable as they were drawn as stackable. They were only required to have 8 spaces and had 15 available spaces. 2 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 15~ 2002 Ruth Kruger asked if there were windows in the back of the affordable units. Murphy responded that the center unit had windows only in the front; the back was a firewa11. Kruger asked how the sizes of the employee umts were determined. Murphy replied that he asked housing directly what sizes and categories they wanted; housing requested category 2, one-bedroom units. Kruger asked what the ceiling height was for the expanded commercial space and the use. Murphy replied that it was 12 feet and it would continue as The Aspen Branch, floral design with the retail space still located across the street. John Howard asked where the egress and access for vekicles was located on this property. Murphy responded there was one in front of Building A and one to the left of that on the west side of the property by the glass company. Bol~ Blaich asked if this project ~vas within the footprint of the civic project. Bendon replied that it was with no negative effect on the civic plan. Eric Cohen inquired if the planter could be removed to accommodate more parl4mg. Murphy stated that could be done, but the parking spaces have never been designated in the past because there was no need to do that. Murphy said that the employee housing spaces would be designated. Mike Augelle asked about the staff scoring regarding the transportation. Bendon answered that it would be an improvement for this project with better access for adjoining properties and fire safety. Augello inquired about the location of the trash area. Bendon replied that it was located in the building not on the site plan but on the southwest comer where landscaping was currently located. Bendon stated that environmental health requested an enclosed trash contained area, which the applicant has agreed to do. Peter Thomas said that it was difficult for him to make an individual determination if there were no comments from environmental health or engineenng for future GMQS competition. Bendon responded that Exhibit C included the DRC, which combined referrals from all city departments with the requirements included in the resolution as conditions. Paul Rudnick stated that the housing office might be misguided with a 480 square foot one bedroom unit; that was an extremely small unit about the size of a Holiday lrm room Erickson asked for clarification on condition 5 regarding the sale of the affordable units as category 2 or rented as category 2. Murphy answered that he was not 3 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 15~ 200.2 willing to deed part of the property to the city; he wanted to provide in-fill housing that would fit in the space available on this property. Murphy said that he would work out the contractual wording with the city attorney for the sale or rental of the units. Bendon noted that the city did not request partial ownership or any ownership of the affordable units; the city requested that the units be permanently' affordable, which the applicant agreed to do. Bob Blaich excused himself from the meeting. Robert Zupancis, public, inquired about the layout of the existing sidewalk along the Concept 600 building. Murphy replied that it was a dirt path with stairs that go down beside the Glass Company. Peter Martin commented that this was overwhelmingly a city project and asked for guidance from the city P&Z on the project prior to scoring. Erickson stated that he felt he did not have enough information to score the project properly and requested to abstain; Kruger became a voting member of the GMC. The Growth Management Commission initial scoring was calculated as follows: Tygre ® :12, ® =6, @ =12, ® =4; Cohen ® =12, @ =5, ® =12, ® =0; Haneman ® =1i, ® --6; ® =11, @ =0; Buettow ® =12, ® = 6. @ = 12; @---0; Kruger ® =9, @ =6, @ =12, ® = 0; Martin ® =8, @ = 6, @ =12, ® = 0; Augello ® =12, ® =6, @ =I2, ® =0; Thomas ® =9, ® = 5, ® = 12, ® = 0; Rudnick ® = 11,® = 5, @ = 12, @ =0; Howard ® = I2, ® = 6, ® = 12, ® =0. Bendon explained that category® averaged 10.8, ® passed at 5.7; ® and ® combined received a 16.5 which failed by .3 and category ® passed with 11.9. and category @ had no score. The total did not meet threshold for the initial scoring. The commissioners discussed the criteria for scoring with a difference of opinions on the interpretation of the numbers and language. Tygre explained that her scoring of bonus points was for the preservation of the SCI zone district. The conwnission voiced concern for better pedestrian access through the parking area to be maintained and for a better parking plan. Ohlson noted that the applicant stated that the planter could be removed for more parking, the parking would be re-configuration and the walk through access would be improved. 4 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 15, 2002 The Growth Management Commission accomplished the final scoring. Tygre ® =12, @ =6, ® =12, ® =4; Cohen ® =12, ~ =6, @ =12, @ :0; Haneman ® =12, ® =6; @ =11, @ =0; Buettow ® =11, ® = 6. @ -- 12, ® = 0; Kruger ® =12, ® =6, @ =12, @ = 0; Martin ® =8, ® = 6, ® =12, ® = 0; Augello ® =11, ® =6, @ =12, ® =0; Thomas ® 29, ® = 5,.@ = 12, @ = 0; Rudnick ® = 10,® = 5, @ = 12, @ =0; Howard ® = 13, @ = 6, @ = 12, ® =0. Bendon stated that the project passed threshold in every category with the totals of® =11.0, ® = 5.8, ® =11.9, ® --- 0.4; the score sheets were placed into the public record. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Commission Resolution#01, series 2002 with the amendments'finding the Murphy Development proposaFmet the necessary threshold score for development allocation. Eric Cohen seconded. Roll call vote: Howard, yes; Rudnick, yes; Thomas, yes; Augello, yes; Martin, yes; Kruger, yes; Buettow, yes; Haneman, yes; Cohen, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 10-0. PUBLIC HEARING: Former "Aspen Municipal Golf Course Pro Shop" GMQS Exemption for an Essential Public Facility Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing with proof of notice provided by the applicant. James Lindt stated the application was subm/tted by the City of Aspen Recreation Department requesting a GMQS exemption for an essential public facility to allow the Golf Pro Shop to be used as offices for Aspen Junior Golf as well as another yet to be determined non-profit organization. Lindt stated that the Growth Management Commission (GMC) was the recommending body to City Council. The review criteria #3 for an exemption from the GMQS for an essential public facility states that not withstanding the other criteria that City Council may determine upon application for development~ associated with a non~profit entity. Lindt stated that the reason that the applicant requested this application was confusing because none of the City of Aspen Zone Districts allowed for non-profit entities as a permitted uses except the Public Zone District. This exemption was needed for the classification for an essential public facility because the yet to be determined non-profit organization in the sub-lease as part of a broader application for subdivision and rezoning would allow the city to subdivide and sell the pro shop to Junior Golf. Staff determined that criteria had been met for an essential public facility and recommended approval. 5 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES ' JANUARY 15, 2002 Steve Aitken, Aspen Golf Course Director, and Ernie Fyrwald were the applicant representatives. Roger Haneman stated that he was having trouble with the definition of essential public facility since no one was identified a non-profit wanting this essential public facility. James Lindt stated that an essential public facility served an essential public purpose and was available for the use or the benefit of the general public or can serve the needs of the community. Lin& said that Exhibit C, Ernie Fyrwald's letter noted some possible non-profit tenants. Lindt stated that there would be a condition of approval for a recreational or youth orientated non-profit to be tenants because these uses would fit in and generate less employees because the impacts would be similar. Joyce Ohlson reiterated that no other type ofn0n-profit would be allowed; it would only be youth or recreation 0,rie~tated only, . . : Lin& said that it was predicted that the 3.5 employees for every 1,000 square feet would be generated. Steven Buettow asked how much of this building would be used for Junior Golf. Lin& replied that was yet to be determined. Ernie Fyrwald said that he founded Junior Golf in 1982; in 1985 the permanent location was 2,000 square feet. Fyrwald said that they had a co-habitation with Aspen Junior Hockey in this building with a desk and file cabinet (maybe 150 square feet); he said they probably wouldn't wall off a section of the building exclusively to someone else, they did not anticipate that. Fyrwald stated that the reason for the request was that Junior Golf was a Iow budget, 10w-end opeiatlon that satisfied about 325 kids a year. Fyrwald said that they were starting a tennis program this year so they may be forced to use the entire facility for what they were asking for, Junior Golf and Junior Tennis. Fyrwald said that he did not anticipate leasing part of the building unless they became financially constrained, maybe they would lease 250 square feet. Fyrwald stated that they utilized the building about 8 months out of the year; he said that they could squeeze it to 6 months and lease it the other time if they had to do so. Ron Erickson asked if to establish an allowable floor area ratio for the newly created lot meant that there was going to be expansion on the property. Lindt replied that the existing conditions were what was proposed as the allowable floor area; no expansion was proposed. Peter Thomas said that in order to approve this it must meet an essential public purpose. Thomas said that the language in the resolution did not provide a safe gum-d in the event that it was leased to a non-profit that met the definition of an essential public purpose. Thomas provided the example of a 501 c non-profit that met for the sole purpose of engendering good will with climbers in a foreign 6 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 15, 2002 country; if they leased the office how would they meet the essential public purpose. Ohlson responded that it needed to meet the essential public facility first. Erickson asked by the virtue of this approval was it the creation of an essential public facility; he asked if we were creating an entity by virtue of a zoning change. Jasmine Tygre said that the commissioners were coming at this fi.om slightly different points of view but there was a great concern for the uses on this property that were never intended ro be located on this property that was rezoned public. John Howard asked how the tenants would be policed. Lindt replied that it would be through business license applications that .were reviewed by the zoning officer. XO~public corrmaems. Tygre stated that there were many worthy causes that were either recreation related or youth related and may want to take advantage of this opportunity. Tygre said this was like another SCI zone; she voiced concerned for the approval process may not be done using the same criteria that the commission would use. Lindt replied that they could request Junior Golf to choose organizations from Ernie's letter; he said that tfiere could be a turn over in tenants. Tygre stated that the commission · wanted to make sure that the tenant met the intent. Lindt replied that the conditions were meant to include a turnover in tenants in that non-profit entity. Steven Buettow said that it would be just fine to have the application only include Junior Golf and Junior Tennis. Roger Haneman stated that was what the use was for but they wanted to extend the use to include other non-profits. Ohlson answered that this was to allow for other non-profits with recreational or youth orientated non-profits. Ron Erickson stated that there was a vote to turn this over to Junior Golf; 'it would be sold and become it's own separate entity. Erickson said that they could use it now but when they got into a subletting situation for other non-profits it had to be deemed an essential public facility. Lindt responded that was correct; Tim Anderson had a comment that if Junior Golf ever left this building it would have to be sold back to the city. Tygre said that they were talking about changing a zone district for the future and it currently seemed like the use was what the commission wanted. Tygre asked why they were doing this. Lindt replied that it was to allow Junior Golf the 7 ASPEN/PITKIN GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 15, 2002 flexibility, if they run into financial trouble in the future, to lease out the building. Tygre stated that she was Uncomfortable with the application. John Howard suggested that the wording should be changed to "or" instead of"and recreation". Eric Cohen said that they were opening up small loop holes that were not significant. MOTION: Paul Rudnick moved to approve Growth Management Resolution #02, series 2002, recommending that City Council approve an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System finding that the proposed use of non-profit offices for the former "Aspen Municipal Golf Course Pro Shop Building" be classified as an Essential Public Facility with the conditions set forth in the proposed Resolution. Ron Erickson seconded. Roll call vote: Augello, yes; Howard, yes; Rudnick, yes; Thomas, abstain; Martin, abstain; Cohen, yes; Haneman, no; Buettow, no; Tygre, no; Erickson, no. MOTION FAILED 4-4. Erickson stated that he supported Junior Golf and felt that it was a wonderful program but had a problem with creating an entity potentially in the leasing business because it opened an entire "can of worms". Erickson stated that the vote was for the building going to Junior Golf not an0tl{er entity; he said that was his problem with this application. The Growth Management meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. followed by the City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting. /?ackie Deputy City Lothi/an, Clerk 8