Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20020924ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION september 24~ 2002 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning and Zoning meeting at 4:30 p.m. with Jack Johnson, Bert Myrin, Dylan Johns, Roger Haneman, Ron Erickson, Eric Cohen and Ruth Kruger present. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Ohlson, Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER~ STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Eric Cohen asked if the space in front of the Amoco station on Main Street used by Ajax Towing for parking was in the public right-of-way. David Hoefer replied that this question would be turned over to engineering. Bert Myrin noted the Bavarian Inn had a fence that was very difficult to see around at the comer at 8th and Main. Hoefer replied that he did not know what the demolition schedule was; it would have to come back to P&Z. Ron Erickson asked about the ski trail at Aspen Mountain and requested a signed copy of an easement agreement for the trail. Joyce Ohlson commented that Burlingame Parcel D will be COWOP; Troy will be contacting P&Z members. The commissioners discussed the letter from Susan O'Neal dated 9/18/02 that was submitted into the record. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Bert Myrin noted that he had attended the retailers meetings. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (09/03/02, 09/17/02): INFILL LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Infill Land Use Code Amendments. Chris Bendon stated that pedestrian a, menity and view plane were the topics. Bendon said that the code currently requires 25% open space in the commercial core to be retained on site. Two good examples were the Paradise Bakery and Zele that contributed positively to the pedestrian experience. The infill advisory group determined that a lot of that open space requirement was not necessary anymore more and could be used as an incentive to address the quality of the pedestrian environment. The infill group wanted to change the name of"open space" to something with more of an urban concept like "pedestrian amenity". The spaces in front of Blazing Paddles on the Hyman Mall and in front of Guido's on the Cooper Mall met the quantitative requirements but did not fill the pedestrian amenity. 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION September 24, 2002 Bendon said that there were 7 protected view planes (exhibit section 4, page 4 and page 5) Glory Hole Park, Pitkin County Courthouse #1, Pitkin County Courthouse #2, Main Street (Hotel Jerome), Wheeler Opera House, Wagner Park and Cooper Avenue (in front of Cooper Street Bar & Restaurant). Bendon said that the View Plane process began in the early 1970's; these views identify Aspen as different from other places. Bendon said that the infill group wasn't that interested in keeping the view planes with the exception of the Wheeler View Plane. Ron Erickson requested a drawing of how a building would look and block the view from the Wheeler if built to the height limit. Bert Myrin said that the view planes were from the middle of the streets and not for pedestrians. Bendon replied that the view planes were not exclusive from being in a car. Myrin asked if there was a way to have a sun easement. Bendon responded that could be accomplished through height limitations. Myrin asked if that was a fair way to zone and asked if that would result in different height buildings as you go the width of the street or nortl~south. Bendon answered that it would depend on how it was done; the fairest way would be that everyone got the same height. Bendon noted that there were places that have done solar easements but there were many bizarre problems with that. Bendon said that there could be a 4th floor limitation so that the shadow line wasn't increased. Ruth Kruger asked if the pedestrian amenity applied to all properties in the downtown core in one of the four ways. Bendon replied that they would have to address pedestrian amenity in some way; the key was that there was a 25% requirement and you could buy back with a cash-in-lieu payment with a $50. per square foot land value, they could come in with an appraisal if there was a dispute. Roger Haneman asked if the percentage was changing. Bendon replied that there was no proposed change. Haneman asked about #9 under the design and operational standards stating that no area shall be used for commercial activity and then under #d. the site plan review dimension of the proposed space shall allow for a variety of uses and activities considering any tenant. Haneman said those seemed to be in conflict with one another. Bendon replied that traditionally there was a negative reaction to outdoor display of merchandise in that open space and less concern for outdoor seating for restaurants. Haneman asked if there was a way to eliminate that conflict. Bendon responded that it depended on what commercial activity was desirable, outside seating or commercial vending. Kruger suggested flowers for sale. Erickson said that DIG was proposing a monthly sale displayed in the public right-of-way. David Hoefer noted that it would be in the CCLC purview. Haneman asked about the open to the sky for the open space requirement and when does temporary end, like the Caribou Alley. Haneman said that temporary was not defined. Hoefer said that there was not a definition; ifa 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION September 24, 2002 definition was wanted it could be included in the section. Haneman asked how each view plane was chosen. Bendon responded that'it was a 3½-year Project that began with classic views from an urban design perspective; the project took so long, the first time in 1966 and then in 1970's with a hired consultant and staff. Hoefer said that there were some from the historic buildings as the Jerome, Courthouse and Wheeler. Jack Johnson asked if there was a figure for the payment-in-lieu. Bendon said that it was a percentage of the lot times 25% or it could be payment-in-lieu in many different 'forms. Johnson asked what the zoning pertaining to height limitation was at Rubey Park and who owned it. Bendon replied that it was zoned commercial core (height limit of 42-45 feet); it was owned by the city and leaSed to RFTA. Public Comments: Charles Wolf stated that he represented the Cooper Street Bar & Restaurant and voiced concern for the view changes; he encouraged the board to obtain more input from the owners of the Aspenhof Building next to Cooper Street. Wolf provided 2 photos from the Aspenhof, one from street Ievel and one from the first floor and how it looks different from the view plane in front of Cooper Street. Wolf said that they were a "mom and pop store", which was what was to be protected. Wolf noted that tourism still directed our economy. Wolf spoke about urban sprawl and other areas to encourage more density in terms of residential use so that there woulchn't have to be built up in town. Wolf said that the stagnation occurred because we were an inaccessible town from a tourist point of view; he said that the ski week was 3.8 days because people have the need to get in and out fast, which was a problem here. Wolf suggested changing the airport. Wolf said that we have become very expensive and have not encouraged a lot of middle-income tourist lodging, which he classified as a goal higher than employee housing. Wolf said the economic decline needed to be stopped; he said from his perspective there was enough employee housing now. Wolf asked that what makes the town go won't be sacrificed for what the tourist expects when they get here. Garret Brandt said that he represented the lot owner at Hunter and Hyman. Brandt said that he thought that the protected view planes o,f the Courthouse, Jerome and Wheeler were So that people could see the buildings not so that you could see views from in front of those buildings. Brandt said that he understOod the need for the pedestrian amenity like the Paradise Bakery and Zele space, but the draconian open space rules don't quite work out as well. Brandt said that the government limited or prohibited certain developments because of the public amenity percentage required either on site or off or cash-in-lieu. Brandt said that there was an initial increased cost up front for the developer even at $50. a square foot therefore mandating charging a higher rent to tenant or higher purchase price. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION September 24, 2002 Brandt said if there was an incentive to encourage a developer to provide the open space by giving something back like a density bonus; he encouraged an alternate approach by giving the developer an incentive to provide the open space. Brandt asked why the 25% open space requirement. Pedestrian Amenity. The commissioners discussed pedestrian amenity with respects to the developer providing cash-in-lieu; the requirement being too much at 25%; the flow for the shopping experience without a barrier to entry; a sliding scale for the amount of pedestrian amenity depending upon the lot size (the commission was split on this concept 4-4). They also discussed comer lots being more amenable to allow pedestrian amenity; simplification of the process; focusing on the positive points; creative utilization of the top floor or roof spaces; improved alley spaces; the responsibility of public spaces; possibility of eliminating the open space requirement with a mitigation fee; providing gathering places; FAR incentives for the developer. The commissioners requested this discussion be continued. View Planes. The commissioners discussed the elimination of the 7 protected View planes; keeping only street view planes; bigger buildings closer to the mountain; the value of the Wagner Park view plane; view planes prove the picture postcards that tourists come here for; open space cannot be replaced once it was built on. MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to continue the meeting Until 7:15 pm; seconded by Ron Erickson. APPROVED 4-3. Myrin did not want to eliminate any of the view planes and wanted to know how a value could be placed upon the view planes. Johnson said that he could not support protecting private property views but was sympathetic towards public places such as Wheeler and Wagner. Kruger asked if other cities had protected view planes. Bendon replied that Philadelphia had protected views. The commissioners informally voted to keep the view planes for The Glory Hole (1-7); Wagner Park (4-4); Cooper Avenue (3-5); both Courthouse (2-6); Wheeler Opera House street level (2-6) and second floor (2-6); Main Street (3-5). Erickson requested a photo taken now from Wagner Park with the new bathrooms and one from the Grottos building and what the view would look like with a 45-foot building in front of it. Kruger a~sked for a diagram, legal description of the Wagner and how it spreads. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing on the Infill Land Use Code Amendments to October 1~ 2002; seconded by Ron Erickson. APPROVED 7-0. The co~ ~mmi,ssiot~ adjpume~ at 7:25 p.m. ~¢-ckie Lothi-an~, Deputy City Clerk 4