HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20030819ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 19, 2003
COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS ........................................ 2
MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2
PARK PLACE - 707 EAST HYMAN - CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL
/FINAL PUD, CONDITIONAL USE, GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AH ................. 3
LOT 2, ASPEN ELECTRIC SUBDIVISION INITIAL CITY ZONING .............. 10
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 19~ 2003
Jasmine opened the regular meeting of the AsPen Planning & Zoning Commission
at 4:30 pm in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Jack Johnson, Dylan Johns, Steve
Skackon were present, Eric Cohen arrived at 4:35 and John Rowland at 4:40.
Roger Haneman and Ruth Kruger were excused. Jack Johnson exCUsed himself at
5:45 pm. City of Aspen staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City
Attorney; Chris Bendon, Joyce Allgaier, Community Development; Jackie
Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMISSIONER~ STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jack Johnson asked if there W°uld be an Update °n the 01d Quadrant BOOKS project.
Joyce Allgaier replied that she would look~into obtaining a copy of the building
permit.
Jasmine Tygre clarified that she had hoped there would be a procedure initiated for
contracts to acquire property that were subject to greater review by a special land
use attorney or broker hired for the specific occasion maybe even on a pro-bono
basis; she felt this was important. Joyce Allgaier said that the applicant and
developer proceeded to pursue putting in a structure knowing full well that they
would have to go before the review board of the AABC. Tygre said that somehow
in the process it was never caught until it was too late. Allgaier replied that it was
very clear from the beginning; she said what didn't happen was that the plans were
not provided to the AABC in as timely a manner as they should have been.
Allgaier said that they knew the QWEST property was annexed and became part of
the subject property, which was subject to AABC Covenants and thought that it
was good architecture and wouldn't have a problem. Tygre stated that she felt that
it was still a good idea with contracts.
Allgaier noted the re-scheduling of the Cultural uses for the Bar-X Ranch to
August 26th. Tygre thanked Allgaier for the excellent explanation letter from the
P&Z point of view.
MINUTES
MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to approve the minutes with the changes as
indicated in bold; seconded by Dylan Johns. APPROVED 5-0.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Dylan Johns Stated that he had a conflict with the AsPen EleCtric item.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 19~ 2003
PUBLIC HEARING:
PARK PLACE - 707 EAST HYMAN - CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL
/FINAL PUD, CONDITIONAL USE~ GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AH
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on pa~ PlaCe; 7~07 EaSt ti~anl DaVid
Hoefer asked Stan Clauson if the mailing was sent to everyone within 300 feet 15
days prior to the hearing and asked if the property was posted With the public
hearing notice. Clauson replied that was true. The affidavit of notice was
provided.
Chis Bendon explained that the project was a private parking facility at 707 East
Hyman; it was an automated system that handled 99 cars. The property contained
that Hannah Dustin Building and the A-Frame. An accessory office and 2
affordable housing units (1 one-bedroom and 1 three-bedroom) were also
propoSed. The project was a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a rezoning to
remain in the office zone district, conditional use to alloTM a parking garage in the
office zone district, subdivision for the Hannah Dustin building and affordable
housing and GMQS exemption for the affordable housing. Bendon noted not part
of this application was a growth management scoring application for the net
leasable square footage necessary for the parking garage;th there was a yearly
deadline for commercial applications (September 15 ) to ensure a fair growth
management allocation process.
Bendon mentioned that there was a sketch plan review with council in October
2002. The compatibility of this use with the surrounding uses, the lighting of the
facility, the height and esthetics of the building, hours of operation, noise, traffic
generation, air pollution, employee generation and potential issUes were discussed.
Bendon said that there were previous projects to provide parking in the area that
never happened. Staff felt that parking was considered an infrastructure that was
critical to the downtown shopping environment and economic viability. The city
has undertaken different efforts to reduce single occupant vehicles and encourage
mass transit alternate modes but staff felt this project complied with the AACP in
providing another option for parking by the private sector. Bendon stated that the
use of the parking garage as a conditional use was the important issue. Bendon
mentioned that Ruth Kruger submitted comments but staff felt it inappropriate for
those to be read without the benefit of participation in the publiC hearing; she
would be able to Participate in discussion after reading the minutes from this
meeting.
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 19, 2003
Stun Clauson stated that Peter Fornell and other representatives from the company
that supplies these parking £acilit~es in the United States were present. A video
was shown describing the automated system of moving the cars on pallets and
storing them on 7 levels (the video provided views o£the Washington DC facility).
The parking garage was o£ German design with pallets that rotated 180 degrees to
deliver the vehicle ready to be started and driven out forward.
Ken Livingston introduced himsel£ as general manager o£ Space Saver Parking
located in Chicago; he provided information on the automated system with one
new installation in the United States in Washington DC. The original company
was founded in 1902 and introduced the first systems in 1960; there are over 80
park systems all over the world. There was a Park System ~n operation at Grant
Park in Chicago for about 2 years. Livingston stated that there was a high density
with the elimination of driving ramps, the user only drives into the entry/exit area
and in Aspen the valet will drive the car into the area and then the system takes
over and parks the car. Livingston said that the only authorized personnel that go
into this system were service, repair or emergency people. There were locked
doors electrically interlocked so no motion can occur if any of those doors are
open. Only the parked cars were in the system, no people. Once the car was on
the pallet it moves about throughout the system, which is the only motion that
takes place and cannot come ~nto contact with any other vehicles in any part of the
structure. The entyy/exit was supervised by a system of laser and radar beams so
there has to be no motion or interference with any measurement of the automobile
or any movement in the area; only once the door is closed will any motion take
place. Livingston said it will take 35 to 45 seconds to re~eve a vehicle; reliability
was governed by an automation control. Livingston said that the equipment was
maintained for 20 years; there was generally a local servicing company to respond
24 hours a day. The drixring force of the tssue was the conventence of leaving you
car without driving around looking for a parking spot on the street or. in a parking
garage. The automobile does not run once it is inside this facility; the motor is
turned off and the car is locked, it is transferred by the system without exhaust
fumes going into the aunosphere.
Clanson explained the current uses of the property with a 20-foot curb cut
accessing the front of the property; he provided the Cooper Avenue previous
underground parking £acility. Clauson said the streetscape landscaping from the
Benedict Commons would continue in front of this facility. The aspect to the
street was a two-story building with another story behind that houses the
mechanical equipment with three levels below grade and four levels above grade
but not a floor, just enough to accommodate vehicles. The over all front facade
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 19, 2003
height was 25 feet and the rear 36 feet, which was stepped back. Four vehicles
could be cued within the building.
Clauson said that the affordable housing component was provided on the 2na and
3rd levels, which provides more than sufficient mitigation. The operation of the
mechanical equipment was very quiet utilizing small motors like a passenger
elevator. Clauson stated that there were no fumes since the vehicles were not
runmng.
Jeffrey Halferty explained there were components to the project that included the
parking garage with the 2 bays, a small amount of office space and the affordable
housing. There was a common lobby that servmes the garage, office and
affordable housing. Halferty said that Housing approved this project with category
1 and 3; the housing component starts on the second floor (1 bedroom 675 square
feet bi-level unit and the 3 bedroom ~s bi-level (1682 square feet); there was plenty
of storage on site with parking in the structure. Halferty said that the mass offthe
building was dressed with brick veneer and a storefront elevation.
Clauson clarified that them was no access from the alley to this project; there will
be no alley parking. Clauson said that the DRC had no issues.
Jasmine Tygre asked if the windows on the upper levels were for the housing.
Jeffrey Halferty replied that they were for the housing.
Jack Johnson asked if there were any energy use issues with this system and could
employee generation figures be provided. Livingston replied that 100 amps
serviced the Washington DC facility; the hoist for the storage retrieval unit was
about a 40 horsepower unit. Livingston said that there were very efficient
European motors used with soft starts. Peter Fomell said 2 attendants would attend
this system; page I5 of the application explained the employee generation
numbers. Johnson asked how many people would be needed to service this
system. Livingston responded that 2 people would be needed during high season;
$ employee per year. Livingston said that in the Washington DC garage there were
no people; the residents operated the system. Jeffrey Halferty reiterated that the
cars will always come back cued (turned 180 degrees) facing the street for that
safety issue.
Steve Skadron asked how a project like this would alleviate the need for off-street
parking. Clanson replied that there would be some overnight parking but when
available there would be short-term parking for the general public. Peter Fomell
said their target was the 20% from the commercial core; the audience they were
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 19, 2003
looking for were the people who park for 6 hours. Skadron asked if the parking
spots were affordable. Fornell replied that the parking spaces would be
competitive with downtown parking; there will be seasonal times when it will be
more expensive to park in Park Place than on the street and times when they will
mirror the price for street pay parking. Fomell said they hope to take the business
people, day skiers who want to park their car all day in town; the costs will be
competitive with current public parking. Skadron asked how the owned spots
would function and who would control the rental pricing. Fomell replied that the
spaces were condominiumized and the management would control the rates with a
pooled income situation for the space owners. Skadron noted that the other
garages were built in major metropolitan areas; he asked how this garage would fit
into the residential area. Fornell said that they were in metro mixed-use areas.
Dylan Johns asked how a driver would know if there were spaces available in the
facility and if these 2 bays were acting as entry and exit how would the micro
traffic management be handled. Clauson replied that there would be a possibility
of appropriate signage and a better way for people to understand where parking
was available throughout town. Clauson said that the priority was accepting
vehicles and secondarily retrieving cars. Fornell said that space owners have a
separate inventory than the general public spaces; there will be reports printed out
automatically from the system. Johns asked what faced this structure from the
Benedict Commons side of the building. Fornell said that was the one setback that
they adhered to most closely to comply and accommodate those unit owners.
Bendon noted a picture of that side in the memo.
Eric Cohen asked what the management fee was for those owned spaces. Fomell
replied that it hasn't been determined but there would be costs associated with it
but the lion's share would be distributed through the management company
probably be 20 to 25%; the majority would have an association.
Jasmine Tygre asked how deep a setback was the mechanical floor. Halferty
answered it was 27 feet 6 inches. Tygre asked how that 35-foot height compared
to the Bell Mountain Townhomes height. Bendon replied that Benedict Commons
was about 34 foot. Fornell replied that the third element would be no taller than
the Bell Mountain. Tygre asked if people would just get a ticket when they go out
and pay at that time. Fornell said that was correct and they would be encouraged
to leave the vehicle for longer periods of time because the first hour would be a
higher rate than each additional hour after that.
Johns asked how the affordable housing layout for the larger unit tums into 3
bedrooms. Halferty responded that the original application was inaccurate; he
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 19~ 2003
explained the large 27 by 34 foot area with 2 bedrooms upstairs and a living area.
The one bedroom unit was also on the third floor with the living space on the
second floor.
Public comments:
(1) Bendon provided a letter from Craig Williams, president of the Bell Mountain
Homeowners Association, which cited 8 negative issues: odors, increase of traffic
in the area, additional use of the alley, erosion and subsidence related to the
construction of the facility, fire and explosion safety issues, damage to the Bell
Mountain properties in terms of valuation and tl~e views of Red Mountain from
Bell Mountain Townhomes would be lost.
(2) Bruce Nethery, public, president of the Benedict Commons Homeowners
Association stated that they were not looking forward to having a brick wall 10
feet from them. Nethery said that this was the wrong side of town for a parking
facility; it belonged on the other side of town. Nethery said this would give people
a reason to cruise through town look'rog for a parking space. Nethery asked if this
type of project had ever been done in a resort town before and what studies could
be drawn from that.
(3) Josh Landis, public, owner at Benedict Commons said that he had a lot of
concerns with other issues that might surface after it was up and running; at that
point they would be living next to something that would either be okay or a
monstrosity. Landis said that it was a quality of li£e issue; his window was about
25 yards from this property and asked if anyone has ever slept with their window
open that close to one of these garages. Landis said a major concern was late night
traffic because people would be coming to get their cars after the bars close; he has
to have his windows open 7 months out of the year (his unit is very hot) and
currently afl the drunks walk by after the bars close and now there would be the
commuter drunks. Landis said that every voice carries into the courtyard from
Hyman Avenue and the other side where city market trucks unload on Cooper also
is heard. Landis said a lot of the questions haven't been answered as far as how it
will fit in this neighborhood and some issues need to be addressed. There were 27
units in Benedict Commons and when the snowplows go by the entire building
shakes, he asked if this machinery would shake the whole block.
(4) WR Walton, public, congratulated the applicant's planner £or a slick
presentation; he stated that this was a grand idea except it was in the wrong place;
it should be outside of town, maybe near the airport. Walton said that Spring
Street was overloaded with traffic to City Market, the skiers, hotels and buses.
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 19, 2003
Walton requested the hours of operation. He said that the super block was shut
down because it was already too congested in the area.
(5) Gary Snyder, public, stated that the concept was good; it fits Aspen well and
will get a lot of use out ora little space and looks good. Snyder said that we did
need parking downtown because people were circling the blocks.
(6) Frank Daly, public, stated that he lived across the street and when the doors
open and the lights go on it would shine right in their place. Daly said that this was
private condominium garage; once the space was sold that owner could do with it
as he pleases, it could be for car storage or leave it empty without provision for
making it available for public parking. Daly said that this will bring people into
town cruising looking for a parking space. Daly voiced concern for the noise,
lighting, creating more traffic, congestion, financial viability and the fact that this
was a private condominium-parking garage.
(7) John Fightlin, public, Benedict Commons owner stated that his comments
regarded the congestion, noise, increased traffic, cars cuising and driving around
the block. Fightlin said that this was a residential area without a lot of people
traffic from Coates or the A-Frame. He said that the traffic noise in this part of
town was horrendous with snowplows, diesel trucks, street sweepers and buses.
Fightlin said that he liked the idea but not in this neighborhood. He said that the
money issues have not been addressed for fees and would those fees pay for the
building to be run. Fightlin asked how much noise would this facility generate; he
asked for a decibel level study on the outside of the building.
(8) Annette Daly, public, stated that her husband explained her concerns but asked
if the letter from Herb Klein was included. Bendon replied that it was part of the
packet.
(9) Bert Myrin, public, said the project was adjacent to Benedict Commons, which
was the most dense residential use in the city with 50 parking spaces below it; he
said with adding twice that amount next door seems like a burden to the
neighborhood. Myrin said the signs would encourage people to drive to this area
doing laps waiting for a space or vacancy sign. Myrin stated that any
development would provide the benefit ora sidewalk with landscaping to the city
and it wasn't exclusive to this project. Myrin asked why the mechanical had to be
an extra floor and questioned why it couldn't be a floor below grade. Myrin
suggested this type of facility possibly occurring on 30-foot wide lots underground
to be more scattered, and less obtrusive rather than an enormous draw for one
block. Myrin voiced concern for another change in use on this property and the
garage doors facing the street do not meet the residential design guidelines.
8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 19, 2003
(10) Michael Orren, public, stated this was a good project and recalled when the
Benedict Commons was proposed and it turned out great. Orren said that this
project would fulfill the greater good in his opinion.
( 1 D Bob Bowden, public, provided his history of residences over the years in
town; this was an office zone district and the applicant could build an office
building. This application would take 99 cars off the streets, which was a great
resolution to the downtown traffic and parking problems. Bowden said that living
downtown you put up with the town noise issues and when you get tired of it you
move someplace else. Bowden noted that the last parking lot at the airport was
closed because it sat empty and didn't work; parking was needed downtown.
(12) John Westtownsen, public, said that more parking was good whether it was
public or private or wherever; these were more parking spaces in a very crowded
section of town. He felt it should be approved.
Ken Livingston stated that the Washington DC facility was built underneath a
high-rise apartment building in a very expensive part of town with people working
right in the lobby and you don't even know that equipment is rtmmng.
(14) John French, public, stated that he worked at Coates, Reid and Waldron since
1977. French asked the number of lost parking spaces on Hyman Avenue because
of this facility. Clauson replied there was no loss in public street parking spaces;
the current curb cut that services the parking area by the A-Frame would be the
same curb cut for the new facility.
Jasmine Tygre noted that the commission would voice their concerns and the
public hearing would be continued so that there would be time to receive answers
to those questions.
The commission requested clarification for the next meeting on the following
issues: the outside and inside decibel levels; what movements the affordable units
might feel from the machinery; how this facility would be operated with the
framework for the reservations process since it was like a timeshare structure;
noise and venation for the machinery; EPA studies for the affordable housing units
from the cars cuing; traffic studies; accessibility to the non-owner since it was
essentially a condominium for cars; the dimensions of the back top element, which
houses the machinery was high, could it be lowered or screened to mitigate the
appearance for the surrounding neighbors, decibel levels at the Benedict Commons
and signage questions.
9
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes August 19, 2003
MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to continue the public .hearing for the Park
Place (707 East Hyman) Consolidated Conceptual/Final PUD, Conditional Use
and GMQS Exemption for AH to September 2, 2003; seconded by Steve
Skadron. Roll call vote: Johns, yes; Cohen, yes; Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes;
Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LOT 2, ASPEN ELECTRIC SUBDIVISION INITIAL CITY ZONING
Dylan Johns recused himself. Jasmine Tygre opened the PUblic hearing for LOt 2,
Aspen Electric Subdivision Initial City Zoning. David Hoefer stated that the
public proof o£notice was provided and the commission had authority to proceed.
Joyce Allgaier explained that when the City of Aspen annexed new property into
the city limits within 90 days the city had to assign zoning to that property.
Allgaier utilized the city-zoning map to show the property location; there was a
vicinity map in the packet. Community Development proposed R-15 PUD. There
were physical constraints on the property; the neighborhood and adjoining property
zone district was R-15 PUD.
No public comments.
Jasmine Tygre noted that this property would be subject to 8040 Greenline Review
for any further development. Tygre asked if the slope reduction would apply to
this parcel. Allgaier replied that the slope reduction would apply.
MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to approve Resolution #21, series 2003
recommending that City Council approve the proposed amendment to the
Official Zone District Map to zone the newly annexed portion of Aspen
Electric Subdivision, Lot 2 (Beginning at a point on the westerly line of the said
"Mascotte Lode which point is also the most easterly COrner of Lot 2, Sunny Park North
Subdivision, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, thence along the following courses:
S. 80 °21' E. 37.50feet; thence S. 34 °27'E. 26.25feet; thence S. 45 °24' 49'W. 156.89feet;
thence N.21 ° 02'W. 156.89feet; thence along the easterly boundary of said Lot 3 N. 45°24'
29"E..(N. 45 ° 21'E.) l16.62 feet more or less to the point of beginning. Call in O from Plat of
Sunny Park North Subdivision Plat. All other calls from Siegel-Mascotte Lode Lot Line
AdjustmentPlaO to R-15. Seconded by Steve Skadron. Roll Call Vote: Rowland,
yes; Skadron,~s; Cohen, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 4-0.
./,fi~ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
10