Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20030916ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION September 02, 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 ................. 2 MISCELLANEOUS CODE AMENDMENTS ........................................................ 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION September 02~ 2003 Jasmine opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission at 4:30 pm in Sister Cities Meeting Room. John Rowland, Steve Skadron, Jack Johnson, Roger Haneman and Eric Cohen were present. Dylan Johns and Ruth Kruger were excused. Staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Joyce Allgaier, Community Development; Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER~ STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Jack Johnson asked if there could be 2 people on a COWOP because people were out of town a lot; Johnson suggested the possibility of an alternate. Joyce Allgaier noted that Council would like representation from 2 Planning Commissioners versus just one representative. Johnson volunteered to be an alternate on the Visitor Center COWOP. Roger Haneman voiced concern for the number of units the Four Peaks Development Company was granted for Bavarian Inn for their priority. Joyce Allgaier answered that they were allowed to mitigate for 13 FTEs from the Grand Aspen. Haneman questioned how Four Peaks calculated the 13 FTEs into 9 units. Allgaier responded that the calculations came from the housing guidelines; a 2- bedroom unit equated to so many employees. Allgaier stated that she would follow up with the numbers for Roger. MINUTES MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to approve the minutes from August 19, 2003 as corrected by Jack Johnson on page 5 adding and could employee generation figures be provided; seconded by Jack Johnson. APPROVED 5-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 08/19/03: PARK PLACE - 707 EAST HYMAN - CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL /FINAL PUD~ CONDITIONAL USE~ GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AH Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on Park Place, 707 East Hyman. Tygre noted at the last meeting certain issues needed more information regarding the operation of this facility. Letters from Scott M. Brown, Annette Daly, Frank Daly, Wyle Laboratories noise report, and Felsburg Holt & Ullevig traffic analysis were entered into the record. Tygre stated that the key iSsue had to do with the conditional use. Stan Clauson reviewed the noise and traffic reports. Clauson said that about 20% of the spaces in the garage would be long term and 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION September 02, 2003 not turning over except from time to time but 80% would be turning over, which was an important operational assumption for the facility. Clauson said that question of employee generation in Europe and Asia could not be answered but the employee generation from this project should be reviewed by an audit after one year to determine the actual employment and any mitigation be adjusted from that audit. Roger Haneman asked what times an attendant would be on duty. Peter Fomell replied that it would be from 7 am to 1 am but that was not set in stone; for retrieval after those hours you would have to come back at 7 am. Clauson replied obviously that could change depending upon some aspect of demand. Haneman asked if it was necessary to have an attendant even though the Washington operation did not have one because people would be unfamiliar with the operation. Clauson replied the reason was that in the Washington operation, which had almost no employee generation, the residents were informed on how to use the facility and used it again and again. Fomell said it was in their primary residence. Eric Cohen said the traffic and noise analysis were helpful but there was also a desire to see a management plan for the project. Allgaier replied that there was a question of the operational characteristics of the reservations. Clauson responded that the management plan could not be set in stone and he cited the changes in the Rio Grande Garage over the years. Cohen noted that if80% of the spaces were available and this were put into writing that would be part of the big crux issue; would people be leaving their vehicles in the garage full time. Cohen asked if there was a public good. Clauson said that there would be vehicles in the garage that would be of public benefit because they would otherwise be housed elsewhere; the exact nature of the public benefit may modify itself over the years. Cohen said that if there were restrictions on the owners as to how long they could keep their vehicles in the garage without moving them then that would help determine the nature of the project. Cohen said this was a quasi-time share and management plans were required to tell how the schedule would be run. Clauson responded that there was no aspect of the code that applied to the management of a garage. Fornell said that each space owner would want to utilize the garage fully. Cohen said that since them was a request for height and setback variances there should be a public amenity; something that the public uses. Jack Johnson said that he would be able to accept this proposal if it weren't for the ownership aspect; he agreed that if the 80% and 20% assumption were made then the same assumptions should be Valid to put in writing. Tygre summarized Cohen and Johnson's comments to see much more use by the public rather than just car 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION September 02, 2003 storage. Johnson said that he saw no public benefit in it being car storage. Cohen said that he saw some public benefit but the greater public benefit was that it acts as a public garage to the greater extent. Fornell agreed to that. Haneman stated that he liked the long-term storage because it had a smaller impact on the neighborhood. Haneman asked what happened if the person who owned a space left for the weekend and rented it out and came back to find he had no space for his car when he returned. Fornell replied that even though on paper space #AA was owned the owner did not have his vehicle necessarily parked in that particular space. Fornell said that the owner could call the night before to be taken out of the pool so there would be a space for that owner or an owner could just show up. Haneman and Tygre agreed that long-term parking was a benefit to the community. Tygre said that she thought that a business owner or a second homeowner would park for the day rather than driving in and out several times during the day. Fomell stated that was their goal to have people park for the day and the pricing model was geared to all day parking because the first hour cost more and incrementally went down. Cohen asked what assurances were there that the management company stayed in place; he asked if it were akin to a homeowners association. Fomell replied that it was not like a homeowners association but rather a property management company because it was a profitable venture. Fornell said the structure will be detailed in the operating agreement, covenants and homeowners declarations that would be adhered to by the space owners association. Cohen voiced concern for the property without assurances for the continued operating of this as a garage when everything was sold out. Clauson responded that the management company takes on the management for a profit. Tygre said that the consolidated review was problematic and Eric was bringing up questions that were normally found in the final review level, which would be the detailed management plan and at a conceptual level those items were not expected but the commission was expected to make a judgment based on information that was not available at this stage. Tygre noted the process was a problem and this concept was very different than anything that has been seen before. There were a great many unknowns and more specific representations and warranties were needed for the operation specifics, which were not available at this particular time. Cohen agreed with Tygre. Clauson stated that them wasn't much modification available if the property owner had to come back to P&Z for every little change to the management agreement or original business plan submitted at this time; he cited minor changes and asked to determine what conditions were necessary rather 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION September 02, 2003 than very specific. Tygre stated that one of the problems as the Planning and Zoning Commission was writing unenforceable conditions; it wasn't appropriate for this commission to write your business plan. Tygre noted that usually there were specific conditions that were enforceable and related to the process. Tygre stated that the commission did not want a lot of car exhausts while waiting to enter the parking garage, not a lot of noise or light either, which were pretty straight forward but the commission did not feet that was sufficient to judge whether this would work or not; it was up to the applicant to mitigate whatever negative effects there may be from a particular application. The commission wants the applicant to come forward with a proposal that says there were concerns about cars idling causing pollution and the way the applicant will address that issue is: Johnson asked how time-shares were dealt with prior to the current time-share ordinance. Allgaier replied there was a time-share ordinance, it was quite old and it needed to be brought up to date. Time-shares were reviewed as conditional use; this application was being reviewed as a conditional use;' one of the provisions under the conditional use criteria was the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizing adverse effects including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service, and noise vibrations on surrounding properties. Allgaier agreed with the planning commission wanting a written operating plan for how it works and how available it is. Clauson stated that there were many of the operating characteristics provided with the accommodation of 4 cars in 2 minutes. Allgaier asked the applicant how do you make the spaces available. Fornell wanted the garage on the merit of being used as a public facility but if there was a statement that each owner was required to rent a certain number of days a year, who would say that it wouldn't be for rent in the May and October so at what point can we satisfy that will get a public use except by bringing the building on and letting it's own merits speak for itself. Fomell said to force "x" number of days a year doesn't mean that the spaces will be available for any particular day but limits the potential interest in the property for financing it's success. Allgaier asked if that couldn't be written into the declarations that when the owner's car was not in the garage it was available to be rented to the public. Fornell said that he planned on taking a more active approach and each vehicle would be "bar-coded" every day when it was parked in the garage and when the vehicle was not in it's space the owner would be contacted as to why they weren't using their space and lends to the profitability. Tygre requested representations from the applicant on what the operating agreement was going to be in a more substantial written form. Fornell stated that it would be a daily public parking facility that will be condominiumized and individually owned. Skadron asked for some public benefit and what specific portion of the population would be served by this facility. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION September 02, 2003 The commission agreed that a simple written management/operation plan was needed. Johnson asked if Mr. Livingston was supposed to supply the employee generation figures from other facilities. Fomell replied there were no employees at other locations. Johnson said that Mr. Livingston said that there were employees in Europe and in Turkey and that he could get those figures. Fornell said that they were cashiers. Johnson stated that he would ask this question every time until it was voted on. Fornell stated that he would satisfy Jack Johnson's question. Johnson asked if there was any attempt to study the costs associated with additional sound attenuation in the building regardless of how quiet the machine may be. Fornell said that the decibel measures were intended to satisfy and there will be a superstructure built around the building so attention to noise was their goal in the construction. Cohen said that the decibel levels, planned times of operation, specifically how the garage will be made available needed to be included in the management plan. Cohen noted the letters from the public regarded the appropriateness of this location. Cohen felt this was an appropriate project for this location because it was downtown. Haneman voiced concern for condominiums because of the fossilization of the building after it outlived it's useful purpose the ownership structure prevents it from being redeveloped. Haneman asked how that could be handled for this complex. Tygre stated concern for the lighting, whic was important certainly to the neighbors; the east side of the building facing Benedict Commons so they were not looking at a blank wall, which should be simple to address. Tygre said the sound mitigation must be strong in terms of the neighborhood. Tygre said that this should be a benefit to the community and if this were an appropriate location for this garage then the mitigation concerns needed to be addressed. No public comments. MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to continue the public hearing for Park Place, 707 East Hyman to SePtember 16, 2003; seconded by Roger Haneman. APPROVED 6-0. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION September 02, 2003 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 08/05/03: MISCELLANEOUS CODE AMENDMENTS Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Miscellaneous Code Amendments. Scott Woodford said that the last item related to the first stow element, placing a height limit on the plate height of 9 feet. These could be used as linking items for secondary mass. Jasmine Tygre asked what could be allowed over the first stow elements. Woodford utilized drawings to illustrate the porch roof first stow element over the front door, which could still have a deck on the front faqade to meet the way the ordinance was written. The commission discussed flexibility in the plate height and matching the first floor element. The commission agreed on a 10-foot plate height for the first story element. Tygre commented that the original proposal for the design standards were conceived as an alternative to reducing FAR. Architects and designers put the idea forth to control the apparent massing of a structure with the appropriate design but then there was a conflict with overpowering structures being built. Public Comments: Brook Peterson, public, suggested 10 feet for new construction but the existing plate heights may be higher for a remodel. Woodford said that the idea was to bring the plate heights into conformance with the standards rather than continue with larger plate heights. Peterson said that a 10-foot plate height would limit someone's options in a re-design or remodel that may not be tasteful or acceptable to the architect or owner or be intrusive. Tygre said that this was pretty straightforward. Haneman said that was what the residential design standards were supposed to do, limit the architect's ability to design something. MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve resolution #17, series 2003 for the Amendment to the Land Use Code with the amendments as discussed; seconded by John Rowland. APPROVED 6-0. Meeting adjoume,d at 7:00 p.m. into a work session on the R-15 B Zone District. ~ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 7