HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20031021ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes October 21~ 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
TOP OF MILL BAVARIAN/PUD and GMQS AMENDMENTS .... ~i~: ...... ;.~,...2.. 6
CENTENNIAL PUD AMENDMENT, GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AH,
SUBDIVISION, REZONING ................................................................................... 8
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes October 21, 2003
Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning
Commission at 4:30 pm in Sister Cities Meeting Room. John Rowland, Steve
Skadron, Dylan Johns, Jack Johnson, Ruth Kruger, Eric Cohen and Jasmine Tygre
were present. Roger Haneman was excused. Staffin attendance: David Hoefer,
Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, James Lindt, Community Development;
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMISSIONER~ STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chris Bendon said there would be a Community Development Brown Bag on
October 30th for transferable rights geared to real estate agents, architects and
historic property owners. The multi-family housing replacement amendments
were going forward to City Council on the 27th for public hearing.
MINUTES
MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to approve the minutes from October 07, 2003
with change on page 4, last sentence for "the possibility of off-site valet pick-up ";
seconded by Ruth Kruger. APPROVED 7-0.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Ruth Kruger stated a conflict with Top of Mill/Bavarian Inn item. Eric Cohen
stated conflict with the Centennial item.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (08/i9/03; 09/02/03; 09/i6/03 & 10/07/03):
PARK PLACE - 707 EAST IlYMAN ' CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL
/FINAL PUD, CONDITIONAL USE~ GMQS EXEMPTION FOR Ail
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public heating on Park Place, 707 East
Hyman; Chris Bendon prepared a revised resolution based upon commissioners
comments.
Chris Bendon said there were changes in the resolution and a revised operations
prospectus was an addendum to the resolution. Bendon said for clatiflcation on the
mechanical system circulation of one rotation was 90 seconds or 40 cars per hour;
taking a car placing it into a slot and returning to the bay.
Stan Clauson stated that changes were made to the operations prospectus with
respects to the hours of operation, elimination of hourly parking and a couple of
enhanced amendments.
Dylan Johns said that the time being sold only allows for the vehicle to exit once;
how would that work to allow a car to get out twice during the day. Clauson
replied that the local business space owner would have the tight to ingress and
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes OCtober 21~ 2003
egress at all times. Clauson said the one-day fee user would not be allowed to go
back and forth. Peter Fornell said that the day use would be allowed to park up to
a certain amount of hours.
Jack Johnson stated concern for the employee generation and the employee
generation audit; would the applicant be able to choose the occupants of the
employee housing. Fomell responded that they had hoped it would be limited to
the employees of the business itself; the estimated need was mitigated 200%.
Jasmine Tygre said that the operations prospectus was in direct conflict with the
resolution, which one rules. Tygre shared Jack's concern for the audit to be very
clear that it will rule. Clauson responded that the language would be changed from
"will" to "be expected to". Tygre stated the purpose of the prospectus was to tie it
to the resolution for an audit. Bendon responded that they would add at the end of
the first phrase, paragraph 1 of the of the operations prospectus after etc. "subject
to an audit". Bendon said it was under section 12, paragraph 1, as part of the audit
language and the requirements.
Tygre asked about the chart on page 3 of dimensional requirements and if these
were set forth in the PUD and if they were the same as in the code on the east side.
Bendon replied that was correct. Tygre asked about changing the name of the
project in section 10 to avoid emergency service confusion. There was a Park
Place at the AABC, Midland Park Place and another Park Place. Fornell said that
the building would have a different name but would do business as Park Place or
whatever name was determined. Clauson stated that it did not affect the
application but just the final plat; it will be called Park Place through the
application process. Tygre asked who technically reviews the final subdivision
plans to make sure that all the conditions from the conceptual review have been
complied with. Bendon responded there were 2 steps; a plat filing review with
planning staffand checks at the time of the building permit.
Public Comments:
I. Herb Klein, public, attorney for the 700 East Hyman Townhomes
Association, addressed concerns about the way the facility will operate with
respects to noise and queuing. Nothing says that it will comply with the code for
noise for an exterior measurement; Klein said that another sound study should be
done. Klein stated that queuing has not been addressed and Klein's engineering
review was complete and said that one bay be designated for ingress and the other
for egress. The proposal to hold existing vehicles to enter the garage will result in
numerous operating problems including the likelihood that vehicles will need to
leave the facility to make room for entering vehicles. Klein asked how the doors
worked. Clauson explained that the inner door was closed, people drive in and exit
the vehicle, the vehicle is then checked to make sure that it is safe to be able to be
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes October 21, 2003
placed into the system, the outer door closes the inner door opens and the vehicle is
then taken by it's pallet to the space. Clauson stated that at all times there was a
door closed between the mechanism and the outside. Klein asked for a plan "B"
for congestion while queuing and operational issues; he requested language "that
would remedy any problems caused by the operation". Klein critiqued the
operations prospectus and the resolution.
2. Anthony Fama, public, said that if you choose to live in downtown Aspen
then you have to put up with things like parking lots, but the people that live in
Aspen vote in Aspen. To get more traffic in town would be to give them more
places to park; you could be selling parking spaces to people who don't vote in
Aspen; this was a comment. Fama stated concern for the neighbors at Benedict
Commons because they did not want to live next to a parking structure. He
questioned how people would want to live in the parking structure.
3. Mike Hoffman, public, attorney representing the Bell Mountain
Condominiums Homeowners, just across the alley from this proposed structure.
There were 4 concerns: the rear zero lot line would disrupt their ability to use their
own garage and will be exasperated when there would be snow on the ground; the
design would cause cars to swerve to avoiding hitting this structure; the noise and
fumes were a concern; and there was no guarantee for public use at 80% but only
provided 19 spaces for public.
4. W.R. Walton, public, stated that he lived in the area for 35 years and urged
the commission to listen and read the attorneys letters. Walton spoke about the
queuing and the traffic study being incomplete because it didn't include Spring
Street; he spoke about the trucks to City Market and buses, the Sandy's Office
Supply congestion and provided photos of parked trucks on Spring Street. Walton
said there were also skateboarders, pedestrians, bicycles, cars and more trucks on
Spring Street. Walton made a study of the number of vehicles parked on this
current site for a week, which averaged 19 cars a day and asked if any of the
Hannah Dustin building employees would have parking provided by this new
facility.
5. Fred Martell, public, was still concerned about the queuing regarding
loading and unloading of skiers at this facility and there were no answers. Martell
asked how an owner would get his car out on a peak powder day at 8 o'clock in the
morning and what about the lighting of the building with all the floors having to be
lit. Martell said this was zoned office and would not generate business for people
in the neighborhood because it was a residential area. Martell asked what happens
during a power outage; does the equipment reset itself, where are the mechanics to
take care of these problems. Martell said that if this works then they make their
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes October 21, 2003
money if not then what. Martell said there was a local hotel that offered parking
for $5.00 a day and he mentioned an ad in the paper that offered 24 hour parking
for $200.00 a month.
6. Katie Bartlett, public, said that she lived next door and that UPS trucks park
in the middle of the street were a problem now; what will happen when cars were
waiting to enter the parking garage with one lane of traffic a couple of times a day
on Hyman. Bartlett asked if car alarms were addressed; the garage was 10 feet
from her bedroom window. Bartlett said that ASPen was a special place and asked
if we wanted our precious town to look like this; it seemed contradictory to what
we wanted to do and bring more traffic to the area.
Tygre said based on the revised resolution questions or modifications have been
covered. Clauson said that they have worked very hard to meet all of the Planning
Commission requirements with traffic, noise, and employee generation studies and
worked on the resolution and operations prospectus. Clauson stated that was
certainly the intent for an armual review to look at all the operations, the anomalies
and any issues that came up; any problems would be remedied as part of that
annual process or even more quickly if need be.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #19 and recommending
City Council approve Park Place, 707 East Hyman the Park Place Consolidated
Conceptual/Final PUD, Subdivision, GMQS exemption and Conditional Use for a
commercial parMng structure subject to amending the language on Section #17 to
remedy any operational issues that may arise at any other time; seconded by Eric
Cohen. Rowland, no; Johnson, yes; Johns, no; Skadron, no; Cohen, yes; Kruger,
yes; Tygre, no. DENIED 4-3.
Discussion before vote: Johnson asked if the spaces would be pre-sold prior to
construction. Fomell replied they anticipated marketing them pre-sale. Cohen
agreed with Jack on the appropriateness of the structure on that street in an office
zone, but Cohen said that he had a problem with parking, traffic and nature of this
unique parking structure. Skadron said this project was not consistent with 4 of the
applicable criteria in the Aspen Area Community Plan because it did not deter
traffic on 82 or the entrance to Aspen but increased it; it did not reduce congestion
or traffic in the core but draws traffic to another neighborhood that was not already
burdened by traffic. Skadron didn't feel that it was the best option for the limited
parking supply but he was not absolutely opposed to a technologically and
aesthetically conforming parking structure, which he felt this was but was opposed
to a private facility that was not a public amenity and was not satisfied that the
amendments and provisions go far enough to be a public utility. Johns shared Jack
and Eric's view about the appropriateness of this structure in the office district but
was sensitive towards the queuing issues. Johns said the design, intent and
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes October 21~ 2003
operations of the structure were great but the one issue was still a problem for him.
Kruger agreed with the other commissioners about the appropriateness of this
location in town, the zoning was appropriate and it was not a residential
neighborhood. Kruger had reservations about the queuing but believed that people
would unload at the gondola; she said the applicant should not be penalized for the
deliveries in the neighborhood. Rowland said this project was dubious and
uncertain what was going to happen; they were not even considering some of the
growth potentials in population of Colorado as the third fastest growing state in the
country. Rowland gave the growth potential statistics for Pitkin, Eagle, Garfield
and Denver; he said this was a regional problem and the counties needed to get
together to alleviate the problems. Rowland asked if we were encouraging people
to bike, walk, or use public transportation; these were key ingredients to what
makes this town and valley beautiful. Tygre added the concern about the queuing
was a sticking point for many of the commissioners and queuing was not in the
applicant's control. Hoefer clarified that the applicant may go forward to Council
with the negative recommendation from P&Z.
PUBLIC HEARING:
TOP OF MILL BAVARIAN/PUD and GMQS AMENDMENTS
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Bavarian and Top of Mill PUD
and GMQS amendments. David Hoefer stated that the notice was sufficient to
proceed.
James Lindt explained this was for a PUD and GMQS amendment to the Bavarian
Inn and Top of Mill PUD; the request has the ability to swap categories. The
Bavarian Inn was to switch one unit from a category 3 unit to a category 2 unit and
balance that within the PUD to switch one of the duplex units to the west of the
Bavarian Inn from category 2 to a category 3 unit; there would be no loss in the
number of bedrooms or units in either of the categories. Lindt said that in the five-
plex to convert one unit from a category 4 to a category 2 unit and in order to
balance it out they proposed the Top of Mill to take one of the category 2
affordable housing units and convert it to a category 4 unit. Staff agreed with the
housing board because no units would be lost in any category and recommended
approval of the proposed resolution.
Scott Writer, Four Peaks Development, stated the basis was they were allowed to
select qualified employees to put into certain units and one employee would like a
certain unit, which was a category 2 but doesn't qualify for a 2 but rather a 4 so
they would just switch with the Top of Mill units that were slightly larger with
garages. Writer said housing found it hard to fill larger 3 bedroom category 2
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes October 21, 2003
units; there was no specific employee in mind for the Top of Mill (they get to place
one at the Top of Mill). The other 3 Top of Mill units will remain category 2.
Bendon said that the specific categories were referenced in the original PUD
therefore the PUD amendment must go through P&Z to City Council for housing
policy recommendations. Eric Cohen referenced Section 2 ¶ 2 in the ordinance
regarding the 4-bedroom unit. Writer replied that one of 2 units was a 4-bedroom
but that was not the subject of this application. Cohen asked the number of square
feet for the category 2-bedrooms. Writer replied it was a minimum of $00.
Dylan Johns asked if they were still averaging category 2. Lindt answered that
because the PUDs were linked in terms of mitigation requirements the average
category 2 was still maintained.
Johnson asked the number of category 2s and 4s would be at the Top of Mill and
the Bavarian Inn. Lindt replied that there were 3 category 2s and 1 category 4 at
the Top of Mill and Writer and Lindt did not have the exact number for the
Bavarian Inn.
No public comments.
MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to recommend City Council approve Resolution #22,
2003 recommending City Council approve a PUD amendment and a GMQS
amendment to the Bavarian Inn and Top of Mill Planned Unit Developments to allow
for 1) the affordable housing unit at 821 I,E. Bleeker to convert from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to
a Category 3 affordable housing unit and to allow for Unit 204 in the former Bavarian Inn building to
convert from a Category 3 affordable housing unit to a Category 2 affordable housing unit; and to allow for
2) the affordable housing unit at 814 V<. Main Street to convert from a Category 4 affordable housing unit to
a Category 2 affordable housingunit and to allow for Unit D, Parcel 2, of the Top of Mill PUD to convert
from a Category 2 affordable housing unit to a Category 4 affordable housing unit; seconded by Dylan
Johns. Roll call vote: Johnson, no; Skadron, yes; Johns, yes; Rowland, yes; Cohen,
yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5-1.
Discussion: Cohen asked that the housing guideline information be more accessible
for the P&Z commission. Johnson said the AACP encourages a mix in the
affordable housing project and he was reluctant to switch things around because of
loose interpretations from the past; he said that he could entertain support for the
Bavarian Inn switch but not the Top of Mill. Writer answered that replacement
housing as it was originally written in the code was category 2; he said that the mix
that they have is actually better and more diversified.
Tygre asked for a meeting with the Housing Board sometime in the future.
7
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes October 21, 2003
PUBLIC HEARING:
CENTENNIAL PUD AMENDMENT, GMOS EXEMPTION FOR AH,
SUBDIVISION~ REZONING
Jasmine Tygre opened the public heating for Centennial PUD Amendment, GMQS
exemption for AH Housing, Subdivision and Rezoning. David Hoefer stated that
the notice met the requirements and the commission may proceed.
James Lin& distributed the revised condition #1. The application was submitted
by Centennial Aspen II Limited Partnership and requested to utilize the model unit
that P&Z approved last May as an affordable housing unit with certain restrictions
in terms of the use. The second part of the application was to parcel offthe
existing playground area located next to building H of the PUD and dedicate it to
the City as a park after it was approved with new playground equipment.
Lindt said the May P&Z approval was for a model unit without being inhabited
and temporarily the applicant requested use of this unit on a transient basis to
owners, employees and contract employees (auditors). There were time limits
proposed at no more than 60 days per year, no more that 15 days in any month and
no more than 10 days at one time; the rest of the time of would be utilized as a
model unit as originally approved. Lindt said it was proposed to be deed-restricted
to a category 3 in case it was ever rented or sold; staffbelieved that it was a
housing staff issue. The parking analysis showed there were 221 existing parking
spaces for the 148 units in the rental portion of Centennial; if Centennial were built
today the land use code requirements would be for 207 parking spaces.
Lindt said the applicant at the applicant's expense will improve the existing
playground and then parceled off from the remainder of the development through
subdivision, then dedicated to the city as a public park. The parks department has
done the site planning; Lindt provided drawings of the proposal.
Alan Richman said there were deed-restrictions for the Centennial Units. Lindt
said there were category 1 and category 3. Richman introduced Sam Brown the
managing partner and Kim Kaelin the property manager.
Richman explained the process by which they could have gone through was
growth management to create a free-market unit rather than the deed-restricted one
in this application. This Centennial project was 100% affordable housing; this
new unit could house auditors and may end up as an affordable housing unit.
Richman said the unit had specific limitations. Richman said the park would just
be cleaned up with new equipment and be greener.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes October 21, 2003
Jack Johnson asked why or why not would the applicant want to go through
GMQS scoring. Bendon answered the idea of creating a model unit by going
through growth management for a free-market unit was an over kill process
product wise; the applicant was not looking for a free-market unit but rather a
place to temporarily place their auditors. Bendon continued that in terms of
process this was simpler as an exemption, which was a little bit easier process and
provides a back-up plan when housing auditors was no longer needed it reverts to
an affordable housing unit as opposed to a free-market unit. Lindt stated that if
they went through the growth management there was no guarantee that any
mitigation would come of it for an employee housing unit because the original
Centennial Housing was all affordable housing. Richman stated that the
application would not have been as sweet as this and wouldn't be in until
November 15th and was more cumbersome with the ability to rent the unit as a
free-market unit; that was not what the applicant wanted to accomplish.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the meeting until 7:15pm; seconded
by Dylan Johns. APPROVED
No public comments.
Ruth Kruger withdrew her motion.
MOTION.. Jack Johnson moved to approve resolution #24, 2003, Centennial PUD
Amendment, GMQS exemption for AH Housing, Subdivision and Rezoning with the
following conditions (1). Occupancy of the unit shall be limited to no more than 60 days per year,
including no more than 15 days during any month and no more than 10 consecutive days at any time until
such time as the unit is either rented or until the unit is sold, either as a separate condominiumized unit or as
part of the Centennial Rental Affordable Housing Complex. Upon the unit being rented or being soM with
the remainder of the Centennial complex, the unit will be required to be rented or sold pursuant to the terms
of the Centennial disposition and development agreement for a Category 3 unit. (2). The Applicant shall
submit a quarterly report to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority detailing who has occupied the unit
and on what dates it has been occupied during the past quarter. The quarterly report shall be submitted until
such time as unit is rented on a full-time basis or until the unit is sold as part of the remainder of the
Centennial Rental Complex. (3). A waiver of asset, residency, and income restrictions shall be in place until
such time as the unit is rented on a full-time basis or until the unit is soM as part of the remainder of the
Centennial Rental Complex. (4). Approval of this request supercedes Planning and Zoning Commission
Resolution No. 12, Series of 2003 and voids Condition No. I and Condition No. 10 in said resolution. With
the exception of Conditions 1 and 10 of Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 12, Series of 2003,
the conditions in said resolution remain in full effect. Section 2: The Planning and Zoning Commission
hereby recommends that City Council approve the proposed subdivision request to parcel off the existing
playground for the purpose of improving the playground and dedicating it to the City of Aspen as a public
park, with the following conditions: (1) The Applicant shall prepare a subdivision plat to be recorded at the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of City Council's approval. The Applicant shall
also prepare a subdivision agreement to be recorded at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within
180 days of the City Council's approval. (2) The Applicant shall continue to maintain the sidewalk that abuts
Brown Lane, which is to include the portion of sidewalk that runs the length of the park parcel along Brown
Lane. The Applicant shall also indemnify the City of Aspenpom any liability that may result in use of said
9
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes October 21~ 2003
sidewalk. The City in return shall grant a pedestrian ingress and egress easement to Centennial where the
sidewalk exists on the park property. The City shall take over maintenance responsibility for the sidewalk
along Park Circle for the length of the park parcel's street frontage (access road to continue to be
maintained by ApplicanO. (3) The Parks Department shall be able to use the Centennial water system to
irrigate the park at the Applicant's expense. However, the City of Aspen Parks Department shall maintain
the sprinkler system within the Park Parcel. (4) This PUD amendment shall establish the minimum lot size
for the park parcel at 6,320 square feet. (5) A sign shall be erected at the sidewalk connection between the
Park Circle sidewalk and the park's interior sidewalk that clearly identifies this connection as the enttyway
to the park. (6) Utility maintenance easements shall be granted to the utility agencies that currently have
utility services located in the land to be dedicated as the park. (7) The City shall place a conservation
easement over the park parcel. The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council
rezone the playground parcel to be created to the Park (P) Zone District. Seconded by Ruth Kruger.
Roll call: Johns, yes; Rowland, yes; Kruger, yes; Johnson, yes; Skadron, yes; Tygre,
yes. APPROVED 6-0.
Discussion: Johnson requested the unresolved agency referral issues be part of the
motion. Lindt responded that the applicant and parks department have a draft
agreement on the responsibility of the sidewalk maintenance, which will be
resolved by the time it goes before the City Council for the public hearing. Lindt
said the Same for the water issue. The neighbor who had the access easement was
present and stated this had nothing to do with the park.
· M,z~t~_a.dj ourged/gt 7:10 g.m.
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
10