Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20040706ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY:06, 200s COMMENTS ................................................................................................ .,. ............. .,.,...~...: ....... ...,, 2 MINUTES ....................................................................................................................................... 2 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ..................................................... 2 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING ............................................................................. 2 BLUE MAIZE CONDITIONAL USE AMENDMENT .................................................. 2 BEAUMONT INN AFFORDABLE HOUSING Pm .................................................... 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 0C 2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting at 4:30 pm in the Sister Cities Meeting Room. Members Roger Haneman, Jack Johnson, Dylan Johns, Brandon Marion, John Rowland, Jasmine Tygre and Ruth Kruger were present. Steve Skadron was excused. Staff present: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; JoYCe Allgaier, James Lindt, Scott Woodford, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Roger Haneman asked to pass along to Sarah Oates that 1440 Red Butte again lights up the sky. James Lindt replied that was previOusly investigated. James Lindt mentioned the additional meeting for the Chart House on July 27th. MINUTES MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve the minutes' of June 15, 2004 amending the spelling of Chart on page 2; seconded by Roger Haneman. APPROVED 7-0. DECI~ARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 1201 RIVERSIDE DRIVE REZONING Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on 1201 Riverside. James Lindt requested the hearing be continued to a date certain. MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to continue the hearing for 1201 Riverside Rezoning to August 17th,' seconded by Brandon Marion. APPROVED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING: BLUE MAIZE' CONDITIONAL USE AMENDMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Blue Maize conditional use amendment. David Hoefer stated an affidavit was provided. James Lindt explained this hearing was to Consider the request for expansion of the existing restaurant into office space that was vacated by Morris and Fyrwald Real Estate located at 308 South Hunter. The property is located in the C-1 zone district in which the restaurant use is a conditional use. The Silver City Grill was the previous restaurant located in this-space. 2 ASPEN PLANNING'& ZONING COMMISSIO~ ...... Min'u~es JULYi06~ 2004 Lindt provided drawings and maps of the current configuration and the proposed expansion of 54 seats and 1,035 square feet including a bar area and new ADA bathroom. Lindt noted this was a locally serving restaurant that stayed open year round for dinner, which was the intent of the underlying zoning. Currently there were no on-site parking spaces; the office and restaurant uses require the same amount of parking spaces in this zone district. Staff feels that suffiCient on-street parking exists in the immediate vicinity to accommodate the evening use for dinner. Lindt said the applicant believe that 4-5 new employees would accommodate the additional expansion. Morris & Fyrwald sent a letter stating they had 7-8 full time employees previously operating out of this space and staff believed this would be a net decrease in employees operating out of this space and recommend no mitigation be required. Lindt stated the resOlution provided a condition that would suggest that an audit be done of employees after two years. Staff recommended approval with the addition of 2 conditions, which were distributed; they came from Garfield & Hecht (Exhibit D) regarding exhaust fumes and the new dishwasher vent. Thomas Colosi and Richard Chulec operate and own Blue Maize for the last 7 years; they accepted the conditions and noted most of the smell that was coming up originated from the Chinese restaurant below them with their vent system more north than the Blue Maize's. Colosi said that they proposed a BFI trash-compactor to be locatedin the ½ parking space behind the building. ColOsi said'the contractor would handle the construction demolition and clean up; the EcoLabs dishwasher had a cleaning unit and did not require a ventilation system, whiCh could be installed in 2 weeks. It takes the steam that is used in the machine and is cooled with pipe condensers, as it exists in the machine, which keeps the steam from evaporating and collecting in the kitchen. Lindt noted the BFI dumpsters and compactors served the same purpose keeping wildlife out as well as maintaining the trash. Colosi said the kitchen would be enlarged; the entrance would be relocated to the new area; a bar area would be added; a handicap access bathroom would also be added; there would be 2 wait stations. Colosi illustrated the changes on drawing A-2 in the packet. The commission concerns were parking, alley truck traffic, 'conditioned as a locally serving restaurant, the private agreement with Garfield &'Hecht, number of employees and venting system. Lindt reiterated they were an evening restaurant and believed there was sufficient on street parking. Colosi stated the flow with the truck traffic in the alley was ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 06~ 2004 good; they stopped for the max of 15 to 20 minutes and also serve Mezzaluna, Little Ollies, and McStorlies. Lindt stated there was no definition for locally serving restaurant and it would be difficult to enforce; there could be a condition that the restaurant not shut down for the off-season. Richard Chulec stated that they were locals having to make their business work and they don't have plans on closing for the off-season but would rather not have that as a condition. Tygre clarified the hours of operation and locally serving restaurants came about because restaurants were moving out of the commercial core because of the high rents and were trying to move into areas like C: 1; it was important for the commission and community that these not be the high end restaurants that rely heavily on the tourist business but for more moderately priced restaurants like this one. The purpose was not to dictate hours of operation but to keep future operations similar to this one in this area. Hoefer stated that it would be "local serving". Lindt stated that was in the intent of the zone district. If there were any increases in business after this the applicant, they would have to come before P&Z again. Lindt replied the Garfield & Hecht agreement included the venting system. Colosi stated the venting system was electrified and trapped all the particles with the venting on the right side of the building; the vent for the Chinese restaurant was on the other side of the building and that was what you smelled. Allgaier said that environmental health would review these systems. Hoefer stated then condition #2 would cover the venting. Colosi stated there were 5 full time employees and maybe 8 part-time, which could be one night a week from 4:30 to set up and runners come in at 6:30. The part- time employees would work 3 to 4 hours a night. No public comments. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve Resolution #24, 2004 approving the conditional use to expand the Blue Maize Restaurant at 308 S. Hunter Street by 1,035 square feet adding the whereas the restaurant is a locally-oriented commercial use that is.consistent with the purpose of the Commercial (C-I) Zone District subject to the following conditions. 1. This conditional use approval establishes a base line operation for this commercial space of 78 customer seats and 1,785 square feet. Any upgrade to service, e.g. number of employees or seats, or a significant change to the hours of operation shall constitute a change to the conditional use and shall require an amendment to this approval. 2. The Environmental Health Department shall review and approve food preparation plans and shall inspect the site prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the eXPanded restaurant. Any improvements required by the Environmental Health Department shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the expanded restaurant. 3. The expanded restaurant shall comply with all applicable building and 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSiO'N ....... MinuteS JULYS06, 2004 accessibility code requirement as determined by the Chief Building Official. 4. The Applicant shall enclose their dumpsters or replace with bear-proof dumpsters. 5. The Applicant shall obtain a temporary encroachment license from the City of Aspen Engineering Department for any equipment to be temporarily stored in the right-of-Way during construction. 6 Any new signage shall require a sign permit and shall meet the City of Aspen Sign Regulations set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.510, signs. 7. An employee audit shall be conducted prior to building permit approval for the restaurant expansion to determine the current staffing level of Blue Maize. Additionally, an employee audit shall be conducted after two (2) years of operation in the newly configured space. If after two (2) years of operation, a net increase of more than eight (8)full-time employees bver current staffing levels is identified, the Applicant Will then have thg option of going back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to amend their conditional use approval or to provide employee-housing mitigation in the form of a payment-in-lieu pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines to remain in business. The auditor and documentation shall be approved by the Housing Office but funded by the Applicant. 8. The Applicant shall install a grease interceptor or automated grease trap that meets the approval of the Aspen' ConSolidated Sanitation Di~ric~ 9. 7he,dpp[idant ~hall not vent the new dishwasher on the north ~ide of the building if venting is required. Seconded by Roger Haneman. Roll. call vote: Kruger, yes; Marion, yes; Johns, yes; Haneman, .yes; Rowland, yes; Johnson, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING: BEAUMONT INN AFFORDABLE HOUSiNGP~ Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Beaumont 'Inn Affordable Housing. Proof of notice, publication and mailing was provided. Scott Woodford explained the structure of the hearings beginning with this conceptual PUD; this was a 4-step process conceptual with P&Z then Council and if approved then Final PUD to P&Z and Council. The commission would rule on the conceptual PUD but other land use issues to be considered in the future were rezoning, GMQS exemptions. The PUD establishes the special review for parking, height, FAR, setbacks and site layout issues including the relationship of buildings to parking, adequacy of parking, sidewalks and access. John Shield introduced himself as the operations director for Aspen Valley Hospital; his role was project management and a few other things. Shield provided the history from purchasing the Beaumont 6 years ago with a small renovation to the L shaped motel section of the property and mastering Planning process for about three years. Shield said the rezoning was to create employee housing and their intention was to improve this property to accommodate the future growth of AVH and meet the mitigation requirements of the local government. Leslie Lemont, planner for the project, stated the zone district was R-15 with an LP overlay; the lodge preservation overlay allowed affordable housing as a conditional use and in November of 2000 the hospital was granted a conditional use. Currently on site was a triplex (Garden Building) built in the mid-nineties with one resident occupied unit, a category 3 studio and a category 2 studio. There was a 3-bedroom 'ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 06, 2004 modular, which is deed-restricted to category 1; both buildings were constructed for previous lodge expansion. Silver was remodeled with 10 deed-restricted units with a combination of a studio category 1, one category 3, 5 2-berooms at category 3 and 2 1-bedrooms at category 3. Lemont stated the goal of the hospital was as the hospital expands in square footage on the hospital campus site they want to be able to mitigate that expansion with affordable housing on this site. Lemont said the access was the same as the current access at the top of the hill; there was significant vegetation on this site. The proposal was to take down the old building (Crestahaus), remove the modular and build back onto the site 25 new units for a total of 38 units on site. The new buildings Copper, Homestead and Canal would contain 8 units each; Cresta would have 1 unit; Silver would have 10 units and the Garden building would have 3 units. There would be a total of 16 studios, 13 one-bedrooms, 8 two-bedrooms and 1 three-bedroom. Lemont stated there would be 38 on-site parking spaces. Lemont said this was a PUD but they were also requesting rezoning to affordable housing to better reflect the purpose of this site; all dimensional requirements would be established in the PUD. The setback requirements were not being changed from the LP Overlay. If they do covered parking then they would ask for a setback variance. The heights were 27½ feet to the midpoint, 32 feet to the ridge but there was a two-story element and a step up to the three-story element. Lemont stated they met with the Lacet homeowners of the deed-restricted units; their concern was the proximity of the building to their building and they would discuss some ideas about re-aligning that building. Lemont said because they were keeping the Silver and Garden buildings the site directed the placement of the new development along with the mature trees. Lemont noted the reason these were four separate buildings was because it really breaks up the fafade along highway 82 and the hospital was looking to phasing for the mitigation of employees. Lemont realized that phasing was costly and may not be the most amenable next door neighbor because people could feel like construction was going on for a couple of years rather than getting in and getting it done. All the site improvements will be done at the same time including the infrastructure-and the phasing will be addressed between conceptual and final. Steven Spears, Design Workshop landscape architect, stated there were 5 goals to achieve with this project: creating a great neighborhood with interaction, understanding the positive access with a good urban design edge, saving mature 6 JULYS06; 2004 trees (lodge pole, ponderosa, aspen, blue spruce), internalize parking creating a community welcome feel and a safe neighborhood with safe access and pedestrian access to alternative transportation. The safest place, for the access point was at the top. The Cresta building would be the last to be removed and replaced. Spears said there was vertical as well as horizontal articulation in the architecture to break up to allow the portal for views and physical access. Two of the 38 parking spaces would be ADA compliant. The geotechnical report indicated a quarry was previously located on north part of the site; the soils would be replaced and the wall would be removed. There were front porches on the Highway 82 side. The trees range from a 10 to'20 foot dripline diameter with caliper sizes from 4 to 24 inches. Spears said the edge of the Canal building would have some architectural elements so it would not just have a flat edge. Pedestrian circulation and vehicular access was important to the project with an internalized system and the sidewalk extended along Highway 82; the fire district reqUii~ed a6-foot sidewalk fire access' in and out of the system in case there was an emergency. Spears noted the setbacks were the same as the existing with 5 feet on the Lacet side; the building was actually 8 feet from the property line with a ditch along the property line. Spears said the building works on CooPer Avenue. Lemont said they were committed to use mature vegetation on the site. Woodford said the rezOning would be from R-15 to AH because multi-family was not allowed in R-15 zone district and the floor area ratio was a .6 to 1 FAR, which after removing steep slopes would allow for 50,000 square feet of building area. The building heights were measured from natural grade or finished grade whichever was lower depending on the roof pitch; with these 7/12 pitches they would be measured to the midpoint at 26 feet 6 inches; the R- 15 zone allows a maximum of 25 feet in height and Staff felt the height was appropriate at 26½. Woodford'said the setbacks range on the road from 10 to 23 feet with individual entrances off the sidewalks; the R-15 has a 1 O-foot setback requirement. Staff requested the 2 units of the building be setback a little further on the Lacet side and with the Cresta building going away there should be a little more room to do that. Woodford said the parking was established through the PUD and Special Review according to the code; they would use the numbers from the special review as a guide for the PUD with one space per bedroom, which would be 48 spaces and currently proposed were 38. Parking was a concern ~for staff and felt 'it was deficient as proposed beCause there were times when there was a need for overflow parking with no potential for parking on the road and because there were potentially less spaces than units with 2 handicap spaces. Staff suggested 45 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 06, 2004 spaces. Woodford said there were no red flags for the rezoning and meets goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan and the APCH Board supported the project. Woodford said the parking layout could be problematic and to look into the possibility of garages. The architecture was appropriate. Currently there was 20,799 square feet on the site today and the proposed square footage was 30,000. Public Comments: 1. Doug Allen, public, stated that he represented the Lacet Homeowners Association, which are the group of people next door who ~were not met with and have had no input with the developer at all. Allen said it seemed like an inappropriate place to expand housing but more traffic and congestion was being created by this project. 'Allen said this was a single family residential area with a few duplexes, the Lacet Condominiums and a couple of other 8 and 10 unit condominiums but mostly single family homes. Allen objected to changing from 13 units'to 38 units without providing adequate parking and there was a soil problem so the parking could be underground after the soil is filled-in. 2. Lennie Oates, public, resident of Riverside Subdivision reiterated what Doug said about the extremely dangerous curve with problematic site lines. Oates said this wasn't just Cooper Avenue it was Highway 82; he said there were police regulating traffic at Lacet and Riverside because people don't slow and more engineering was needed for the site lines. Oates mentioned that when this was the Crestahaus there were big mirrors so that you could see down Highway 82. Oates said the parking would be extremely impactive to Riverside and agreed with underground parking or in a town home configuration. Oates provided the background for the property naming the building Millerrest, which dates back to the 1940's and it was one of the original guest facilities in the community; it warrants looking into. Oates said the heights were not of concern as long as the parking was internalized. 3. Rob Itmer, public, a tenant of Lacet Court said his back deck faced the end of this property; he suggested turning the units to face Aspen Mountain. Ittner said if the buildings faced one another there would be a direct visual contact between. every window in the buildings. Ittner said their building was 27 feet from the grade but this building at 27 feet from the grade was also 10 feet higher in grade. Ittner requested some PVC pipes be placed to see the height level and Lacet would be dramatically impacted with about 3 hours less of sunlight a day. Ittner stated with the Creatahaus building gone the balconies would be a serious issue and the balconies should be placed on the other side of the building facing the inward space. Ittner reiterated that there was a police officer every morning and this would add to the traffic problems. Ittner questioned the need for this affordable housing and wanted to know how many units were occupied of those 13 units over the last year from the hospital with the fact that they have just laid off a good number of employees. 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes JULY 06~ 2004 4. Mike Reason,, public, Lacet resident agreed it was a massive project but the parking was the biggest problem. 5. David Hoefer enter a letter from Helen Klanderud into the record and indicated that she questioned the density. The commissioners requested additional information or voiced concern for the heights; the phasing; how much expansion does this cover for the hospital and the actual needs for hospital employee housing; elements of the historic validity of the property; existing setbacks adjacent to the property (Riverside Drive, Lacet Court, Highway 82) and the need for greater setbacks; existing affordable housing in the city or county dedicated to a private or public entity; minutes fi.om previous P&Z meetings; banking future housing; the density; impacts on the neighbors; the need to accommodate underground parking; traffic and environmental pollution; the actual number of units; the low roofline affecting floor heights at 8 feet being inadequate; proximity of Canal Building to Lacet; more efficient use of the open space; the attempt to keep the existing buildings that cause the overall site constraints; categories of the units and the RO units; number of residential design standard variances needed; and the possibility of a mixed community allowing any employee to reside in sOme of the units. Lemont noted the issues brought up by the commission prior to the applicant having a chance to explain some of the decisions that were made and parking was a good example of that. Tygre said this is what the first look has brought up. Lemont said they would address the issues and concerns at the next meeting; the staff memo did not delve into the rezoning and she encouraged the commission to read those portions of the application. Lemont stated that rezoning was a threshold point and did not want to get through conceptual and final and find major questions with the rezoning aspects. MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to continue the Beaumont Inn Affordable Housing PUD to July 20th; seconded by Brandon Marion. APPROVED 7-0. Adjourned at 7:05 pm. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 9