HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20050215ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSiON-Minutes-February 15, 2005
COMMENTS .............................................................................................................. 2
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2
GALENA AND MAIN GMQS SCORING ................................................................ 2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes-February 15, 2005
Ruth Kruger opened the regular Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting at 4:30 in the
Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners Brian Speck, Brandon Marion, Steve
Skadron, Dylan Johns, Jack Johnson and Ruth Kruger were present. Jasmine Tygre
was excused. John Rowland was absent. Staff in attendance were Joyce Allgaier,
Chris Bendon, James Lindt, Chris Lee, Community Development; Jackie Lothian,
Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Brandon Marion gave a synopsis of the work session with City Council on the
Timeshare issue. Marion said Council agreed with P&Z concerns for the size of
projects and the issue of separating code amendments from projects. Jack Johnson
asked if there were hard numbers on timeshares. Joyce Allgaier responded that
Chris Lee was working on the impacts from the industry; that report would be ready
soon. Allgaier said that community development would present P&Z with the
history of fractional ownership information.
Allgaier stated that Council passed the first reading of code amendments regarding
the Lodge Zone District, Sign Code Amendment and the Aspen Highlands Villas
Zoning.
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Jack Johnson and Ruth Kruger were conflicted on the Lodge.
PUBLIC HEARING:
GALENA AND MAIN GMQS SCORING
Ruth Kruger opened the public heating for Galena and Main GMQS Scoring. The
proof of notice was provided by Gideon Kaufman. Chris Bendon stated Galena and
Main was Growth Management Scoring plus Special Review for Affordable
Housing Parking, Special Review for Commercial Parking via cash-in-lieu, Waivers
to Residential Design Review Standards and Subdivision.
Bendon said the building was a 2 story 2600 square foot building; the proposal was
to maintain and expand to the east and on the 2nd level there would be affordable
housing and the 3r*level a free-market unit. The commercial parking for the project
would be through cash-m-lieu along with 2 existing spaces offthe alley.
Bendon walked through the Growth Management Scoring explaining that 5 was the
highest score and 3 was necessary for the project to proceed. The affordable
housing threshold was met. The second category was transformational alternatives;
the units having no parking was an incentive to reduce reliance on the automobile.
Bendon noted the site was downtown allowing the residential occupants the ability
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSiON-Minutes-February 15~ 2005
to walk. The project will exceed the model energy code with a series of proposals
specific to the technique with a significant amount of un-built FAR.
Glenn Hom, land use planner for the project, introduced the planning team for the
project as Lowell Meyer the owner, Bill Poss, Kim Weil and Steven Holly the
architects. Gideon Kaufman was legal counsel for the project.
Horn said there was a 60/40 ratio of affordable bedrooms and the project complies
with all of the standards of the CC zone district. Steven Holly explained the
existing floor plan of the building utilizing the site plans #18; Exhibits 3A and 3B
show the lower levels of office space. Holly said the architecture of the new portion
of the building was to mediate between contextual Main Street like the Jerome and
Courthouse and the lower buildings, which provide scale and massing. Holly said
the more contemporary materials of metal and glass wrap around the faqade having
an equal weight with the brick. Holly said the building conforms dimensionally to
all aspects of the code. Holly said there were 3 employee units (1 studio and 2 two
bedrooms) on the second floor; the third level contained the free-market unit.
Holly said the sustainable or green component of the building included Shaw
Construction and DRW. Holly said the selection of building materials come
together for a healthier lifestyle.
Horn reiterated the scoring criteria and the affordable housing units; the
transportation, bicycle storage, contributes to RFTA and car share; the green
building and exceeding the model energy code. Horn said the design quality
complimented both structures on Main Street (the bank and courthouse).
Public comments:
1. Chuck Caldwell, public, stated concern for the width of the sidewalks with
regards to the setbacks and the narrow access.
2. Toni Kronberg, public, noted an earlier application came forward to develop
the Visitors Center, which was overturned in November through a referendum and
questioned the public notice board being posted. Kronberg said this was not a good
site for affordable housing. Kronberg said that the tree on that comer was one of
Aspen's Landmarks and wanted to see it remain. Kronberg spoke about the
Zupancis property, Conner Cabins, Burlingame and this project.
3. Jayleene Park, public, said that she was president of US Bank and was
directly affected by this project since it was next door and has no personal financial
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION-Minutes-February 15~ 2005
interest. Park said that this project enhanced the downtown core and agreed with
Toni that it was Lowell's building.
Jack Johnson asked about the six month waiting period. Chris Bendon replied that
there was a delayed period when applying for a rezoning but there was not a six
month waiting period for land use reviews. Bendon stated notice was adequate and
the HPC approval was based upon massing and historical character of the project.
Johnson asked if the heights were within the code requirement. Bendon responded
that they were below the allowable 42 to 46 feet; the highest was on the comer at 40
feet for this project. Johnson asked if the affordable housing parking could be
waived. Bendon replied that could be waived and the applicant was offering
$15,000. per space toward the car share program.
Johnson asked how this project has substantively changed without the Visitor
Center component. Steven Holly replied the massing and exterior essentially have
not changed; just some minor window adjustments to the interior; the lower level
was previously commercial and now it was storage; the main level is just
commercial and the upper levels have not changed.
Steve Skadron asked why traffic generation was not commented on. Bendon replied
that this project was not big enough to generate traffic. Skadron asked what
materials were used on the building facing Galena and Main Street. Holly replied
primarily brick; on the Galena side there was also the contemporary component of
metal.
Dylan Johns asked if the employee units were for rent and were they in the general
housing pool. Holly said that was correct they were for rent through housing. Johns
reiterated that there were no variances.
Brandon Marion inquired about the ground floor being office and asked how that
would be regulated with the new ordinance. Bendon answered that relies on the use
and if that use is discontinued for a year or more then there was no ability to replace
that use but construction time does not count. Marion asked about the setback issue
from the side with respects to safety for parking. Bendon replied it was probably a
matter of pulling the curb stops out a little further and if it became a bigger problem
then it would have to be dealt with. Bendon stated on a site like this there was no
easy way to accommodate more parking; the site was not big enough to do any sub-
grade parking and the cormnercial parking spaces tend to be utilized by the tenants
and don't offer the public any more spaces. Marion asked the number of parking
space that would be required by the project. Bendon replied that there would be a
total of 7 including the affordable housing spaces. Bendon said the philosophy that
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSiON-Minutes-February 15~ 2005
he follows on parking is the closer to downtown the project is the less the need for
the automobile.
Ruth Kruger asked what structurally engineered wood was. Holly replied it was a
mixture of wood and it was compacted, which allows for less wood in a project.
Kruger asked where the Galena Loft parking was located. Bendon responded that
there was no parking with the way the Galena Lofts were developed.
The initial and final P&Z scorin
4 5 4 3
4 5 4 4
5 5 5 5
4 5 4 4
4 5 4 3
4 5 4 3
4.2 5.0 4.2 3.7
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass
Pass Pass
Subdivision
Bendon noted that there were no lot line adjustments; subdivision reviewed projects
to have the right amount of infrastructure, which this project has the right amount of
infrastructure. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision.
Residential Design Standards Waivers
Bendon said the secondary mass doesn't fit this mixed use so staff is supporting the
waiver. The covered porch was a waiver staff supported because that standard
applied to a single family residence and does not work well with residential units on
upper levels. Bendon noted the first story element again was not supported by staff
because this was not just residential use but a mixed use project.
Special Review
Bendon stated there was not an issue with the commercial parking being provided
through cash-in-lieu because that exchange would serve the general public through
capital facilities. Bendon said that the affordable housing parking being waived was
supported by staff because it fits with downtown and these units will have the
ability to apply for a residential parking pass.
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSiON-Minutes-February 15, 2005
No public comments.
The commission, staff and applicant discussed the parking alternatives including the
monies provided by the applicant. The commissioners agreed with the auto
disincentives regarding the location of the building.
Johnson agreed that the design review standards were inappropriate for this project.
Skadron agreed that it meets the standards and that the green elements were a plus.
Johns applauded the applicant because this was one of the only new developments
in the commercial core. Marion took issue with the parking decision placed on
P&Z. Speck appreciated the project and initially was concerned about the sidewalk
safety issue. Kruger applauded this project for not coming forward with maximum
build out, no variances on dimensions, and agreed the affordable housing belonged
in the commercial core.
MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to approve P&Z Resolution #08, series 2005,
recommending City Council approve the Affordable Housing Parking monies be
dedicated to the car share program and the period from time the certificate of
occupancy is issued up to a year remain for the same use; seconded by Dylan
Johns. Roll call vote: Marion, yes; Skadron, yes; Speck, yes; Johns, yes; Johnson,
yes; Kruger, yes. Motion carried, APPROVED 6-0.
PUBLIC HEAR1NG:
Lodge at Aspen Mountain (Revised design) Conceptual PUD
Joyce Allgaier stated that because of the timing the Lodge at Aspen Mountain
Revised Design Conceptual PUD would not be a public hearing tonight. Doug
Allen, public, stated that people had come in from out of town. Dylan Johns opened
the public hearing for the Lodge.
MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to continue the Lodge at Aspen Mountain to
March 22~d,· seconded by Dylan Johns. All in favor, APPROVED.
Meeting adjourned at 6:50 pm.
~/ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
6