The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutminutes.apz.20050505ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - May 05~ 2005 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2 GALENA AND MAIN BUILDING GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORING ..... 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - May 05~ 2005 Jack Johnson opened the special Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting in Council Chambers at 4:30 p.m. Commission Members Dylan Johns, Steve Skadron, Brian Speck and Jack Johnson were present. Jasmine Tygre, Ruth Kruger, Brandon Marion and John Rowland were excused. Staff in attendance were Chris Bendon, Community Development Director and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. PUBLIC HEARING: GALENA AND MAIN BUILDING GROWTH MANAGEMENT SCORING Jack Johnson opened the public hearing. Proof of notice was provided with a newspaper posting as well as the mailing and photo of the signs. Chris Bendon stated the public hearing was for a proposed building on Galena and Main Streets for Growth Management Scoring, GMQS Exemption for 3 affordable residences, Specia! Review for affordable housing parking requirements, Special Review commercial parking cash-in-lieu and Residential Design Standards Waivers and Subdivision. Bendon explained the scoring under the criteria provided. The criteria were 1. Revitalizing the permanent community; 2. Providing transportation alternatives; 3. Promoting environmentally sustainable development; and 4. Maintaining design quality, historic compatibility and community character. Bendon stated this was the final review with P&Z for the special review for the parking. Bendon suggested the secondary mass design standards be waived since it was for a garage or out building, which does not apply very well to commercial use. Staff recommended approval of the scoring and the resolution. Glenn Horn, planner for Millennium Plaza LLC, provided an introduction of the project and Kim Weil would address the design aspects. Horn included for the record the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan; City of Aspen Land Use Regulations as of the submission of this application (11/01/04); the Main and Galena application submitted into the record on November 1, 2004; the official Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes for the initial review on February 25, 2004; letter from Glenn Horn dated December 22, 2004. Horn stated the proposal was to expand the building at Main and Galena to a 3 story building with 3 affordable housing units on the second floor and 1 free 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - May 05~ 2005 market unit on the third floor. There will also be an addition of commercial space at the street level; the project is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan with respect to infill development and revitalizing the community because it is a 60/40 plus project with 75% of the bedrooms in the affordable housing category. Hom said the project complies with the CC zone. Kim Weil, Poss and Associates, displayed drawings depicting the street scene of the parcel with the Courthouse and US Bank; the site plan showed Main Street and Galena Street with the existing building including the existing parking spaces off of the alley. Weil said the improvements to the site include the micro- neighborhood by adding a bike rack in front of the building and ADA access through a lift. HPC approved this project on several occasions with the historic street alignment. Weil provided the lower level plan, which opens up to the garden; there will be 3 storage units for the affordable housing units and a general storage space available for oversized items such as bikes and the mechanical space; all floors are fully serviced by the elevator. Weil stated the main level included existing and new commercial along with elevator and stairs to the residential components. Weil also provided elevations for the building that HPC approved; the principal materials were brick and stone with metal detailing. The proposed property was fully ADA compliant and will exceed the city standards for energy compliance by 10% by using added insulation values, energy efficient appliances and equipment and recycled construction materials. Steve Skadron asked the off set from Main Street. Weii replied from Main Street proposed building was on the property line as was the existing building. Skadron said the project met the affordable housing 60/40 mitigation requirements but the square footage ratio was higher for the free market unit. Skadron asked if there was a reason the requirements stopped at the number of bedrooms for mitigation. Bendon replied a that either units or bedrooms were counted and the critical mass was not stated and that was how the policies were determined; it was typical in a mixed use project for the free-market units to be larger than the affordable units. Jack Johnson asked to which property the sunken property belonged. Weil answered it belonged to this property and the bank owns a small strip on the east side. Bendon named the referenced exhibits as 12B the street scene; #18 floodplain; the lowest level plan; the main level; the second level above Main; the top level; and the number 3 elevation. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - May 05~ 2005 Horn spoke of the criteria for scoring; the affordable housing units were category 2 and 3 of very high quality; the project offered a $I0,000.00 contribution to be directed by the downtown catalyst for downtown improvements; in addition of a $7,000.00 contribution to the Rec Center. Horn added the $5,000.00 contribution to RFTA; a $20,000.00 contribution to the rideshare program; a $2500.00 bear trash proof area; a $5,000.00 contribution to the Historical Society. Horn said the development was very green, which the project provided recycled construction materials; continuous thermal barrier in the building; mechanical equipment with the highest efficiency rate and appliances were energy star rated; and international dark sky lighting compliance. Horn reiterated that the location was important to the sustainability of the community. Public Comments: 1. David Ruhnau, public, said the elevator to all levels was a good thing and the only ADA issue was the physical constraints to get to the building on the Galena side. Ruhnau provided photos of the sidewalk with cars parked that showed the overhang over the sidewalk; he did not see how the ADA accessibility was possible from Galena. Chris Bendon responded that page 3 of the memo addressed this issue. Ruhnau stated that now was the time to deal with the ADA accessibility issue rather than later. 2. Bob Daniel, public, stated that he had been a tenant of the existing building for 12 years; he had nothing to benefit from this project and actually will loose office space. Daniel said as a participant in the building of affordable housing and a member of the Aspen Area Community Plan it was rare to have a project meet so many goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Daniel said this project was the best example of trying to achieve the balances that were so important for the Aspen Area Community Plan. Daniel said the project was infill and did not increase or promote growth outside the urban growth boundary; transportation had a minimal need because of the proximity of the project to the commercial core. Daniel encouraged P&Z to endorse the recommendations from staff to approve this project. 3. Toni Kronberg, public, stated she had 3 points or issues. Kronberg said the referendum question that was on the November ballot had the final say in determining if this project should go forward; the application was not for a visitor center but an application that included a visitor center and according to state statutes the referendum states that an ordinance may not be reenacted within 6 months after denied. Kronberg said that being said we are past the 6 months timeframe but according to the city of aspen municipal code, which supersedes 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - May 05~ 2005 state statutes because we are a home role charter, the same application or same plans for approval could not be submitted for a period of 1 year from the date of the most recent ruling or denial. Kronberg said a revised application may be submitted but it does have to be substantially different; she said through testimony it was stated that this is essentially the same application. Kronberg said that we were not following the criteria that were set in the land use code for the resubmitted previously denied application. Bendon responded that the section that Toni quoted was the rezoning section; the visitor center question asked the voter's if the property should be rezoned with PUD Overlay. Bendon stated the project being reviewed tonight did not request rezoning so that limitation does not apply subsequently that whole section that Toni quoted does not apply. Gideon Kaufman explained the COWOP process including the mitigation and the Growth Management Quota System. Kronberg requested the hearing being tabled. Kronberg asked for a definition for preserving community character. Bendon answered it was explained from the land use code in Exhibit C in the memo. Bendon said the property was not historic land marked and they do not regulate historic open space. Kronberg cited the HPC memo and minutes. Bendon responded that HPC was a separate hearing from P&Z. Kronberg wanted to enter into the record the photograph in Council Chambers. Johnson replied that the guidelines and representations were from HPC and not Planning & Zoning. Kronberg stated the trees on the comer were part of the historic and community character and one of the main entrances to Aspen. Weil said the existing building on this project was built in 1972 so it was 33 years old. Kronberg disputed the age of that building. P&Z scored the project as follows for initial and final without any questions: Main/Galena Initial scoring May 5, 2005 Criteria Final Scoring Criteria Commissioner 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3.8 4.8 4.0 3.8 4.0 Jack Johnson 5 4 4 Dylan Johns 5 4 4 Steve Skadron 5 4 3 Brian Speck 4 4 4 Average Score 4.8 4.0 3.8 Threshold Minimum 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Pass/Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Scoring Categories 1 - Revitalizing the Permanent Community 2 - Providing Transportation Alternatives 3 - Promoting Environmentally Sustainable Development 4 - Maintaining Design Quality, historic compatibility and community character 5 ASPEN PL/kNNI~G & ZONING COMMISSION - Minutes - May 05, 2005 Johns stated the parking was straight forward with no other options £or this site with the proposed mitigation to Roaring Fork Vehicles. Skadron asked how thc cash in lieu £or parking was determined. Bendon replied it was in the land use code. Johnson asked how many parking spaces were to be provided for this project. Bendon replied it was in the memo on page 6; 7 spaces and $125,000.00 total £or the cash in lieu. Motion: Steve Skadron moved to approve Resolution #17, series of 2005; seconded by Dylan dohns. Roll call vote: Speck, yes; dohns, yes; Skadron, yes; dohnson, yes; Approved 4-0. 5:45 p.m. adjournment. Lothian, Deputy City-Clerk 6