HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19950718
AGE N D A
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
July 18, 1995, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
I. COMMENTS
commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II . MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Vickery Code Amendment, Mary Lackner (Table to
August 8)
B. Marolt Housing PUD Amendment, Leslie Lamont
C. Independence Place SPA Designation & Conceptual SPA
Plan, Leslie Lamont (continued from May 16)
IV. WORK SESSION
A. AH/RO Discussion, Leslie Lamont
V. ADJOURN
A G E N D A
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
July 18, 1995, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public .
MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Vickery Code Amendment, Mary Lackner (Table to
August 8)
B. Marolt Housing PUD Amendment, Leslie Lamont
C. Independence Place SPA Designation & Conceptual SPA
Plan, Leslie Lamont (continued from May 16)
IV. WORK SESSION
A. AH/RO Discussion, Leslie Lamont
V. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: July 18, 1995
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Special Meeting - August 1, 4:00 PM
AH/RO Discussion with County P&Z (LL/SK)
Regular Meeting - August 8
Water Place Work Session (ML)
Goldsbury Conditional Use Review for ADU (LL)
King Louise Apartments Change in Use (LL)
616 W. Hopkins Conditional Use Review for ADU (ML)
Regular Meeting - August 22
Work Session - August 31, 5:00 PM
Council work session with Planning - AACP Agenda & Planning Work
Plan
a.nex
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Vickery Code Amendment - Historic Lot Split
DATE: July 18, 1995
Staff did not receive requested information on this code amendment
prior to the date needed to review it for the P&Z packet. since
this item was previously noticed as a public hearing for July 18th,
the Planning Commission needs to table this request until August
8th.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
July 18, 1995
Marolt Housing Substantial PUD Amendment - Public Hearing
SUMMARY: The applicants, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
(APCHA), request to amend the PUD development plan for the Marolt
Ranch Housing. The applicants propose to reconfigure the current
parking area to accommodate an additional 70 spaces.
Please find the applicant's proposal attached, Exhibit A.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment.
APPLICANT: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, represented by
Bruce Nethery
LOCATION: Marolt Ranch Housing, Lot 2, Aspen, Colorado
ZONING: Public
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicants propose to reconfigure the
existing parking area for residents to add 70 more on -site.
Staff has interpreted the addition of residential parking on this
site as a substantial amendment to the final PUD development plan.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please find referral comments attached, Exhibit
B.
BACKGROUND: The Marolt Ranch affordable housing development was
approved as a Planned Unit Development. The project was approved
in April of 1990. The project included 100 dormitory style
dwelling units and a cafeteria building with laundry and music
practice facilities. A 50 space parking lot was approved that was
to also be available for open space users and the historic
barn/museum.
During approval, visual impacts, the amount of parking, and
pedestrian circulation through the project were heavily discussed.
The access road and at what point the road enters the Marolt
property was hotly debated. In order to minimize the visual impact
to the hill side at the back of the Marolt property and the open
space itself, the present location of the entrance off of Castle
Creek Road was selected as well as the location of the buildings
to the rear of the parcel.
However, the need to park overflow cars on a daily basis on the
access road has not been alleviated. Therefore, APCHA proposes to
reconfigure the parking area to provide for an additional 50 spaces
and 20 other spaces for storage. Management believes, that while
auto disincentives and public transit are working, one space per
dwelling unit will remove the visual impact of automobiles parked
on the access road and provide greater parking control in a highly
transient housing complex.
The applicant proposes to reduce the central/circular landscape
element in the parking area and provide additional head -in parking
along the immediate entrance to the parking area in front of the
cafeteria and adjacent residential building. Please refer to the
attached site plan for a detailed drawing of the proposal.
However, the Engineering Department has recently recommended an
alternative configuration that shifts the parking onto the berm
side of the entrance thus reducing visual impacts at the entrance
and lighting impacts to residential units in the front. A revised
plan will be submitted at the meeting for your review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the parking reconfiguration finding
that the auto disincentives that were proposed during the 1990
approval do not go far enough to negate the need for a minimum of
one parking space per dwelling unit. Staff also finds that the
visual impacts upon the Marolt open space, due to constant overflow
parking on the access road, will be significantly reduced.with the
proposed amendment to the parking plan.
Staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
1. The access road shall be signed to prevent any overflow parking
along the road. Signage shall indicate that violators will be
towed.
2. A landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to the
issuance of any building permits which shall include earth moving
permits.
3. Additional lighting shall be low scale and downcast.
4. A grass-crete product shall be used on those spaces that are
intended for "storage" of vehicles during the winter.
5. Auto -disincentive programs shall continue to be pursued and
used to discourage regular auto use. APCHA shall work closely with
the Aspen Transportation Department to encourage and provide
transportation alternatives.
6. An amended PUD site plan and landscape plan shall be recorded
within 180 days of final approval or the approval may become void.
3
The amount of on -site parking was established by special review.
The underlying premises for the number of on -site parking spaces
was public transportation and auto disincentives. The site is on
an existing RFTA route and a lighted pedestrian connection was
provided between the bus stop and the housing. In addition, RFTA
has extended the evening hours of the route for residents returning
home late at night. RFTA also runs a bus service for music
students residing at Marolt, attending the music school, and
performing in town.
Disincentive aspects included reduced on -site parking and increased
costs for a parking permit.
In 1990, the applicants and the City also envisioned car storage
at the County Landfill and at the MAA campus. Staff estimated that
only about 60 cars would be used by winter and summer residents.
The parking area was also intended to be shared with museum
visitors and park users. At the time, it was anticipated that
special events could cause overflow parking of 60+ autos on the
access road.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Pursuant to Section 24-7-907 a substantial amendment to a final PUD
development plan must be reviewed pursuant to the terms and
procedures of the final development plan provided that the proposed
change is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final
development plan. Final development plan review requires review
by the Commission and Council with a public hearing at the
Commission meeting.
I. PUD Amendment -
A. Parking Area Reconfiguration - APCHA proposes to provide an
additional 50 parking spaces on -site with another 20 spaces to be
used as "storage spaces" for winter residents.
Primarily in the winter, 50-70 automobiles regularly park on the
access road as the parking lot becomes full. The proposed off -
site parking storage was never realized. Security reasons and the
requirement that storage was very long-term deterred residents from
using the off -site storage at the Landfill and the MAA campus.
Although management has found it very difficult to enforce a policy
of not renting to residents that own a car, they have attempted to
reduce the use of private autos. For several winters, a rent
reduction for those individuals with automobiles that allowed their
automobiles to be "plowed -in" in the winter. This enables greater
parking on -site than was planned.
E
Prior to recordation, the site plan and landscape plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments.
7. All representations made in the application and by the
applicant during the public hearing shall be adhered to unless
amended.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to recommend to City Council approval of the substantial
amendment to the Marolt Ranch Housing final PUD Development Plan
with the conditions as outlined in Planning Office memo dated July
18, 1995."
EXHIBITS:
A. Application
B. Referral Comments
C. Site Plan
4
EXHIBIT B
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department 0-1- .
Date: July 10, 1995
Re: Marolt Ranch Housing PUD and Final Plat Amendment
(Lot 2, Marolt Ranch Subdivision)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Additional Parking Spaces - The Engineering Department supports the request for additional
parking spaces. Incentives for not parking on site and providing off -site parking spaces have both
been tried, and both with small success. In discussing the application with the applicant, it appears
that the application can be slightly amended to provide 30 additional year round spaces and 40
additional winter spaces, 20 of which would be for storage only. The access road would then be
signed for no parking on both sides of the road.
2. Site Design - Based on the site visit, it appears that it would be preferable to set 20 spaces into
the berm on the north side of the access road instead of in front of the buildings on the south side of
the road. This would permit the continued existing and appealing landscaping and site design in
lieu of the proposed parking spaces in front of the buildings. In addition, the parking spaces could
be constructed with a new "grass-crete" product which would allow for the appearances of lawn or
uncut grass +zing the summer while providing structural support for parking during the winter.
3. Lighting - The applicant proposes to add three lights for nighttime pedestrian use. The lights
would be low scale and downcast.
4. Drainage - The current site drainage appears to function excellently. There is an adjacent area
called the hang glider parking lot which is adjacent to the access road which has a major drainage
problem. The area should be surfaced with road base and provided with drainage to prevent the
ponding conditions that exist now. But this problem is outside of the scope of this application.
cc: Cris Caruso
Bruce Nethery, Housing Authority
M95.158
MEMORANDUM
TO: Leslie Lamont
FROM: Randy L. Ready 6P
Transportation and Parking Director
DATE: July 12, 1995
RE: Marolt Ranch Housing PUD--Referral Comments
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above -referenced application. My comments are
as follows:
1. I support the proposal to provide up to 50 additional spaces for the Marolt Ranch
Housing complex. A total of 100 spaces would bring the number up to a reasonable
standard of 1 space per unit. Construction of these additional spaces should not conflict
with the goal of Marolt Ranch being an "auto disincentive project" since the area is now
served with Castle/Maroon route buses three times each hour until after 2 a.m. Although
most residents do not need to use their cars on a daily basis, vehicle storage needs must
still be accommodated.
2. This proposal conforms with the goals of the Aspen Transportation Implementation Plan
by moving vehicles to off-street storage spaces and reducing vehicular impacts on the
access roads. However, in order for this proposal to conform with the goal of limiting
personal auto use, I would recommend that APCHA staff continue to discourage
prospective tenants from bringing vehicles and continue to work closely with the Aspen
Transportation Department and RFTA to proactively encourage and provide information
about transportation alternatives. In the near future, Marolt Ranch may be an ideal site
to try such innovative alternatives as "car co-ops" or some form of demand -responsive
transit service.
3. If the 50 additional spaces are approved, I would recommend that no parking be allowed
on the access road. Otherwise, the goals of this proposal as described in the
development plan cannot be achieved and there would be virtually no auto disincentive
if parking were to be available for 170+ cars associated with the 100 unit complex.
4. I have questions about whether the off -site storage for 190 cars referenced in the
application was actually a condition of approval, and if so, why the off -site storage was
never provided.
5. I question the long-term practicality and desirability of the 20 or so "seasonal storage
spaces" in addition to the 50 proposed additional spaces. The gravel surface for the
'J
I
storage spaces would be unattractive and dusty in the summertime. Resident access to
vehicles stored there in the winter could be very problematic depending upon snow
accumulation, APCHA staff and equipment availability, and the uncertainties associated
with being "blocked in" by another row of parked cars.
6. An alternative site plan creating a one-way circle with' a 12 foot drive aisle width and
with angle parking on both sides should be evaluated to compare feasibility, cost-
effectiveness and impacted area.
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
DATE: July 18, 1995
RE: Continued Public Hearing - Independence Place
SUMMARY: Staff recommends a continued public hearing to September
19, 1995. Staff continues to believe that this project has merit,
and is working with the applicant to prepare a formal amendment to
the SPA application has not been submitted for review.
Although further review of the conceptual SPA application is not
ready to go forward at this point, staff would like to review the
latest proposal with the Commission. Many changes have occurred
since the Commission saw the proposal almost two years ago.
Please refer to letter of 31 May (attached) from the applicants.
PROPOSAL: Rather than go through an entire review of what the
project was and how it has changed, the following is a summary of
what is currently proposed. (Please note many aspects of this
project continue to change as the owners discuss the project with
staff and Council.)
1. Kraut property is no longer being considered as an interim site
for City Market.
2. The Buckhorn Lodge parcel is no longer part of the proposal.
3. The new size of the property, minus the public right of way,
is approximately 47,000 sq. ft.
4. The new proposed floor area for the project is 1.35:1. The
additional .35 represents on -site affordable housing only.
5. The conceptual size for City Market is:
above grade net leasable 2,500 square feet
below grade new leasable 22,450 square feet
total gross 26,000 square feet
6. The parking garage is proposed for 228 cars
- 43 spaces required for AH and free market residential
- 29 replacement spaces for existing City Market lot
- 156 for general commercial use
The Transportation Implementation Committee continues to
recommend an East End parking facility as an important element
of the overall transportation plan for the City. Council has
consistently supported an underground facility to remove
spaces from above grade on a 1 for 1 basis.
7. The owners of the Bell Mountain Lodge propose to convert the
40 lodge rooms (includes recent GMP allocation) to 7-10 free market
units.
8. The owners and the City continue to negotiate a public/private
partnership which would include:
- private sector development pays for infrastructure costs
that would be associated with the upgrade to City Market space
and Bell Mt. Lodge space; City pays for general infrastructure
upgrades that are needed in the area; and City and owners
split planning application expenses. (Although the owners have
prepared sharing application expenses the City may wish the
owners to bear all costs of application.)
9. Expanded commercial square footage for NC uses at developer
subsidized rents.
10. Cooper Street would be closed creating a pedestrian courtyard
space.
11. The Specially Planned Area planning review process will be
utilized to facilitate flexible site planning.
12. Employee mitigation will continue to be provided on -site at
.60% of the employees generated for the new net leasable square
footage that is developed.
EXHIBITS:
A. May 31, 1995, Owner's Letter
Pa
Stan Clausen
Community Development Director
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611 May 31, 1995
Dear Stan:
This letter is in response to your request that we submit a written update of our
February proposal regarding the East End parking and retail facility, Independence
Place.
We feel that much has been accomplished over the last 2 years in our discussions with
the City. The City has worked hard, along with us, to arrive at a plan that addresses the
goals and spirit of the Aspen Area Community Plan, AACP, by developing a
public/private partnership that gives private business owners incentives to invest in
Aspen's infastructure while minimizing or eliminating cost to the tax payer for desirable
improvements. Our revised proposal offers these benefits to the City as stated in the
AACP:
1. "Provides incentives for Locally Serving Businesses."
2. "Reduces the number of on -street parking spaces within the commercial core."
and it also:
1. Establishs a precident for a public/private partnership for the other "Entrance to
Aspen".
2. Makes the commercial core more pedestrian friendly.
3. Limits City funding to less than $100,000, and removes Bonding requirements.
The above benefits are our goals, in keeping with the vision of interdependence
between the local community and the tourism industry that the Mayor and the City
Council have worked so hard to attain through the AACP and its successful
implementation.
Our proposal addresses these goals as follows:
"Provides incentives for locally serving businesses". We will voluntarily provide Aspen
Neighborhood Commercial retail space at El Jebel prices. The rents that we charge
will be the commensurate with downvalley rates. This should provide a safe haven for
local businesses that have been forced out of business (Sabbitini's,Kid's Bazaar,etc.)
or moved down valley based on the current local landlord philosophy of holding out for
long-term leases with chainstores and doubling rents at every opportunity. The city
needs new commercial space that is price competitive and more locally serving
otherwise Aspen will become the Cherry Creek Mall of the Western Slope with nothing
but Chainstores and outrageous prices that are caused by the supply/demand ratio
that exists in todays Aspen commercial real estate market.
"Reduce the number of on -street parking spaces within the commercial core". We have
agreed to build an undergroung parking structure for 228 cars and the City can attain a
"zero automobile impact" by eliminating one surface space for each underground
space if it sees fit to do so.The City may choose to have more underground parking
spaces if it wants to pay such additional expense. We are willing to drop our request
that the City put up $1,250,000, but the project cannot continue without the partnership
originally proposed by the City.
"Establish a precident for a public/private partnership for the other "entrance to Aspen".
With this project the City can demonstrate that it can successfully implement a
public/private partnership similar to what it is trying to do with the Cozy Point project on
the west entrance to Aspen. There are many similarities between the City's planning
efforts of the west entrance to Aspen and the planning efforts for the east entrance to
Aspen. However, most of the efforts on the east entrance have already taken place.
The size has been determined. The uses have been determined. Construction, utility,
and maintenance cost sharing has been determined. These issues have yet to be
determined for the west entrance. In both cases the design of the project is not
complete, and we are offering to allow the City to design this project just as they are
going to do on the west entrance.
"Make the commercial core more pedestrian friendly". This project would eliminate
traffic on Cooper Street for one block and could open the way to make all of Cooper
Street from Original to Galena a pedestrian mall. Cars would be parked underground
and out of sight. Drivers would be funnelled off of Original Street and Rt. 82 directly
into the parking garage without the necessity to circle block after block to find a space
close to their final destination.
"Limited city funding and no Bonding requirements". We propose that the city fund their
share of the partnership through "sweat equity" by taking over the project at this point
and design the above grade "look of the project" to suit their desires and to qualify for
GMQS approval. The City will then take it through GMQS for approval and give it back
to us for finalizing architectural drawings, cost analysis, and construction of the project.
The amount of time that it takes the City staff to do this will be accrued at the City's
normal billing rates toward an ownership percentage in the parking garage. To the
extent that the City has to fund monies that exceed the amount they currently owe to
the partnership, we will pay our 50% share.
We believe that much has been accomplished. In January,1993, the City proposed,
and the private property owners agreed, to a public/private partnership. Each party has
paid their respective 50% share of some third party expenses, and the city has some
catching up to do. We feel that our "sweat equity" offer is the most painless way for the
City to continue with this partnership and move forward toward the attainment of the
Aspen Area Community Plan's objectives for this east end facility. We have agreed to
the City's vision of the size (FAR) of the project, the uses within the project,and how to
split the cost of utilities,mall, etc. In essence, all of the major issues have been agreed
upon. The City understands we would not have started this effort if it had been
originally proposed as a private project.
Hopefully, the benefits of this project, as outlined above, along with the perpetual
ownership percentage of parking spaces and their revenues through effort rather than
funding, meets with the goals and objectives of the City of Aspen. Please let us know
how you would like to proceed.
Sincerely yours,
Independance Place by:
Bell Mountain Lodge
City Market
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Cindy Houben, Director of Long Range Planning
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
DATE: July 18,1995
RE: Review of the proposed Affordable Housing Zone District
and Resident Occupied (R.O.)amendments to the land Use
Code
BACKGROUND: This memo supplements the June 20th memo regarding AH
and R.O. Typically we have discussed this subject jointly with the
County Planning and Zoning Commission in an effort to appropriately
implement the AACP. However, because the AH and RO subjects have
taken so long to route back to the P and Z level, you have requested
a meeting to refresh your memories and become familiar with the
revisions recommended by the BOCC/CC. A joint meeting with the
County P and Z is scheduled for August 1. No action is required by
the P and Z at today's meeting.
The GMQS revisions approved in January triggered the need to revise
other related sections of the City and County Land Use Codes
including the Affordable Housing Zone District.
Briefly, the logic behind the need to revise the AH regulations was
a result of the dramatic amendments to the GMQS allocation and
review process which allows less free market residential
development and more Affordable Housing development. The AACP
drove the GMQS amendments which reflect the goals to house 60% of
the work force in the metro area, to restore the local community
by providing housing levels close to what was present in 1987.
Given these revisions the AH zone district becomes the primary
avenue for residential development in the metro area. Both the City
and the County are committed to coordinating these districts in an
effort to achieve the goals of the jointly approved AACP and to
ensure that all elements of development (such as transportation) are
considered when reviewing AH projects.
You will recall that we have worked closely with the Housing
Authority to develop the revisions to the AH zone district. The
Housing Authority has provided invaluable information regarding
issues such as what percentage of affordable housing Vs. free
market housing yields a successful project for both the Community
and the developer. We also spent many meetings discussing the
FAR's,minimum lot sizes,density and minimum standards to reflect
the goals of the AACP.
In conjunction with these discussions we developed the R.O. program
to allow residents who do not otherwise fit into the affordable
Housing guidelines to purchase a home and remain in the community.
The specifics of this broader concept of affordable housing were
debated at the elected official level and their recommendations are
included on page 7 of the June 20th memo. The concept of category
5 was also debated . In light of the AH recommendations the Housing
Authority no longer recommends approval of category 5 deed
restrictions.
SUMMARY
All of the revisions noted above have predictably created new spin-
off issues for us to consider when adopting revisions to AH.
The following summary highlights the proposed AH revisions and
spin-off issues we must consider. The detailed review of each issue
is in the June 2 0th memorandum (please bring this to the meeting) . At
today's meeting we will mainly focus on City issues and attempt to
familiarize you with the issues in order to allow the majority of
the discussion to take place on August 1st with the County P and
Z.
The following charts will be brought to the meeting in order to
more fully compare the existing and proposed changes to the AH zone
district:
1. Current FAR Sliding Scale;
2. Proposed new method of calculating FAR;
SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO THE AH ZONE DISTRICTS DURING THE REVIEW
PROCESS
Existing Code: Currently the City AH zone district sets individual
house size by a sliding scale that is based on individual lot sizes
proposed within the development. Examples of existing projects
based on current AH regulations are attached.
Last review by the P and Z: During the review process we were only
considering minor amendments to the current sliding scale approach.
Concerns were raised that that approach favored single family
structures and penalized multifamily structures. We discussed
density and FAR issues, finally passing the revisions forward to
the BOCC and Council with minor changes.
Current recommendations by BOCC/CC: As a result of the CC/BOCC
review the recommendation on FAR/Density issues is to utilize the
PUD concept in conjunction with a modified sliding scale. This
approach allows FAR to be calculated and divided based on the
entire parcel rather than calculated for each proposed individual
lot. This allows a site a maximum amount of FAR of which 85%
development is allowed by right and 100% development of FAR is
allowed by Special Review. This approach solves the problem of
favoring multi family(attached) units vs. single family units.
The proposal incorporates the use of the PUD (thus the AH/PUD) . The
proposal allows a maximum house size of 5770 square feet which is
what was initially proposed by the joint P and Z.
Additional issues to consider:(for a complete analysis of each
issue see the june 20th memorandum)
1. TDR'S: The possibility of developing an AH project and
transferring a portion of the units to a non-contiguous site has
been brought up for discussion during the review process. There are
numerous pros and Cons which are outlined in the June 20th memo.
We would like to review these in detail with both p and z Is present
in order to make a recommendation to the CC/BOCC.
2. Occupancy by developers choice: The current system allows a
developer to place his/her choice of occupant in the units he/she
develops. In this case the occupant must meet income and asset
limitations but is not required to meet length of residency
requirements within the valley. The P and Z Is must recommend to the
CC/BOCC whether this is still appropriate in light of GMQS and AH
revisions.
3. Transfer of units from the Rural and Remote Zone districts of
the County to the Metro area: In 1994 the county adopted a Rural
and remote zone district (R/R ) with the intent of keeping the remote
and rural character of the back side of aspen Mtn. in the little.
annie area. An element of that zone district allows the transfer
of development rights (TDR) from the R/R district to the metro area.
Even though this could be perceived entirely as a County issue it
could effect buildout and development of the metro area. The
primary questions involve whether or not the City and the County.
will accept the use of the R/R TDR's in the metro area without a
deduction from the annual GMQS allocation or whether a GMQS
allocation is necessary(see discussion beginning on page 12 of the
June 20th memo). In addition the County is in the process of
expanding the R/R zone district and needs direction from the
Commissions regarding whether you are willing to allow additional
potential TDR' s to be developed in the metro area and again whether
or not a GMQS allocation is necessary.
3
X 15IT
3 Examples of Project Density on Recent AH Projects
i
:)perty Lot Units Bedrooms Sq. Ft. FAR
Area
E
West Hopkins 12,000 11 21 11,000 91.7%
Three buildings surrounding a small courtyard.
Setback variances to move building closer to street and alley
and increase interior courtyard
Best way to see this is wityh a site visit
Sq Ft Lot
Per BR
571
East Hopkins 91000 4 12 8, 526 94.7%
One building, a fourplex, similar to Elk Run Fourplex
Small (postage stamp) yards
See Model or Site Visit
Juan Street 12,000 6 17 91043 75.41/16
Four structures, two detached units and two duplex stuctures
This is really a multi —family development with one and two units structures
it's density is lower than most MF projects, but higher than most
single family or duplex projects.
Site visit or model is the best way to see this.
raut 15,000 27 27 16, 500 110.0%
This downtown core project is at maximum desity, but consistent with
neighboring structures.
Site model is best way to see this
750
706
556 ;_
Cohousing 231585 21 39 24,561 104.1 % 605
This development is somewhat similar to Juan Street or Willimas Woods -
clusters of small buildings around open space. The density is higher than the other
similar projects, but a site visit should demonstate that the approach works.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
Meeting was called to order by Chairperson Sara Garton. She
requested roll call.
Present at the meeting were: Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Sara
Garton, Tim Mooney, Steve Buettow, and Robert Blaich. Excused was
Marta Chaikovska.
There were none.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jake Vickery stated, I was here last time and it's all relative to
the review that I got for these ADU's prior to that. What I would
like to do is go over some things with you, and ask you to see if
you would reconsider those conditions of that approval, based on
some information that I got from the City Attorney.
Vickery continued saying, at the end of my review, there are a
couple of comments about determining who has final word regarding
parking, relative to P&Z versus HPC. There were some other issues
about the fact that the code specifically states that there shall
not be a parking space required for a studio or one -bedroom.
Garton stated, first of all, regarding whether this is appropriate
to take during public comments, because it is an agenda item.
Vickery stated, they didn't put me on the agenda?
Garton stated, right, because they didn't get the packet in time
for review so they could get it us.
Leslie Lamont of staff stated, when I first talked to John
Worcester, John Worcester said it had to be reconsidered at a
public hearing. We would have never made the noticing for this,
we didn't have enough time.
Garton stated, Jake was trying to get his "two cents" worth during
public comments.
Vickery stated, actually, it's just a request, if you would be
willing to look at this, and when do you want to look at this.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
Garton stated, my impression was the commissioners were willing to
look at it once we got a ruling from staff about clearing up some
things about the parking. If HPC was in disagreement with the
commissioners regarding the requirement for parking, which the
commissioners can rule on with ADUs, we wanted an opinion from the
attorney as to who had priority rule, I believe.
Lamont stated, there are two opinions from the attorney that we
needed. Whether you could, today, review a project that you gave
an approval on previously, if that approval was part of a public
hearing. My initial discussion with John Worcester was that you
could not, so, that is why this is not on your agenda. However,
Mary has had further discussions with John Worcester and she can
fill you in.
STAFF COMMENTS
Mary Lackner of staff stated, Jake wants his ADUs reconsidered
regarding the parking. Staff had asked, and you "guys" had added
to the conditions of approval that a parking space be provided for
each of his ADUs. In order to reconsider an application, the
- applicant comes back to the next regular meeting, which was on the
llth, and Jake had wanted to ask if you would reconsider that
condition on his application. I guess, at this time, he wants that
answer. If you do want to reconsider it, we can either put it on
tonight's meeting at the end of the agenda, or put it on the next
meeting. Since it was approved at a public hearing, you may
require it to be at another public hearing which we would publish
for or since there was no public comment and there were no public
people here for that meeting anyway, John has said it is up to P&Z
what you feel most comfortable with.
Garton stated, I also felt that the Commission wanted direction,
though, about who ruled ultimately on parking.
Lackner stated, what staff can do, is take the approval back to HPC
and say, due to conditional uses requests, P&Z has gone and asked
for an additional parking space to deal with conditional use; does
HPC strongly feel they have to waive this parking space. We would
go back to them and ask, but the word from John is that, P&Z has
the final say on that, but we can take it back and ask HPC if they
agree, or if they see it as a substantial change in their project.
Lamont stated, the Planning & Zoning Commission approves or denies
an accessory dwelling unit, and your condition is for an accessory
dwelling unit. HPC does not review ADUs, and parking goes with the
ADUs.
2
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
Lamont added, let me just tell you what your agenda is for tonight.
It was short and it got shorter. We are requesting you to table
the Marolt Housing Housing PUD Amendment, also.
Garton asked, how does the Commission feel?
Mooney stated, well, Jake is here, we have time, and everybody
seems to be prepared. It is no real significant change in your
design; in order to get through this parking loop -hole, you had
designed a one -bedroom, now you just want to call it a studio to
change whether or not you have to provide parking. Is that what
you are saying?
Vickery answered, well, that's basically it.
Lamont stated, if you want to put in on your agenda may I suggest
that you put it at the end of your public hearing, because we have
a representative who is on our agenda tonight.
Garton stated, I think what Tim was driving at, and I, as Chairman,
would say this, Jake, if you have something new to add to this or
if you just want to argue some more for eliminating that parking
space, I would say, no. I would want to have new information you
get from HPC or from staff.
Vickery stated, the only new information that I would bring up to
discuss is from John Worcester and what the rules are.
Garton stated, if it is new information, then, we'll hold this in
our decision about parking, and we can agree to hear it tonight.
Lackner stated, also, it is not new information.
Garton stated, it is not new information?
Lackner stated, the project is not changing, the applicant is
wanting reconsideration of the requirement of the parking space.
Vickery stated, when the lot was reviewed; there are two units, the
A unit and the B unit. The B unit was designed originally as a
one -bedroom unit and I offered to make it a studio. It turns out
that the parking requirement is for a two -bedroom unit.
Vickery continued, what the code says, and I can just read it, it
says, a parking space shall not be required for studio and one -
bedroom units and shall be required for two -bedroom units. So,
first thing is, clarification of you requiring a parking space for
a studio unit. The code explicitly says, that's not to be
3
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
required, although you can require it, if you make the finding a
fact, that the conditions are such that it is warranted. My point
was, there is no parking problem in the neighborhood, in fact, it' s
basically kind of a ghost town most of the time.
Garton stated, I think we will listen to this argument, then, at
the end of the public hearings, as there is time for it on the
agenda. It seems staff wants to work this out, too, exactly what
the code says, on parking for ADUs, so we might as well get it
cleared tonight. I better make a motion to that affect, though.
"r%T T n'AT
Blaich stated, I move to make a motion to table this to later in
the meeting, before the worksession. Mooney seconded, vote was
unanimous in favor to amend the agenda, motion carried.
Lamont stated, in our last meeting we talked about August 1st; we
have a 4:00 worksession with the County Planning & Zoning
Commission, and we talked about adjourning to Bob's house for our
celebration of the summer, and Bruce leaving., and everything like
that. I just wanted to confirm that.
Blaich asked, so, what time will we be there?
Lamont stated, it will probably be about 5:30 p.m., because their
regular meeting starts.
Blaich stated, my house is located at the corner of 4th and
Francis.
VICKERY CODE AMENDMENT
Garton opened the public hearing.
MOTION
Hunt stated, I move to continue the public hearing and table action
on the Vickery Code Amendment to August 8th. Blaich seconded,
voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried.
4
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
MAROLT HOUSING PUD ADMENDMENT
Garton opened the public hearing.
Lamont stated, we decided this afternoon that we were going to
request tabling the review of this application. We are trying to
work with them to try and come up with a more restrictive rental
policy that helps restrict cars more up front, so, the necessity
to increase the on -site parking is not as apparent. So, we met
with them this afternoon and we are going to continue working with
them finding outside storage space and seeing what else they could
come up with. This may not come back to you, but they did publicly
notice this, so I would like to keep ' it on the table, at least,
until we know for sure whether it needs to come back to you or not.
We should table it until October.
MOTION
Hunt stated, I move to continue the public hearing and table action
on the Marolt Housing PUD Amendment to 17 October, 1995. Mooney
seconded, voting commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion
carried.
Discussion of Motion
Hunt stated, I have a little discussion on this, I think you are
attacking that; my reaction to that plan, Leslie, was where is the
screen for the drive-in theatre, if this is the parking plan.
Stan Clauson stated, maybe I could provide just a little more
information on that. Basically, what we are trying to do is work
with them to see if we can come up with a management plan that
would involve greater enforcement, that would involve some
alternative storage locations for vehicles that are brought into
Aspen, and that would involve the managers that represent the
housing complex to potential tenants. If we can develop that
management plan, we may not need to do this expansion. Staff feels
that if we can avoid doing that expansion, it is a good thing, both
on Marolt open space and also to the message it sends. Of course,
if we do an experiment for a year based on enforcement and based
on trying to find alternative locations, and it proves after a year
of intensively working on it that it still needs that expansion,
then we will certainly be back asking for it. That's where it
stands, right now.
Hunt stated, this is sort of a little side issue. Have we
progressed any further along the lines of where are we going to put
an impound lot, where are we going to put a storage lot, and things
5
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
like that? At one time we were looking at the Brush Creek
Intersection area, where an intersect storage/impound type facility
would be located. Are we progressing anywhere, because we still
need an impound lot? Where are we going to put it, folks?
Someone should be thinking along these lines.
Clauson stated, if it certainly touches on the circumstance of this
particular project, I will have an answer for you, but it is
something we'll have to bring up.
Hunt stated, if we can sort of crank up the heat a little bit; the
problem is, how do we get this into any kind of an agenda, because
we don't have the Police Department, or anything like that, as an
applicant coming in saying, h.eh, we need an impound lot, here. We
sure do need an impound lot and a storage facility, and all that.
Garton asked, where is the impound lot since it has been moved from
the Rio Grand Property?
It was answered at random the facility is located in Basalt.
Mooney stated, the cost is passed onto the "guy's" car who is
towed.
INDEPENDENCE PLACE SPA DESIGNATION
& CONCEPTUAL SPA PLAN
(CONTINUED FROM MAY 16)
Garton opened the public hearing.
Lamont represented staff and stated, about every three months we
talk about opening and closing the public hearing for Independence
Place. If you recall, they came to you about a year and a half
ago, with a Conceptual SPA application, and it was a fully noticed
public hearing, and it was at that meeting that John Bennett
circulated a letter and asked everybody to hold off review on it.
He felt we were in a reactive mode versus a pro -active mode, and
he just wanted to step back from the formal review process and
through the series of community meetings, and kind of figure out
what are the issues and where people were on any one of the issues.
So, what we did, we tabled that public meeting until we had a
better understanding with City Council on what issues had been
resolved and what issues had not been resolved.
They are reluctant to amend their application and submit a new
application. In fact, one of the issues is, will the City enter
into public -private partnership and be a co -applicant with the
.....................:_
private property owners.
I
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
That is why we have been keeping the public hearing open: one,
because we do not have a new amended application; two, the
application that they submitted was also a Growth Management
application that was submitted for that year's growth management,
and they would like to preserve and maintain, still, that
application that they based upon that code. Our code has not
changed for Commercial Growth Management, it has only changed for
Residential and Lodge, so far.
Lamont stated, so, what I thought I would do, is take this
opportunity to just kind of bring you "guys" up to speed, as to
some of the changes in the project that have been discussed and
have them, primarily, verbally resolved. There is a tacit
understanding that some items can now be taken off the table as
people agree with what they are.
One of the big changes is Sy Kelly, who owns the Buckhorn Lodge.
Just as a refresher, we're talking about the property that City
Market owns, Bell Mountain Lodge, and the Buckhorn Lodge, and then
we were talking about closing that Cooper Street public right-of-
way for a pedestrian area. Sy Kelly's property, the Buckhorn
Lodge; he has withdrawn his participation in that. We are only
talking now about the City Market property, which is approximately
27,000 sq. ft., and the Bell Mountain Lodge property, which is
about 20,000 sq. ft., and we are still talking closure of Cooper
Street.
Lamont added, some of the other significant changes that have been
made, is, I believe, when you first saw this application, it was
talking about a three level parking garage, approaching 500 spaces;
we are now focusing in on a two level garage with spaces that would
replace the current on -site parking at City Market, provide
additional parking for the new net leasable that is proposed on the
site, and then, that roughly translates out to about 128 public
spaces.
Lamont stated, City Council and the private property owners have
gone back and forth on how you structure and management that
parking, and who gets what for parking. The idea is, that someone
entering the garage only goes through one gate, they don't go
through multiple gates depending upon who they are. I believe the
floor area that was included in the application that you saw
originally; there were some pretty strong conceptual elevations and
designs of buildings, and that floor area was approximately 1.75
to 1, total, on the property. That was for 54,000 sq. ft. of land.
Not only has floor area been reduced, but Sy Kelly's portion of the
land has been pulled out, so now we are talking approximately
47,000 sq. ft. of land. It's been reduced to a one-to-one floor
area ratio with a point 35 bonus for on -site employee housing.
0
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
Currently, the existing floor area ratios, except for Mr. Kelly,
are all one-to-one, right now, based upon underlying zoning. So,
there is an additional floor area ratio being proposed at point 35
for on -site affordable housing.
Lamont continued stating, the applicants have also approached the
City with the idea of converting the Bell Mountain Lodge to free
market townhomes, and they are proposing 7-10 free market townhomes
instead of with the growth management approval, they have 40 lodge
rooms that could be looked at today. So, they have approached the
Council with that. We have really been working with them to
preserve the first floor on the pedestrian mall as still commercial
space, so, it would not be like the Aspen Square when you walk
along Durant and there are private units there and it's not a great
people place. So, the idea would be that the townhomes will be
second and third floors and you would still have first floor of
commercial space where the Bell Mountain Lodge is today.
Some of the other changes that they are proposing and that they
really talked hard with with Council, is this idea of expansion of
neighborhood commercial uses and what it, really means, a
neighborhood commerical use, how do you insure that neighborhood
commercial space is provided, yet, if one of the ideas is, that the
increased commercial square footage is going to help build the
parking garage; we go back and forth with local serving commercial
space versus or conditional NC commercial space. The latest
proposal from the private property owners is that they would
provide neighborhood commercial space at El Jebel prices, El Jebel
rents, and my sense is, that they would not like to stick within
our straight permitted uses of NC, but would like to really provide
an area for local serving businesses or the businesses that have
been squeezed out of Aspen recently. They used Kid's Bazaar as an
example.
Lamont stated, the other issue that Council and private property
owners have really gone back and forth on, and I believe I have
included in this memorandum, now granted, there are no resolutions
and no ordiances from Council saying we hereby agree with this, is
the size of City Market. Your original application proposed a
significant expansion to City Market below grade. That was part
of the original application. That is still a part of the plan,
that we would have approximately 22,450 sq. ft. of net leasable
commercial space, City Market, below grade. Then, they would like
to have some net leasable space, above grade. This is City Market,
you would go in there, and they were talking about a bakery, or a
sandwich shop, or something like that, that would be part of City
Market. Contained within that would also be the escalators and the
stairways and the front entrance down to City Market below. But
then, if you were down in the parking lot, there would be a full
�u�
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
entryway into there.
JULY 18, 1995
So, these numbers that I say here on the f irst page, the conceptual
size of City Market, we're talking, at this point, a total gross
square footage of 26,000 sq. ft., 2,500 being above grade, 22,450
being below grade, and in my discussion with John Caldwell, about
15 to 20 percent of the gross is back storage area and things like
that. There's not a lot, even in this store currently, they don't
think that would change. There's not a lot of storage area in the
store; "stuff" comes in and its pretty regular and they put it
right on the shelves. This 26,000 sq. ft., for the low grade
22,450, is roughly at little bit less than the size of the store
in Carbondale. I believe the Carbondale store is 25,000 net
leasable in there.
Lamont stated, also, in our deliberations with Council, which have
been very sporatic, for a variety of different reasons; they wanted
to implement paid parking and see how paid parking did. Throughout
our whole parking plan, the Transportation Implementation Committee
continues to meet and to assess the Aspen Area Community Plan, the
recommendations, and how we are going with our parking plan. At
the end of the year, last year, they drafted and sent a resolution
to Council, reminding Council that an east end parking facility is
an intregal element in the overall City parking program, and that
they wanted to remind Council that it is an important element and
they should not forget it, they should continue to plan for an east
end facility and not drop it, thinking that paid parking is so
successful.
Lamont stated, so, that is kind of an update of where we have been
and where we have gone. I included a letter from Harry McNamara,
who is here today, which is our most recent letter that we received
from the applicants just kind of re -stating positions or offering
new ideas to problems and new solutions to things that Council and
private property owners have been going back and forth on. In
closing, I just really want to remind you, because I think this
gets really lost in newspaper articles and also in our reviews,
that this whole process started when we were reviewing the Kraut
property for the affordable housing. We were talking about an
underground parking garage and we did not want to enable Kraut to
proclude the Independence Place idea or an east end parking
facility or the ability to do a larger site plan and exercise on
that end of town; so, we invited the private property owners to
come in, each property owner paid us an amount of money based upon
the amount of land that they had, and we invited them to come in
and start talking with us and see what were the problems with going
forward with it. That's when we hired Jim Curtis and Jonathan Rose
to help us out because they had been working on the Kraut property.
Speaking of the Kraut property, one last point is, now the Kraut
6
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
property, which had originally been discussed as an interim site
for City Market during the construction of Independence Place, is
not on the table either, it is not an option.
Garton stated, so, that option is still being worked out too, where
City Market will go during the development.
Clauson stated, staff still believes that the project still has
merit and probably is more palatable given its smaller scale and
our intention would be to have a understanding established with
Council as to the manner to which the application will be revised
and brought forward. I believe that will be forthcoming.
Hunt stated, a couple of points. I think the reduced size of the
parking garage should be brought to the attention of the
Transportation Implementation Committee. As one person on that
committee, I'm a bit concerned how such a small facility will
integrate with the parking plan. Number two, and I don't know how
to state this exactly, except one of the rationales for keeping it
the same, let's see what is going to happen with Aspen/Snowmass
Transportation Plan, we don't have to make any decisions until we
find out about that. You haven't mentioned it, I have. The
Aspen/Snowmass Transportation Plan no longer exists, as far as I
know. Therefore, it is no longer a rationale to stall this
project. That was the mayor's words, basically, this rationale,
we shouldn't consider it until the Aspen/Snowmass Transportation
Plan is resolved. It is resolved, so, let's get off the dime here,
and get this warmed up again. My concern is that the community is
going to lose the potential east end parking by its "dilly-
dallying" around, and arguing about who is going to pay for it.
And, of course, there are people who don't want to make a decision,
who are not terribly positive about this project, who prefer taking
that approach.
Garton asked, are there any other comments from the commissioners
to staff about what has been presented tonight?
Mooney asked, what is the percentage of alternate shop space in
this development? Is it all just City Market "stuff", the aisles
that we normally see in City Market are still going to be aisles,
or are they going to cut it up into smaller shops and then lease
those shops out and diversify this mall, or this underground mall?
Lamont stated, I know what you are asking. Let's just take the
City Market property, it is 27,000 sq. ft. The allowable floor
area ratio is one-to-one. So, one could build a structure of
27,000 sq. ft., theoretically. Because they are going underground
with the majority of their store, that leaves a lot of additional
floor area on top that they had proposed to utilize in the past and
LANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
that has really not changed.. Remember, the project was essentially
broken up on the City Market property into two buildings; you had
the southwest building which was going to be above grade City
Market space, and then, a lot of the employee housing was on top
of that, up to three floors. Then, they had a lower, two-story
building next to Butcher Block. I believe, that is still a part
of the proposal, but the idea of using a specially planned area
overlay, would be to figure out what your total floor area is for
both properties and then be able to shift that around so the idea
was, you would have a lower building next to the Butcher Block,
which is also a low building, and then, you would have a higher
building at the other end of the parcel, and maybe, a two to three-
story building shifted around where the Bell Mountain Lodge is.
So, they are still planning additional square footage of commercial
space above and beyond just City Market on the property, based upon
the underlying zoning.
Mooney asked, what is the main reason for closing Cooper Street?
Lamont stated, again, the two buildings on the City Market property
that were to be separated was to take advantage of the stairways
that come down behind Jour De Fete and the Garden Shop. The idea
was that you could flow through into that pedestrian area, and
then, Cooper Street being closed, one end of of Cooper Street was
proposed and that really hasn't.changed at this point, will give
you an entrance to the parking garage. But then, the rest of that
would be a public mall space.
Blaich asked, and the withdrawal of the Buckhorn doesn't affect
that closing of the street?
Lamont stated, we haven't really doved back into it, but the idea
was, that it did not, at all. Sy has always been talking.with them
on, can I pull out at this point, and, maybe, I would like to go
back in at another point and time?
Lamont stated, one other thing I wanted to mention; several Council
members have been very emphatic about, that the new east end
parking facility will not increase the parking that we have
downtown. Rachel Richards has always said, for example, for every
public space we create in the east end facility, I want to remove
that from on -the -surface in our downtown area. What has been
talked about is continuation of the pedestrian mall all the way
down Cooper and connecting with the rest of the Cooper Street Mall,
for example.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
Garton stated, my concern is if granting more neighborhood
commercial, we are going to increase the parking needs, and I am
like Roger, I'm very concerned about the number of spaces, whether
that's even going to serve in a large, commercial facility.
Lamont answered, well, our state implementation plan, because of
our PM10, really prevents us from increasing traffic downtown. It
says that you can have additional growth downtown, but you must
augment the impacts of your increased traffic; better bus service,
things like that. And the idea that we would have on -site employee
housing for employees who work there, would also help us augment
traffic coming into town.
Garton stated, for me, that's a major burden for the applicant,
then. He really has to do some remarkable things to prove to me
that we augmented that kind of growth, because there is going to
be more traffic the way you have presented it to me.
Mooney stated, I have always felt that I really like the idea of
parking, and I think the employee housing that's under construction
now, I wanted that connected with as much parking underneath as we
could possibly put there. On the other hand, I can remember not
wanting to increase the commercial development just to have more
stores for the sake of having more stores; just for the sake of
having a mall at that end of Cooper Street. I really think that's
what I envision are the community's needs. So, if this is just a
share opportunity for City Market and the developers to build as
much commercial space as they can get into that end of town and
give us a hundred parking spaces that we are going to take off the
street, I don't see how that weighs out because the commercial
traf f is is the last thing that I' m in favor of developing. I don' t
know how we balance that out, but I definitely agree with Sara, if
we are going to break even on the parking that they have to build
in order to give them the opportunity to build more commercial
space there at one-to-one, I don' t think that' s a balanced equation
for the balanced kind of community thing that I see.
Lamont stated, so, let me understand your point. Your point is
that, maybe, similar to Roger's is that, a parking facility of only
220 that takes care of the commercial growth and the parking that
would be lost by the development on that site, with only 120
additional public spaces .... you would like to see more spaces?
Mooney stated, I would, but I don't even know how much more,
because the significance of the commercial that I understand that
they want to develop there, is far beyond what I think they could
ever put there, as far as parking. If we're saying, O.K.,, we'll
trade a hundred parking spaces for a mall that is 47,000 sq. ft.
and the shops are a variety of commercial shops, in addition to
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
City Market, I don't think that is really what I see as the
community's needs. If City Market needs to expand, and there's a
certain formula that they need to expand to accommodate the needs
of the community, I can see that that's necessary, and if they put
the parking in that they need for that expansion and then, they are
willing to create a parking situation there that gets cars off the
street, that's kind of a balance, for me. But to create a mall
with additional commercial space, just so we have another mall, and
so we have additional shops to give them a better return on their
investment of expanding their store. I don't get that.
Lamont stated, so, you don't agree with the recommendation of the
AACP, that we need to expand our neighborhood commercial square
footage?
Mooney stated, I can see that we could use more neighborhood
commercial square footage, but I'm very skeptical. To say that
they are willing. to regulate the prices to what is at El Jebel; E1
Jebel is going to be one of the biggest commercial growth areas in,
probably, a three county area. I don't think that's a caveat to
tranquility, to say that we are going to pace the rates at El
Jebel. El Jebel is going to be one of the highest impacted areas
in our Roaring Fork Valley because of Basalt' s Mart, they are going
to start limiting commercial growth, and Glenwood's already talking
about it, so the hub is going to be El Jebel and those rents, as
soon as they can raise them they are going to be raised. As soon
as those stores can become as "boutiquey" as possible, to catch the
overflow of Aspen and the overflow of Basalt, and the upf low of
Glenwood, the rates are going to go through the roof, then. It is
the most volatile thing to agree to something now, and say that
it's not going to be out of control five years from now; it is
really crazy because commercial growth is, I think, the engine
that's driving the character of the community away.
Hunt stated, there's a couple of points I need to make here. One
is, I tend to look at it from a transportation and parking point
of view for this facility, and that to me is one of the major
benefits to the community. In this balance of looking at parking,
not only do we look at the parking needs of the new City Market,
the parking needs of the Bell Mountain Lodge, the new parking needs
of whatever commercial use is there. But, we also need to look at
the parking needs, or what we could accommodate in a way, is the
intercept lot, especially in the summertime for what is coming over
Independence Pass. Right now, all traffic is going through town,
folks, guess what, it's here. This is, as far as I'm concerned,
on of the positive rationale for that facility, to get that traffic
as soon as possible, stationary, and get the people on foot or the
public transportation system to enjoy the town. So, that's my
thrust as far as the parking is concerned.
13
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
Hunt added, the rationale for the improvement of City Market, God
knows what the square footage of the El Jebel City Market is, it
must be 40,000 sq. f t . or something, it is immense. Lamont stated,
I thought it was 55,000 sq. ft. Hunt stated, we are looking at a
facility half that size. Unfortunately, right now, that is
certainly becoming an attractive facility, certainly, for people
who are going downvalley anyway, they are going to stop by City
Market down there, because, my gosh, the choices you have. Even
when I go down to Glenwood, on the way back, I'll stop by that City
Market because it is the best one around as* far as choices are
concerned. I would like to tend to reduce that f rom a choice point
of view if we could have the square footage here that could at
least give us the same degree of choices. Now, I don't think we
need 55,000 sq. ft. to do that, but we sure need more square
footage than we have right now in this facility. I don't know what
will happen as far as prices are concerned, the prices of food, the
prices of housing or prices of commercial space. For example, I
was in Clark's Market today and a two liter Diet Pepsi is $1.85.
It has been $1.49 in City Market here, I haven't looked at it
today,,I hope it is not up to $1.85. $1.39, I think it was, in El
Jebel the last time I looked at it; $1.22 at WalMart; $.99 in
California, and sometimes they ran a special at $.89. My God,
folks, why should a two liter Diet Pepsi cost us a dollar more than
California, it doesn't make sense. The point is, we're not going
to be able to control that, even with a major facility here, but
if we do have a nicer City Market facility, that does offer more
choices, at least we would look at the possibility of reducing some
of the traffic going downvalley. We certainly aren't going to
reduce it if we don't improve it, that we can tell.
Lamont stated, John Caldwell told me that they have a drop of 10-
15 percent in this store since the opening of the mall.
Hunt stated, those are very telling tales.
Garton.stated, well, Leslie, I think the Commission feels that City
Market has the right to re -develop. The merit, I'm sure that staff
has seen, is the idea of taking several properties and having it
come in under something unified and gaining some parking for this
City. I think there has also been some concern from some of the
Commissioners on how much parking will be gained. That's the only
kind of growth that's really been mentioned in the Aspen Community
Plan, that they want commercial growth to really be restricted.
I' m skeptical, too, I think that is the best way we can use, about
what is neighborhood commercial
Buettow stated, I'm also a little bit concerned about extending the
pedestrian mall three blocks down Cooper Street to connect up with
14
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
that City Market. It seems to me to be a pretty linear way to
really limit the transportation possibilities throughout the City.
Lamont stated, that is not part of the proposal. Part of the
proposal is only that block of Cooper Street.
Buettow stated, so, we're just talking about just that one block
there? Lamont stated, yes.
Vice -Chairperson Jasmine Tygre entered the meeting at this point
and time.
Blaich stated, I was, more or less, in favor of the proposal,
except for the size, you have made a lot of comments about the
scale and it seems that a lot of work has been done to reduce that.
I think the question of coherency is very important and what I fear
is that if this doesn't apply the way it is, there will be
independent developments and it will be more of the same kind of
problem. So, I like the idea of approaching this as a coherent
thing, I'm sorry one of the partners has dropped out because that
makes it less coherent. I guess my big question is, what is the
trade-off on the parking, and really, what are the number of cars
that are going to that facility now, are they all parking in the
lot (the answer to that is obviously, no, I can't park there, I
have to park many other places to get into that store) ? If we knew
what the impact was by moving those cars from wherever they are
,parking around town while they shop, or at times they are circling
the lot, looking for a place to park, which some people continue
to do, getting them underground, and getting the convenience of
underground, the obvious potential for beautification and synergy
in that whole area, I think is something that possibly answers some
of the questions. that Tim was raising. If we could get a better
"fix" on that, really get the implication from a traffic point -
of -view. How many cars are out there, in the community, where are
they parking? If there isn't any information that hasn't surfaced
on that or support that, I think it would help us in this
discussion.
Blaich stated, the other thing is, when we talked about the kinds
of tenants, I think that can be worked into whatever proposal we
would approve, if we were approving one, and specifically, limit
the kinds of tenants. When you were talking about the El Jebel
prices, I think that is a little bit of a flag, too, but I think
there are a number of people that would like to have businesses in
this community, or have had and can't have anymore, and if the
developers are willing to make less profit, it seems to me that
they have to keep their prices down to allow for that. I think
that this is something we should encourage, but I think we have to
be more specific. Look at the discussions we just had about the
NU
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
other shopping center, what kinds of tenants can go in there. I
think we have to be much clearer about that and it would have to
be built into the program so that two years, three years, down the
road we don't find that some of those people have come in, gone
out, and been replaced with inappropriate renters. So, I'm not as
negative as some people might be about this project. I think it
has come quite a ways from where it was, and it is positive, from -
my. point -of -view, and I would like to get more information. I
think this is one of your intentions, to bring it on the table and
update us. I think some of the things I'm hearing are more
positive than they were before. The traffic situation, if we can
get a better handle on that, where those cars are now, and how much
of that is going to go down there, but if it is only a trade-off
of x number of shops and you bring in that many cars, and you still
have a problem, then, we haven't really solved the long-term
problem.
Blaich continued saying, if we can, also, capture a number of those
cars coming into town over the Pass, that now have to find
someplace else to park. I would like to see some figures on these,
I've heard some statistics on how many cars come across the Pass
and into town, I don't know how many of those cars come in and
stick around for an hour or two hours, or a day, or whatever, or
whether they are passing through. I don't know what kind of
information exists, maybe, Roger has more information on that, but
I would like to see that statistically backed up a little bit.
Maybe we have the information, maybe we have looked at it before
and I have just forgotten, but I think that would help us make a
determination on this.
Garton asked for public comments.
Harry McNamara, one of the owners of the Bell Mountain Lodge,
stated, I have had two people call me and offer to come in and give
public testimony to either City Council or the P&Z, of the need
for additional neighborhood commercial. One was the manager of
Sabbatini's Sports, who has been laid off based on their rents
doubling or tripling because of the lack of other options in town.
They are closing that facility and this "guy" is out of a job now
and he has been trying to start a new business and dealing with the
landlords in town, he is getting $100 a sq. ft. figures versus $35
a sq. ft. down in El Jebel, or something of that nature. So, he
may start a business down there.
McNamara stated, I was approached by two other fellows who just
opened a new log furniture store, but they have a story to tell
about the two or three months of looking for commercial space in
town and getting sticked on by a lot of the landlords because they
wanted to sign up chain stores and not deal with locally owned
I
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
business. They want someone with. "deep pockets" that they could
go after if the store went out of business. But anyhow, Leslie
mentioned that this may be continued to September, or so, at
another meeting, and I don't know if it would be beneficial to have
them come before this group and tell you what their impressions
are. I make that offer.
Garton stated, Leslie, we are going to continue this, obviously.
This is a public hearing and we are going to just keep continuing,
or tabling, I guess, we call it now because we have opened.
Lamont stated, we continue to a date certain.
Garton stated, but we have had the public hearing now, we just
don't want to complete the public hearing.
Tygre stated, I guess I'm confused about this because it seems that
we just keep doing this. We've never actually had a formal review.
Lamont stated, yes, you have.
Tygre stated, we have?
Lamont stated, they submitted a full GMQS SPA application and it
was at that public hearing where you started the review of that
application when John Bennett, at that meeting, asked us to step
back from that process and hold off on any further traditional
review. That's when we had two community meetings over the summer,
about a year ago.
Tygre stated, well, we never actually took formal action on this.
Lamont stated, we continued the public hearing. And we are
recommending until whether we have an amended application for the
interim review or movement, one way or the other, we're
recommending that you continue the public hearing.
Tygre stated, I understand.
AiTn R� T 11AT
Hunt stated, I move to continue the public hearing and table action
on the Independence Place SPA Designation and Conceptual SPA Plan
until 19 September, 1995. Blaich seconded, voting commenced, vote
was four in favor, two opposed, motion carried.
17
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
VICKERY ADU DISCUSSION
Garton stated, we amended our agenda, Jasmine, Jake is coming
forward again with the parking discussion on his ADU amendment.
Mary Lackner of staff represented and stated, let me refresh your
memory a little bit. There are two accessory dwelling units, the
two single-family homes that he's proposing to build. It was the
historic unit, which is going to be on the smaller lot, that is
proposed at five bedrooms and a two -bedroom accessory dwelling
unit. In the memorandum, that's the unit that staff felt most
strongly that we wanted a parking space provided for. So, it is
a seven -bedroom house, two units in that house, the applicant's
proposing only two parking spaces. The other unit, which is a two -
bedroom single-family, new house, with a studio/ADU, staff isn't
as strong to require a parking space for that as we feel it is a
less intense use of the site, however, we did recommend a condition
of approval that an additional parking space would be provided for
each of those lots. That's where we are coming from.
Lackner stated, HPC made a waiver to the parking plan in order to
meet the historical integrity of the parcel, and you should take
that into consideration that HPC has looked at the parcel, they
have looked at how it is going to be developed, and at that same
recommendation that there would be two spaces. However, because
this is a conditional use you have the over-riding ability to
require a parking space for a conditional use requirement. If you
feel that a parking space cannot be provided on that site, or if
the applicant is unable to provide a parking space on that site to
mitigate his parking, then, we ask that you not approve the ADU,
one of them was voluntary, and one of them was mandatory, we will
just take out the voluntary one altogether, or else, if the
mandatory one was a problem, then, he would just pay cash -in -lieu.
So, there are other options available if it is makingg.a problem
with the site.
Garton stated, I think that the other clarification that we are
hoping to hear from staff is, as Jake stated during his comment
from the public, a studio does not require an ADU, is that a true
reading of the code?
Lamont stated, the code sets out parking requirements for every use
in the City. The code did not establish a parking requirement for
an accessory dwelling unit if it was a studio or a one -bedroom.
In the past, we've found if something was a fairly small site and
we felt that parking would be tight, we have required parking. We
discussed this with the City Attorney two Fridays ago, and he said
because of that review criteria for a conditional use, if the
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 18. 1995
Planning and Zoning Commission feels that in order to make the
conditions comply with your review criteria, then, you can require
a parking space, or two parkings spaces, or whatever.
Garton stated, no matter what the size of the ADU.
Garton asked, Jake, do you have anything new to present?
Vickery stated, I just want to read that section of the code, it
is Section 5-51081. I won't read the whole thing, it is brief, but
it says, parking shall not be required if the unit is a studio or
one -bedroom unit, but one space shall be provided on -site if the
unit contains two bedrooms and one additional space will be
provided for each additional two -bedroom unit. That's just what
the code says, and it kind of threw me a curve, this being very
explicit and specific about the ADUs, that you were going to
require a car for the situation. I understand now that the P&Z has
the right and the authority and the responsibility to impose any
conditions on a conditional use that it finds necessary. I'm a
little confused about why you think this particular project, this
particular location and neighborhood is problematic to the point
where you need to do that. I wasn't really prepared to present
information on that level when I had my review. All I can say in
regards to that is that no neighbors came, no adjacent people or
anybody else on the block or across the street came to complain.
That area over there, for a large portion of the year is fairly
like a ghost town, pretty quiet. Maybe, for a few weeks during the
high -season in summer and winter, we have people, but they need
some life over there. There has been a shift in the way the City
is, as you know, reviewing parking.
Vickery stated, I want to talk about the rationale of the HPC a
little bit, so it is clear to you "guys" why they would give this
parking variance. The first thing I want to do is circulate these
photos that show a house over in the west end that has six parking
spaces; three of them are in a garage, and three of them are in
front of the garage off the alley. If you look at the second
photograph, you will see that there is only one car occupying those
six spaces and that the bulk of those garages has now been added
to the bulk of the mass on the lot. These are the kind of things
that I think that recent thinking about the parking is meant to try
to correct or eleviate . I think providing parking on space is also
in conflict with landscaping and open space and alleyscapes,
because you can see that that kind of an approach, when you park
a lot of cars off the alley, it destroys the alley. It also takes
up all the space you might have lawns and trees, so, when HPC is
looking at these kinds of projects (and, this is my opinion), they
wanting to maintain the integrity of the historical landmark and
the setting of the historic landmark and include some kind of open
in
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
space. This project has an L-structure that we are trying to work
with and the parking is detrimental to that. There are 126
properties that are landmark properties in the City, so that's the
magnitude of the properties that have been able to take advantage
of this incentive program. The incentive program is pervasive
throughout the code, even in the GMQS. I did some research, I can
read you some of this. It talks about open space is intended to
maintain the prominence of an adjacent historic landmark.
Lamont stated, Jake, a quick question. You said, 126 properties
that have the potential to be landmarked, or are?
Vickery stated, that's the current number, as far as I know, that
are landmarked.
Lamont stated, O.K. , but anybody is on the enventory as a potential
landmark, and then, can take advantage of the incentives of a
landmark. Do you know how many there are?
Vickery stated, there's 147, I believe. There are 126 landmarks;
147 non-landmarked properties on the enventory, totaling 273. So,
you might be right there.
Vickery stated, just two other points. In the GMQS section this
talks about parking relative to landmarks. Any parking that cannot
be provided on -site, that would, therefore, be required to be
provided via cash -in -lieu shall be waived. The compatiability of
how these designs run projects has to do with the character and
the quality of its proposed open space and landscaping. I think
there is an acknowledgment in the community, that historical
landmarks provide a general community eminity, a general community
value, and it seems to be the attitude of the City, that there can
be a relief from mitigations, other concessions given for the
maintenance and parking and value that these historical properties
bring to the town. If you are going to over -ride the HPC, which
you can do, there needs to be some pretty strong "stuff", reasons,
for doing that, and I was in a quandary because I didn't really
understand what your rationale was on that. This particular unit
is voluntary; I don't really want to put my approval at risk
tonight, that's not what I'm trying to do.
Vickery showed a site plan to the Commission again showing the
proposed site and the parking. He stated, I guess, I need to get
clear on the two units; the A Unit is the historical, old house and
the B Unit is the new one. If you still wanted to require the
parking, I was sort of thinking a whole that if we could provide
5 spaces on site, rather than 6, if that might be a workable
compromise for you, an acceptable for you, even though I am
proposing to put that fifth space around the east side, which is
M
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
not the historical side which is the side that has the two bedroom
unit.
Garton stated, the Commission just signed a resolution granting
approval for Jake's two ADUs. We voted 4 to 2 for approval with
conditions, and I think the two desenting votes were that they
didn't want to require the additional parking, that the rest of the
Commission did. One of the conditions was a designated parking
space for each ADU must be provided on -site, in addition to the two
spaces provided for each free market unit, which brings it, Jake
again, to a total of 6. You are asking for the 5.
Garton continued saying, when Jake says he wasn't clear on why we
voted that way, that's too bad, because the applicant should always
be clear when he leaves the room on why those conditions were
imposed. So, someone who supported their condition, do you want
to support it again, and explain why this site you felt required
the parking.
Hunt stated, well, my problem is, I can't visualize. It is nice
looking at this paper trail, I can't visualize the problem. Maybe,
if I can see it visually; I can't even remember what my position
was. That's my problem. Was I here?
Vickery stated, I don't think you were here, I think you left the
meeting, actually.
Garton stated, I voted against that condition, I am one of the two,
and so is Steve. So, I need one of you to support this.
Mooney stated, my recollection of why I voted to keep this
condition intact was that when you came in, it was my understanding
that you wanted a one -bedroom. And to me, clearly, I think that
it is justifiable to have a parking space on the alley for a one -
bedroom ADU. And so, in order to scuffle the cards, you said,
well, I will keep the size the same, but I'll just call it a studio
and then, parking isn't required for a studio. Well, that didn't
help me at all, and probably hurt my attitude towards it; if it's
a duck, it's a duck.
Mooney stated, we also discussed the fact that on the alley it
would be very simple to put these pavers, or these grass creep
sectional blocks in, and it was obvious to the plan that there was
room for that. It didn't seem like financially that it was such
a burden to ask for this style of landscape parking space to be put
in to make everybody happy; for you to keep the integrity of the
balance between the historic and the new structures with
landscaping that was going to be considered open space. If there
ever was an impact because of a seven bedroom house and a two
911_
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
bedroom house on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot, with two separate ADUs, to
me, basically, that's four separate living units in the maximum
development capacity, that we had an extra parking space that
looked like a yard. So, whether I was trying to require something
that you were incapable of, I didn't think so, or whether you,
basically, even want to understand what we were asking you to do,
I don't know. It was very clear to me that this wasn't that
severe, we're not in favor of that style of paved parking that you
brought those pictures for; we gave you alternatives and because
of the density that is going to be on 10,000 sq. ft., because of
the size of the free market house, I thought one extra grass creep
parking space was not that restrictive, from our point -of -view.
I thought our intentions were, basically, simple. If we,
basically, are willing to eliminate parking spaces in the west end,
and we, basically, have to do it, and I hate this rationale, other
places, and I don't think that's fair. Our parking is at a crisis
and I think it is everybody's responsibility to assume that they
have put in the number of parking spaces that are going to pertain
to the unit whether it is required or not. I think it is a maximum
use that you are getting without a balance in parking.
Lackner stated, I think you "guys" are aware of this, but two of
the three items on the agenda tonight dealt with parking. The
Marolt people wanted to double the size of their parking lot, and
then, the "superblock" project is a parking garage concept. We
think we are being consistent on this application, with all other
ADUs that you have been looking at recently. That's why staff did
recommend one parking space and when Tim's idea was first discussed
last time; to maintain it looking like a yard -like setting, doing
the grass creep to make it look like you have more open space when
there's nota car sitting there.
Vickery stated, I would like to say just one thing, and it is not
rebutt, it is more just to clarify. This is the site plan (Vickery
showed the site plan).
Hunt stated, I'm going to abstain as I wasn't here.
Vickery stated, this is for everybody's benefit. Vickery showed
the site plan and showed the proposed parking, and the two units.
He stated, Robert, I don't know if you saw this, but this is the
site plan. This is W. Francis down here and this is the alley.
This is the A Unit which is the historical one that I'm trying to
get, and this is the B Unit. I put in blue here where the parking
spaces would be. I don't have any problem with the parking space
on the B Unit; this is the one I changed to a studio. That you've
got, you got both, actually. This one is not a problem for me.
What' s a problem for me is this one, and only because it would make
this a better residence, a better site, if this space wasn't filled
W
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
in with a car. Right there is a transformer, that's the parking
space, and the stairs down to the ADU, and this is the other two
spaces, and this is the 3 ft. side yard, it is only 45 ft. wide.
It is just packed in there, so, I'm just asking for some relief in
mitigation on this "guy". (All referring to the site plan.)
This is the only south -facing usable open space available to this
house.
Blaich asked, Jake, is that the house you are going to occupy or
is it this one (referring to the site plan)?
Vickery stated, yes. We actually need this ADU, we need to get the
income from the ADU to make the deal.
Blaich stated, you have one garage, one -car garage. Vickery
stated, it is a two -car garage. Blaich asked, and you have two
cars yourself, so, you need the additional parking for the ADU, and
if you don't have that space there, they are going to park on the
street?
Vickery stated, right. And I'm saying, for an historical landmark,
in this particular site specific location, given the constitution
of the neighborhood and the parking patterns of the neighborhood
and so forth, one more space on the street is not a problem, in my
.opinion. Right now, there is a garage, right here, that's too old
to be used, you can't drive in it, and the people park right here
(showing on the site plan). So, I don't know what that does for
you, but I understand your rationale.
Blaich stated, I have one further question. Is there a possibility
to put two parking spaces in the other spot? You can't do that
legally?
Vickery stated, it's not the way the whole thing has been set up.
Lamont stated, his proposal is to create two separate parcels on
his lot.
Blaich stated, so, you couldn't do that, you couldn't designate
that and hold to that.
Garton stated, nice try, though.
There was discussion at random between the Commission members and
Vickery at this point on Commissioner Blaich's suggestion.
23
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1995
Garton stated, Jake, you know how I voted, but I want to make clear
that the Commission isn't doing anything unusual with what they
have imposed on you in their vote. They look hard at that
conditional parking on every single ADU; our ADU approvals, which
there have been many, we have imposed parking no matter what the
code says. It is nice to hear our attorney say that, indeed, is
what we should be doing, when it' s conditional, that we can impose.
Garton asked, is there anymore discussion? We should take a vote,
again, so I think I'll ask for a roll call vote.
Hunt stated, according to procedure, we have to re -consider a
previous motion?
Garton stated, I'm sorry, there's been no motion, that's right.
It was a previous approval and we are re -considering it now.
Hunt stated, we have to re -consider the previous approval. Someone
who was in favor has to move to re -consider a previous motion.
Tygre stated, I wasn't part of the original either, so I have to
abstain.
Hunt stated, I do too (have to abstain).
Garton stated, does anyone want to reconsider the previous motion,
which was on June 20th (1995)?
There was no response from the Commission.
Lackner stated, the motion was to approve the applicant's request
for two ADUs with the nine condition's as recommended by staff.
Garton stated, the motion was dated June 20th.
Mooney stated, here, Condition #8 says, a designated parking space
for each ADU must be provided on site, in addition to, two spaces
provided for each free market unit. That, basically, is what we
would have to change or eliminate, Condition #8, in order to comply
with Jake's request.
Garton asked, is there any such motion?
There was no response from the Commission.
Garton stated, Jake, the resolution stands then.
24
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 18, 1995
The meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Following the meeting was
a worksession with staff and the Commission for an AH/RO
Discussion. The Commission dismissed the clerk, but the
worksession was taped and is being kept in case of future reference
needs.
Respectfully submitted,
0
Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk
25