Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19920505 r RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY S. 1992 vice Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, Richard Compton, David Brown, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt and Bruce Kerr. Jasmine Tygre was excused. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Richard: We have not seen the Ritz Carlton affordable housing application that we haven't seen in a couple of years. Diane: They have a stipulation in their PUD agreement that after the first year of operation they have to conduct an audit to see if the employee count is accurate or not. If the employee count is inaccurate they have to provide more housing than provided at the Bavarian Inn. Sara: What is up with the skating rink? Diane: At Monday's meeting on May lIthe representative for Koch is going to give a presentation on 2 alternatives for the site of the rink. The Savannah site is on hold for right now. Roger stated his opinion that Wagner Park is part of the TDP which was the phase 3 for underground parking. I don't think anything should be put on that park to prevent underground parking. Bruce: Has there been some kind of provision for the construction workers of the Ritz for parking? Diane: We are working with them right now. Bruce: Right now it is not a big problem but in another month it will be a big problem. Roger: It is a real problem at the Dean Street parking lot as well because they have blocked out such that you can't get through it. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES APRIL 7. 1992 ~ Richard made a motion to approve minutes of April 7, 1992. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. PZM5.5.92 KRAUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING TEXT AMENDMENT Bruce opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Richard: set as a developed package? I want to review that quota issue. Those 14 units you cap on the number of free market units that can be through the AH zone--do those come out of the total Leslie: Yes. Richard: I am wondering why all the units couldn't come through the AH zone? Is there any reason you wouldn't want that to happen? Whatever the total quota is for the city? Leslie: That is a good idea. I think what I would rather do with that suggestion is suggest that to our Growth Committee. They are looking at revising our Growth Management System and how we allocated and what mechanisms do we allocate. David: We have discussed that. Given the fact that a significant portion of this community bases it's growth directly on a balanced community and part of that balance is free market development of single family homes, that would tip the balance out of balance. We felt as a Growth Committee that was an undesirable thing. Leslie: with all of our quotas we have to have a minimum amount available every year. Richard: I just hate to lose a project that included significant affordable housing because it was over quota and builds his house addition instead. It seems to me unnecessarily restrictive. Then on page 2 B2 restrict the low, moderate, middle income affordable housing. Is that consistent with current housing guidelines in terms of categories? Leslie: I am not sure. correspond. I will check that and make them Roger: Food store: I think of a food store as city Market, Nature Storehouse or something on that order. And I assume this allows something like a Nature Storehouse to happen. Leslie: Right. Roger: I think somehow or another we have to get across in the 2 PZM5.5.92 code that our primary interest isn't in the seating. It is in the food store and definitely the seating aspect of it is secondary to the primary purpose which is regular food sales. My worry is that Jour De Fete is borderlining on a restaurant and I don't think that's a particularly positive thing to have. I am looking at the economics of it compared to other types of shops that we want in that facility. A very similar problem I have with what is described as business and professional office. I would like to see some sort of restriction in that area that is limited to other than the ground or street floor. The reason for that is that the then business and professional office can be travel agents, real estate offices as well as lawyers and doctor's office. Again some of those probably might be able to compete for inexpensive floor space and keep out some of the what I would consider more desireable uses for that facility. I want to try to get it more towards the neighborhood commercial. Sara: I wanted to point out that it is conditional so we have to approve any use that went in there. So this is just a list. Leslie: You are concerned about the local oriented nature of business and professional office. Roger: Exactly. I have no problems with offices up on the second floor because they would tend to be more towards the business and professional office. I am worried about the ones on the ground floor where the attraction is for someone to walk in off the street into a real estate office. If the real estate wants to be on the second floor that is fine with me. I am more interested in wares being sold to the local orientation and I would like that at the street level and have it be known ahead that this building is limited to those so that a so-called higher and better use that can pay a higher rate doesn't get in there and start jamming up all the other rates on us. Tim: I think it is import with the food store aspect with the seating to realize that as soon as it becomes a food store where food is being cooked on the premises it changes the whole aspect of it. A good example is Clark's Market. The people who are living up above Clark's Market can set their watch when they fry the chicken and make all the stuff in the deli and it detracts from the value and the life quality of living above Clark's Market. We should say it is a food store when it doesn't contain a kitchen or doesn't have food service being processed there for retail. Leslie: Excluding food preparation on premises. It is with that '-- 3 PZM5. 5. 92 kind of perspective that I think we should look at this list. It is that we are talking about commercial uses that we intend to be within the same building as residential uses. I think we can add that kind of caveat in with a food store. Sara: I had a difficult time trying to determine the kind business that is a sublist to this list. I think we are being very subjective when you start saying Banana is not local or McDonald's is not local because I completely disagree. I think they are local businesses. I think that is the free enterprise system. If a drugstore chooses to locate in an affordable housing mixed zone, they probably know and are hoping to go for that market. If that market doesn't shop there they are going to have to change over and be more attractive to the tourist customer. We can't dictate what they are going to sell their things for or what kind of items are going to be in that store. I think that will happen. My goal with conditional mixed use is to see the old villages that had stores under where people lived. What happens and who their clients are is up to the proprietor. Roger: It wasn't so much the local orientation as the economic orientation of the business in there. This is a problem we had basically with C-l. We lost C-l. But the idea of C-l was to afford a location for things like hardware stores--stores that required a bit more square footage at a lower price. otherwise what we do is push them out of town or down to Wall-Mart. I am looking at it as the commercial enterprise--I have heard it so often with the Truman Property--Clark' s Market--that whole complex. The game is that they bump up the rents on the SCI portion of it and say we can't fill the space so therefore we should change the zone. I am even interested in putting a minimum size space for certain uses so that it is not economic for a realtor to bump out a hardware store. It is more economics and what we need in the community in the way of facilities which we are pushing out of this community. Tim: I think on the other side of that it is not realistic to think that anything will come to Aspen that can compete with Wall- Mart. Maybe the idea is to make a maximum size so that you do have little Mom and Pop things that are neighborhood commercial where people are providing one-to-one service. They should be a maximum size and therefore we won't get big out- of-town franchises coming in and taking commercial space in this affordable zone. ...''''' Roger: If you put a maximum size it automatically puts us in the same situation as the commercial core and you have seen what the commercial core has transitioned from. ~-' 4 -,pi'~"'-"" PZM5.5.92 "- David: This is affordable housing and as much as I would like to take this whole block and make it some sort of PUD mixed-use NC Office hybrid overlay zone that would encourage a larger City Market, parking garage and a variety of other local oriented businesses. And I think that is a discussion in a new zone district--something that will hopefully come about in the next series of conversations with the Council and homeowners and the property owners in the neighborhood. I think it is coming out as a result of the Community Planning Process. We are creating a list here of what is the 40% that is going to support and create an incentive for an entity to develop affordable housing and I am not so naive as to think that we are only talking about the Kraut Property here. As much as I agree with your thinking I also think that even if it were to create another real estate office or two that could conceivably cut the prices of an overhead by increasing the supply of realtors and/or lawyers and make it more affordable for the local community. So I think there is a limit to how many realtors or certain other specialties that the community can support. I tend to agree with Sara only because these are the incentives. It is this 40% that may be on the street level at 30 to 50 dollars a square foot that will support ~he 60% of the square feet which will be the affordable housing above that. And not as desireable a location above it. I don't have any problem living above a deli. It works in a lot of other communities and if there are ventilation problems at Clark's Market then they should be addressed as part of the physical design. I think it is a great land use to be able to put apartments above a food store. By food store I mean a deli/City Market operation or something similar to that. Bruce: Is there language in the conditional use review standards that gives us the option to say that a food store is a conditional use within this hybrid AH zone and we don't think it is compatible with housing uses or whatever? Leslie: Right. When your standards for Conditional Use Review talk about that the use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel location size and design and operating characteristics etc. Those are standards that you would apply. Bruce: So if somebody in the Kraut property for example wanted to come in and put in a Church's Fried Chicken or whatever, we could say "No, I am sorry that is not compatible with the neighborhood. It doesn't fit with our Affordable Housing on this site". And we " 5 PZM5.5.92 can deny that conditional use? Leslie: One thing that I would add is when we say the following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the AH zone district I would say "The following and similar uses". Roger: Something you might consider on #9 is instead of saying "TV sales and repair shop," what about "Electronic equipment sales and repair? Make it generic. Tim: What about recycled goods or the recycling of tires. Bruce asked for public comment. There was none and he closed the public hearing. MOTION Tim: I make a motion that we approve the code amendment section 24-3-l0l, 24-5-208 and 8-104 of the Municipal code finding that the proposed code amendment is not in conflict with the Land Use Code or public interest and that the amendment is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan and that the draft of the 1992 Community Plan and will not cause negative effect upon the downtown business area. Sara seconded the motion. David: How about including a use to include dry goods? Tim: I am not in favor of expanding the commercial operation any further than we have to. I think that basically it should be located someplace else. For example Clark's Market and the Truman property or the Airport Business Center. And I think to bring in and compete with existing and established businesses and offer space at a lower rate would disrupt the harmony in the community. I think that my own editorial on this whole thing is that now the entire growth of Pitkin County and Aspen is being driven by the commercial core's appetite for more pedestrian traffic. And I am not trying to encourage that at all. If it had to do with recycling I think like Gracy's operation or something like that could come in and take advantage of a better 'location that is in the core and a better rent structure. But I think that there are enough approved uses here that if she came in we could approve that. But to open it up specifically to say that we want a bigger shopping center it just doesn't make sense to me. /J_"'" Bruce: If somebody wants a specific use that is not included here or not a similar use they can always come in for an amendment. '- 6 PZM5.5.92 Roger: I have no problems of including recycled dry-goods right up front. That gives people an idea of what our goals are for this area. I would not say "Dry Goods Shop" But "Second Hand store", "Recycled Dry Goods"--I would be happy to include that. #2, where are we on business and professional office? Is anybody with me on saying "Fine, but no on the street floor". Bruce: The only problem I see with that is as I anticipate this project for example there won't be commercial space except for on the first floor. Anything above the first floor is affordable housing. Roger: We are not supposed to be designing this only for the Kraut project. David: I take exception to your intent here only because I can envision a project that might have the affordable housing on the main level, free market condominiums on the top level to take advantage of the views and a mixture of offices below and free market condominium and somehow the mixes work within the 60/40 split. Roger: I am just very nervous to giving free brush to professional and business offices because I see how they tend to sneak in and sometimes I don't consider them being that positive in a project. Leslie: From a compatibility perspective residential and office go very well together. Roger: They are very compatible. No doubt about that. But it is sort of like I would be having the same problem that we allowed restaurants in this space or bars and restaurants. Again it has to do with economically what that use is willing to pay and what it does to the rest of the project as far as bumping other uses out that aren't as economically competitive. Bruce: The reality is though that that use is what we are Robin- hooding to build affordable housing. I am not sure that I like the mixed use anyway. I am all in favor of kinds of uses we are trying to preserve being available in this community. I am not sure that the mixed use is the way to do that. I think we need to do some other things with our zoning. I think in this case what we are trying to do is allow the developer to make his money off the free market housing and/or the commercial so we can have the affordable housing. I don't know that we want to be too restrictive in the kinds of uses that can go in that free market commercial. ,/,.' .. '~"- 7 ~._ PZM5.5.92 - We are only doing this in zones that are already office and commercial zones. So they could already be putting something else in there and we wouldn't be getting any housing. Bruce: I know that this is not supposed to be site specific but one way to address our concerns on this specific site is to address them to the City and say "OK city, you are the landlord here, don't rent to these kinds of uses". Put ourselves to the test. Tim amended his motion to include under Condition C--item 21 as "Second Hand", "consignment" or "Recycled Goods". Sara amended her second to include this. Leslie: I would just flip-flop for dry cleaning and laundry". dry cleaning or laundry. #4. I would say "pick up station So we are not talking the actual Tim: That is fine with me. Roger: laundry thing. I would suggest consolidate laundromat with dry cleaning, pickup station. And barber shop, beauty shop type of Roll call vote: --""'.~ Tim, yes, David, yes, Sara, yes, Richard, yes, Roger, yes, Bruce, yes. PENN CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR A DETACHED ADU Bruce opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Jake vickery: I have no problems with the conditions. Bruce then asked for public comment. There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. After discussion over drawings: MOTION I move to approve the conditional use for a detached 307sqft accessory dwelling unit at 134 East Bleeker with the following conditions prior to issuance of any building permit. Condition #1 through #6 are the same as on Planning Office memo dated 5/5/92 (attached in record) and the addition of a condition #7 which is really a recommendation to put a small roof gable over the entry - 8 PZM5.5.92 to the detached accessory dwelling unit. David seconded the motion with all in favor. PATTERSON CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR ADU AND FINAL PUD Bruce opened the public hearing. Kim presented affidavit of posting and notice of mailing. She then made presentation as attached in record. Chuck Roth, City Engineer: The Pedestrian Bikeway Plan was adopted by Council about a year ago. Basically cemetery Lane is identified in that plan as a primary pedestrian route. There are no sidewalks anywhere on that street. We are asking you to install curb and gutter at such time as curb and gutters go in. As far as the sidewalk I didn't think it was reasonable to ask for a concrete sidewalk but I did feel it reasonable to ask for a sidewalk area. That side of the road is the worst of the 2 sides of the road in terms of pedestrian ability to use Cemetery Lane. I think that your property really has the least shoulder and least ability for somebody to walk without walking in the street. Bruce asked for public comment. There was none and he closed the public hearing. After discussion: MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the Patterson Duplex Final PUD development plan located at 580 Cemetery Lane with Conditions #1 through #6 as stated on Planning Office memo dated May 5, 1992 (attached in record) with a correction to Condition #5 as follows: Prior to signing final plat or prior to final inspection of the construction the applicant shall construct an unobstructed sidewalk area as approved the City Engineer and Planning Office and shall sign a sidewalk curb and gutter construction agreement. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. MOTION Roger: I also move to approve a conditional use for a 624sqft attached accessory dwelling unit at the Patterson duplex at 580 Cemetery Lane with Conditions #7 through #11 as stated on Planning Office memo dated May 5, 1992. (attached in record) 9 ,/''''--'''- PZM5. 5.92 ,~ Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. TEXT AMENDMENT REVISING PUD REOUIREMENTS Bruce opened the public hearing. Leslie made presentation as attached in record. There was no discussion or comment by members. Bruce asked for public comment. There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of text amendment revising to section 24-7-902 of the Municipal code finding that the proposed code amendment is not in conflict with the Land Use Code or public interest. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. JOHNSTON CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR ADU AND HALLAM BLUFF ESA REVIEW Bruce opened the public hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. After short discussion: MOTION Roger: I move to approve the Johnston Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review at Lot #2 of the Merriain Lot Split and Conditional Use for a 498sqft accessory dwelling unit with Conditions #1 through #8 on the Planning Office memo dated May 5, 1992. (attached in record) Michael Doyle, representative for applicant: I have one concern about the conditions. Regarding #6--we have been in the process of trying to draw a permit for some tine. We got held up by this. We don't have any assurance--we are in negotiations with the adjacent homeowners right now. #6 is fine if we can come back and revise our building permit to include that covered walkway which we fully intend to pursue. Tim: Maybe the key word is "entranceway". Richard: If you want to cover the whole walkway that is your "- 10 1"" PZM5.5.92 .-. prerogative. Kim: If it were my choice I would say omit #6. Suggested modified wordage for Condition #6: Prior to issuance of building permit a covered entry and stair area must be included to protect the ADU access from rain and snow shedding. Bruce asked if there was any public comment. There was none and he closed the public portion of the hearing. Roger: I will include that modified #6 into my motion. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. ZELE (RYANCOI SPECIAL REVIEW FOR USE OF OPEN SPACE Bruce opened the public portion of the hearing. Kim made presentation as attached in record. After discussion as to what is and what is not a restaurant and who could or could not sit at the tables and advertising: MOTION Roger: I move to approve Special Review to allow 3 4-person tables and chairs in the approved open space at 121 South Galena with the Conditions #1 through #4 on Planning Office memo dated May 5, 1992. (attached in record) Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. Richard made a motion to adjourn meeting. Time was 7:15pm. Clerk 11