Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19931221 ~u ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 21. 1993 Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Roll call: David Brown, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt and Bruce Kerr. Tim Mooney arrived later and Jasmine was absent. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie and members discussed joint meetings with BOCC, city council members and County P&Z on GMQS revision. David and Bruce said they would work with this on a small group basis. We have set up a special meeting with the Council, the BOCC and the County Commission for January 18 at 5:00 in city Council Chambers. Then we have a special work session with city Council January 11 at 5:00 in Council Chambers. This is in answer to the confusion over the Kraut property vs the Superblock and parking garage. Diane Moore brought up Meadows traffic mitigation plan and asked if one or two members would be interested in attending meetings for this. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES NOVEMBER 30. 1993 Sara: I move to approve minutes of November 30, 1993. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. SILVER CIRCLE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR A FOOD SERVICE FACILITY Bruce opened the public portion of the hearing. Mary Lackner, Planning: Made presentation as attached in record. There are a couple of things staff wants to point out. The applicant doesn't have a specific design for a food service cart that it wants right now. ~ We don't think the actual design is an issue in the conditional review. We think it is definitely a use issue. The main concern we do have is that the height of the cart would not extend over the height of the existing overlook terraces which is 10 feet from the .,"""'- PZM12.21.93 ice skating surface. So we wouldn't want this cart to be more than 10 feet in height. Another concern that was brought up was seating for 25 people. When we were looking at just the general pedestrian circulation of the site we think that 25 people seating could pose some pedestrian circulation problems on the site. Mary then read into the record a letter from Crawford Petroleum Co, Jack Crawford, writing as the Tipple Inn Condominium Association Board of Managers. The letter expressed concerns with this application for food service at the rink. (attached in record) After discussion regarding these issues: Joe Wells, representative for applicant: Presented affidavit of posting. (attached in record) Then using drawings he described to the Commission proposal for food service. We do have a couple of questions regarding the conditions. The only issues we have with the conditions are with regard to #3--we would like the flexibility of having a facility that is as high as the handrail. Also on #6 there is a bond that is currently in place for at least $200,000 as still available. We would like to be able to use that as financial assurance for this tree which we are happy to install. Diane: I have no problem with that. PUBLIC COMMENT ?: The Tipple Inn Condominium Association. They wanted me to re- iterate that their main concerns are the time of hours, the time of operation of this that it not go past the hours of the rink. They want it to be 10:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. and not to midnight or later like the Popcorn Wagon is. They are concerned about the allowance of food that would be served in there. Whether it be hamburgers, hot dogs. They would just as soon see hot chocolate, hot spiced cider and things like that. They are very concerned about the activity of that. The teenagers in town right now do congregate in that area especially in the summer time to skate board, etc. A few nights already this winter I have had teenagers in that area in cars up and down the street. So there is already a problem there. What we are concerned about is if you open up a concession stand there who is going to be responsible for watching the kids who will be running around there and basically hassling the tourists and their cars and the people in that area. 2 PZM12. 21. 93 There being no further comment Bruce closed the public portion of the hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS David disclosed a possible potential conflict of interest. He expressed that he did not think it would be a problem for him and Board decided he should continue. Sara: will this be leased? Burt: It has not been decided. David: Design review is not part of this application. I feel design is a very important feature at this particular site. I think that the design relative to the height is a very critical factor. I can envision that a taller building does offer more opportunity for some design enhancements with more creative options. /" I would be inclined to go for a higher structure particularly if we get a shot at reviewing what that design is. I am not sure it has to be subordinate to the zamboni building. Bruce: The hours of operation is not listed here as one of the conditions of approval. Mary: The hours of the park are from 10:00 AM. to 10:00 PM. Bruce: I just want to make sure the record reflects that our intent assuming we approve this that it only be open during hours of operation as agreed. We have heard from the neighbors and that is very important that we respond. Wells: We prefer that it be the hours of operation of the park. That being the use is approved for the park. Obviously the rink isn't going to be open the year around so we do anticipate other uses occurring in the park subject to city approval. Leslie: If there was a special event in there that would be part of the Special Event Program. Roger: As far as the height of it I don't have a problem going a foot above the floor level of the rink maintenance building. But going more than that I have real trouble with. Maybe that is a compromise at this point and if it exceeds that they have to come back for some sort of special review of it. Sara: I want to respond to the neighbors. I understand your 3 PZM12. 21. 93 concern. But I think that part of your location causes that you have city lights around you. And if there are problems and it becomes a real harassment or vandalism then that is something that police need to supervise. But as far as noise and activity, that is part of City living. And I am actually delighted to see another place for the youth to congregate. It may get them off Galena street a little bit and relieve you of some of that there. Wells: We think we could operate with 11 feet if that would be acceptable with the Commission. MOTION ,""" Roger: I move to approve Conditional Use for a food cart to be located on the Concessionaire space on Lot #6 of the Aspen Mountain subdivision otherwise known as the Silver Circle with the conditions recommended in the Planning Office memo dated December 21, 1993 specifically conditions #1, #2, #4, #5 and #7 as written. Condition #3 modified to read "The food service cart wagon shall not exceed 1 foot over the height of the terrace overlook floor. Condition #6 one Spruce tree of approximately 15 feet in height shall be installed in accordance with the original plan. The tree shall be planted once the ground conditions permit. This existing bond will be partially released or modified after one growing season of the tree to insure it is healthy. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. '-~, 1993 COMMERCIAL GMOS APPLICATIONS OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT CAP'S AUTO Kim Weil, representative for applicant: description of project using drawings. Made presentation After discussion-- Sunny Vann, planner for applicant: The floor area of the building is about 5,900 square feet which is less than the .75 to 1 which is allowed in the zone district. The net leasable square footage of the building is about 5,200 square feet. The other thing I would like to point out this project provides in excess of 100% of the affordable housing generated as a result of the project. Roger: The affordable housing units there--in this sort of pit between the parking structure and the bank building? And is the -- 4 PZM12.21.93 Kim: You would access that from it's own courtyard. By doing it this way these units don't share any service with the building whatsoever. This courtyard is strictly for the units. You can't get to the rest of the building through the units. It is private outdoor space for those 2 units. It is not shared by anyone else in the building. Vann presented the affidavit of the posting and mailing of public notice. (attached in record) Lackner: The applicant is requesting in-lieu for the parking requirement. request. that one space be payment- That is the Special Review '..".,.-" There is 8 existing parking spaces right now. with the additional 810 square feet the applicant is required to do 2 additional parking spaces. The applicant is proposing then to put 9 spaces on site by physically adding 1 to the existing configuration and then doing 1 pay payment-in-lieu for a total of 10 required for the commercial component of the project. As far as the employee dwelling units are concerned there are 2 dwelling units. The applicant has requested Special Review waiver so that you don't have any parking requirements for those 2 employee dwelling units. Staff recommends that we do get 1 parking space for each of those units. Staff recommendation would be that 2 parking spaces on site be designated for the employee dwelling units, 6 be available for the commercial use of the project and that 3 be cash-in-lieu spaces. Vann: Actually I think it is 9. What she is saying is to take 2 of our existing and make them affordable housing and then cash out at 3 because all we can physically put on site is 9. And this is acceptable to the applicant.' I prefer not to designate those spaces but if that is the preference for staff, that is fine. We are going to reconfigure the entryway into Cap's to provide better access and as a result we are going to be able to add 3 additional spaces to the parking area that is there now. That has been reviewed by the City Engineer as acceptable. So in addition to the 1 space we are providing on our property line we are going to provide 3 additional spaces in the public parking adjacent to it which will be available to the public at large. So we will in fact be adding 4 spaces. We will be designating 2 for the 2 affordable housing units and we will be cashing out of 3 spaces at $45,000. 5 ,- PZM12.21.93 - PUBLIC COMMENT Bruce opened the public portion of this hearing. There were no public comments. David: I question from a life safety standpoint whether it is. I would guess that carbon monoxide might be heavier than air and may find it's way into this courtyard level. Vann: The applicant wants to develop housing on site. He needs the housing on site for his own purposes. These are low income units. We are only required to provide 60%. This is well over 100%. This isn't a wonderful space but it is a very attractive space. We can't put it on the upper level for security reasons. After further discussion on this topic: Mary read into the record a letter from Karl Larson stating his concern regarding parking in front of the Jerome Professional Building on Bleeker street. (attached in record) -"-..'" Bruce: We have already discussed that on site parking with this application has increased. '- MOTION Sara: I move to approve request for Special Review for parking with the conditions recommended in planning Office memo dated December 21, 1993. (attached in record) Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. HOUSING MITIGATION Mary made presentation as attached in record. Staff has recommended that these housing units be located at the level above the bank floor. We think that would be a more appropriate place just to get it out of the lower level. However we just did hear from Dave Tolen, Housing Authority, who does not have problems with these units located at this level. Tolen, Housing: These are acceptable units preferable to off site units or cash-in-lieu. Vann: The issue regarding fumes is one we will certainly look at. Leslie: Staff is recommending to you that you recommend to City Council an alternative housing mitigation proposal on this. 6 .' PZM12. 21. 93 Vann: We would say that there is nothing about this housing that is bad enough that warrants not providing it on site when it is the applicant's desire to put it on site. There is a demonstrated need to put it on site. We don't even know if there is an air issue. We have the ability to provide amenity. If we put it up higher, yes, the view may be a little better. But it is still an east facing unit. I believe the design in this case would warrant the provision of these units on site. In this case I think the applicant has gone to considerable length to try and make this as attractive housing as possible. And it represents a significant amount of housing over and above what he is required to provide. Had he wanted to go off site which is very expensive, we would not have offered to do 100%. This gives us an opportunity to do more than what is required of us. ," , Sara: I disagree with staff. I think the fact that they are depressed a little bit does give them a little privacy. And for people that like the City living experience this is very acceptable to me. As long as the air quality is addressed, and will be I am sure, that message will get across. I do not like cash-in-lieu. It doesn't happen. The employee housing doesn't get built. And I think it brings life to an area to have residents there. So I really like this on-site housing. "-- MOTION Sara: I recommend to Council that they accept the proposed housing components by the applicant for the Cap's. David seconded the motion. Roger: Should we put in the condition that the air quality of the location is a concern that should be looked at. Vann: That is acceptable to us. Sara: That is fine with me. David: It is just a precautionary condition. There was then discussion regarding storm drainage. sunny: It is our intent to comply with the City'S requirements regarding the handling of the storm drainage. Roger: So we are including #4 and then a condition indicating that ,...' they will address the potential problem of air quality. 7 PZMI2. 21. 93 ...,~.... Leslie: And that goes forward with the recommendation to Council. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. STAPLETON SPECIAL REVIEW. GMOS EXEMPTION EXEMPTION FROM PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND GMOS SCORING Gideon Kaufman, Attorney for applicant: attached in record. Made presentation as David pranicho, Architect for applicant using drawings explained project to the Commission. PARKING '"-, Leslie made presentation as attached in record. One of the reasons we are recommending approval of the reduction in parking is because of the project location on Main street which is our main transit, there is a bus stop 1/2 block away. The Stapletons operate a van for their employees. They are providing employee housing on site for employees of the insurance company. Bruce: Practically speaking what good is it going to do to assign 2 of those spaces for the residents of that housing. I find it hard to believe that if Dave and Don had parked in one of those spaces that the employees would feel comfortable telling them to get out of their space. I am just wondering how practical it is for us to assign that. Joe Wells, representative for applicant: We would like to request that you not require that because we think it cuts down on the efficient use of the space. After further discussion on parking-- Bruce: On the Special Review for parking the only thing the applicant disagrees with Planning staff is on the designation of employee space. Bruce asked for public comment. Mark Faller: I am an employee of the Stapleton Agency and yes, Bruce, I do know where my check comes from. As far as just how we are set up now is we have the agency van and there is parking behind our current building where we are on Main Street. And Don /' and Dave cannot use that space. That space is for the van and so ~ 8 PZM12. 21. 93 '-" I don't think they are going to come in and tell the van or tell their employees "Move. We pay the check and we want you out of there". So they park on the off streets and they have employees other than riding the van do that. And we honor that. MOTION Sara: I recommend approval of the conditions of Special Review for reduction of parking with the following conditions--#l and #2 on page 7 of the Planning Office memo dated December 21, 1993. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. PAR BONUS Leslie made presentation as attached in record. recommending denial of the FAR bonus. Staff is - Gideon: Gave background of Stapleton Agency. The reason we are asking for an FAR bonus is to make that employee housing more liveable. If this is denied the building comes down 2 to 2 and 1/2 feet. Then the people who live in the employee housing instead of having an open field more light and ventilation are faced with a situation that they don't have the same kind of feeling. You need to decide what is really important here. Quality employee housing- -another 100 feet. The HPC struggled with this. We made a lot of changes to accommodate the HPC. The HPC unanimously approved the project with this mass. The building next door is being looked at currently to expand anyway. What do we accomplish if this is denied? We take 100 square feet to preserve an historic building that is already planned to be expanded. He then read into the record a letter in support of this application from Levinsons who own property across the street from this project. (attached in record) Wells submitted the affidavit of posting and mailing. in record) (attached PUBLIC COMMENT Candy Ward: I have lived here 13 years. The Stapletons are very family. They are my family and I am not at home and I have a horrible fear that they are going to move down valley. I really hope that you will help them to stay here. Mark Faller: I have worked for Don and Dave since 1981 and I don't think it is a threat about living down valley. It is the reality. 9 PZM12. 21. 93 It would be hard to ride my bicycle all the way to Basalt every day and I don't look forward to having to do that. But it is something of where we are family and we do need this space. And it is something of where we hope that it can be worked out because it is something of where this community means a lot to us. And because of Don and Dave I have been able to volunteer time to Aspen School District in coaching. I have been able to volunteer time to the Historical Society as their Board of Directors. And living and working down valley, that would be really difficult to do. Leslie: Gideon and I had a conversation today at 4:20 when he pointed out to me correctly that 374 feet is the employee housing- -is part of the FAR that is involved in the liveability of the employee housing units. I would not encourage us to reduce the floor area so that we get in a hole again. Bruce: So are you recommending approval of the FAR bonus now? Leslie: I cannot recommend approval of the FAR bonus. But I can tell you that when staff was considering denial of the FAR bonus we did not realize that a significant portion of the FAR bonus was below level for the employee units. ,-. , Turned the tape here and it was damaged-- "- David made a statement here Then there was a motion by Tim. (Tim and everyone would you please try and recall the motion and I will insert it) David seconded the motion with all in favor. EMPLOYEE HOUSING Leslie did an introductory statement. (attached in record) Dave Tolen, Housing: I have 2 concerns regarding the 3 bedroom unit. One has to do with the size and I think we dealt with that satisfactorily. The other had to do with priorities establishment board for vacation units. The Housing Board established that we had a priority for family oriented sales units and rental level units. The rental units in the lower 32 categories. Category 1 and 2. This unit as proposed does not meet any of those priorities. So that is a concern. I understand that it may meet the present needs of the applicant to house specific employees. I still have a concern about the long term use of that unit as essentially category 3 rental unit for which there is not a great deal of need. And it has not been .,....-- 10 PZM12. 21. 93 identified in the ___mumble___ Gideon: It seems to me that obviously if we can't find qualified people to put in there in category 3, all we have to do is lower the rent. And it is easy to accommodate category 2 people. It is a bigger unit. So if we can't find people that need to go in then obviously we turn it over to the Housing Office. Roger: I am inclined to leave it #3. Tim: #3 is OK with me. I think it is much more practical for this project. There was general agreement among the commissioners on this. MOTION Tim: I make a motion that we recommend to City council that we extend the affordable housing package to increase the 12,00 square feet net leasable and that we allow the 3 bedroom unit to be deed restricted in category #3. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. -- SCORING -- Gideon: As far as we are concerned we are happy to just have you adopt the scoring of the Planning Office. Bruce: Sunny Vann indicated that same thing earlier. MOTION Roger: I move that we accept that in view of the fact that these 2 projects have met threshold in all cases that the 2 projects are covered by this year's allotment. And in view of the fact that the Planning & Zoning commission has reviewed and agrees with the Planning Office's scoring I move to adopt the Planning Office scoring for both of these projects. Sara seconded the motion. Chuck Roth: We were going to have a clarification on the drainage on cap's. Vann: I am not sure what I am clarifying. My understanding is that the City has an adopted regulation regarding how drainage is to be handled on site. I asked our engineer to review those regulations and we were told that we would comply with the City's -"" drainage control provisions and that we would prepare a plan '- 11 PZM12. 21. 93 "-- evidencing that compliance for submission and review and approval by the City Engineer's Dept prior to issuance of a building permit. Whether that involves drywells or whatever, I don't know. It hasn't been prepared. So our commitment was to comply. Roth: I guess it wasn't clear to us because of your engineer's letter that everything is already impermeable and everything is already running off the site and you weren't going to change that so you weren't going to mitigate because there is no change. Leslie: The language you used in your application was the project site __mumble__to be maintained thereby complying with the storm drainage design-- Vann: The reason why it is that way is that is the same language I have used always. That was the language which I understood was necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City's policy. ....... Roger: I have heard from the applicant that they are going to comply with any and all city regulations concerning the drainage on their project. And that is included as a notation in this motion and if that has to be a backup as a condition so be it. I don't think it does. It is a representation of them that they will comply with the drainage plan. I assume that has to be approved by the Engineering Dept. Leslie: There is nothing in this application that says they will submit a drainage plan to be reviewed by the Engineering Dept. That is all we are asking. Vann: (reading from application) A detailed drainage plan for the project will be submitted to the City's Engineering Dept for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. This also goes on to talk about the city's drainage policies. I have said that on the record. I am willing to take a condition on it. Roger: I am hearing that and I am noting that on the acceptance of the scoring for the Cap's project. Sara accepted this for the second of the motion. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. Bruce then closed the public hearing on both items. He then adjourned the business portion of the meeting. Time was 7:15 P.M. The Commission then continued with a work session. lerk 12