HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20060711
-,
Aspen Plannim! & Zonin!! Commission Special Meetin!! Minutes Julv 11. 2006
COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2
MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2
SKY HOTEL DISCUSSION OF RECONSIDERATION .......................................2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST ................................................. 4
JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER SUBDIVISION, 435 WEST MAIN STREET 4
1
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Special Meetine: Minutes Julv 11.2006
Jasmine Tygre opened the special meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning
Commission in the Rio Grande Meeting Room at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners Ruth
Kruger, Mary Liz Wilson and Brandon Marion were excused. Commissioners
Brian Speck, Steve Skadron, John Rowland, Dylan Johns and Jasmine Tygre were
present. Staff in attendance were Joyce Allgaier, Ben Gagnon, Amy Guthrie, Chris
Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Jasmine Tygre stated that the Rio Grande Meeting Room was a poor venue for the
P&Z Meetings although she understands that the Sister Cities Room was not
available on the second Tuesdays but wanted to voice objection because of the
sound in the room; she stated that another solution must be found.
Tygre asked about an investigation into the Pines Lodge, which was now being
offered in fractional ownership units and was not aware that was ever part of their
approval. Joyce Allgaier responded that she did not have the answer to that
question but she would respond back to Jasmine.
Tygre said that perspective buyers interested in purchasing the Dancing Bear units
were told that they could not rent out their unit if they were not using their
individual weeks, which was contrary to the time share regulations.
Tygre expressed strong objections for the Sky Hotel item discussion appearing in
front of a previously scheduled item. Allgaier replied that it was sought as a matter
of a planning staff informational item to give a heads up that this item will be back
even though it was recommended for disapproval by the planning commission.
MINUTES
MOTION: Steve Skadron made a correction to June 6th minutes, page 6, 2nd
paragraph "not convinced this was the only design that was eclectic" and moved
to approve the minutes from May 16th, June 6t\ June 13th and June 2(jh. Dylan
Johns seconded. All infavor, APPROVED.
SKY HOTEL DISCUSSION OF RECONSIDERATION
Jasmine Tygre opened the discussion. Chris Bendon stated there was an appeal
filed and the application has been kept alive after the appeal. Bendon said there
was a lot of discussion between the attorneys and planning staff and it was
determined that the applicant has a right to reconsideration in front of the planning
and zoning commission and this was to make the commission aware of that
scheduled for October 3rd. Bendon said as part ofthe process they wanted to re-
notice the public hearing to make sure that the neighbors were aware of the project
coming back to the planning and zoning commission.
2
"...~.."."."..-,I--"
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Special Meetine: Minutes Julv 11. 2006
Tygre noted there was a procedure in place for P&Z to reconsider a vote; it
involves the people who on the initial application agree to put forth a motion to
reconsider the application. Tygre asked why that procedure has not been followed.
Bendon replied that what was described was their reconsideration hearing and that
was what was scheduled for October. Bendon stated there was no action necessary
tonight at P&Z, this was an update so you know that it was coming back; that
hearing will be the reconsideration of the vote. Bendon said the applicant has the
right to be reconsidered, it does not take away any of the planning and zoning
commissions ability to weigh in on the project and may chose not to reconsider and
this should be done under a public hearing so that everyone is fully aware because
of the time that has lapsed. Tygre stated that in the past when the P&Z has been
asked to reconsider a motion by an applicant the P&Z then votes as to whether or
not it will reconsider the application and that was what will happen on October 3rd.
Bendon replied yes; it will be notified as a public hearing so that you can proceed
straight into the reconsideration if you chose so.
Dave Myler said that shortly after the tie vote that they did research that the tie
vote could not result in denial; a tie vote was simply no action. Myler said that he
began a series of communications with the city attorney over this issue and even
though he could not say that they have not reached agreement on that point; they
agree there is a certain amount of uncertainty over what is the legal effect of a tie
vote. Myler said one of the ways they discussed with staff that this matter could be
resolved was simply to reconsider the application; they were not going to request
the city issue a formal opinion as to what legal affect the title as a matter for
reconsideration. Staff seemed to think that we had the ability to do that anyway
and it seemed like the best solution to the problem but frankly he doesn't believe
that there has been a vote either for or against this project and it is still pending
before the planning commission and was able to be rescheduled for
reconsideration.
Tygre said that as a member of the commission to fulfill the requirements
according to instructions, the commission is instructed by the city attorney to frame
the motions in the affirmative even if the vote is no to avoid exactly this problem.
This matter needs to be researched because the commission's understanding of the
procedure is completely different from what Dave has just described; she wasn't
saying that he was wrong but what they have been told is in direct conflict in what
Dave just said. Myler said there were copies of communications between himself
and John Worcester. Myler said it was his understanding that they were not going
to attempt to resolve that issue but rather a compromise was to reconsider the
application and open the door for further public comment and allow the applicant
to submit. .. Tygre stated that this was still assuming that the commission wants to
3
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Special Meetine: Minutes July 11. 2006
reconsider it. Myler said it was his understanding that they were moving forward
with the reconsideration and there was not going to be a vote on October 3rd as to
whether or not they were going to have a hearing. Bendon recapped what Dave
was describing as their position that the process did not conclude with the 3-3 vote
that it was still an open process. Sunny Vann said that if it was the commissions
position was that they were going to vote as to whether to reconsider then they
need to go back to the attorney's office and straighten this out because it thwarts
the whole concept whether or not... Tygre stated that she understands that and
what you are trying to accomplish was in conflict with the rules that have already
been established and under which they have operated for many years. Tygre
-apologized for belaboring this because of the pending application but this was a
very serious matter. Vann said the confusion arises because they were not asking
for reconsidering a denied vote; their position is that it was not denied but a tie
vote. Tygre stated the whole process and this interpretation is so contrary to the
established procedures that have been in place in all of the years that she has been
on planning and zoning that she objected very strenuously to this.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None stated.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (06/20/06):
JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER SUBDIVISION. 435 WEST MAIN
STREET
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Jewish Community
Center Subdivision. Tygre apologized to the applicant for tabling the last meeting.
Ben Gagnon stated there were 4 different reviews before P&Z; Growth
Management Review to determine employee generation; Special Review to
establish off-street parking requirements; Growth Management Review as an
Essential Public Facility and Subdivision. HPC did a lot of review on this project.
Amy Guthrie stated the property was located in the Main Street Historic District
and contains buildings that HPC considered historically significant although HPC
has not designated them. Guthrie said the property currently contains 9 cabins that
run down the side along Third and across the back of the property built in the
1940s as tourist accommodations pulling straight in from Main Street; the front
cabins were built in the mid 1990s and a manager's house that was not considered
by HPC as contributing. Guthrie said that HPC's role was the using the HPC
Guidelines to determine architecturally how the project fit into Main Street; this
was a long process and the applicant and HPC worked very hard to come up with
solutions. HPC looked at this as architectural issues, development patterns on
4
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Special Meetine: Minutes Julv 11. 2006
Main Street. The first plan was one large building on the Fourth Street end and left
everything else pretty much in tact and no one was comfortable with that; there
were a series of other solutions that really came down to the desire to have it
appear to be 2 detached buildings bringing the scale down as much as possible
close to the cabins. There was the desire to create open space in the center that
once existed on the site, visual open space to Main Street.
Guthrie said there were discussions about parking for the appropriate thing to do
for Main Street and the head in parking was discarded and to continue with the pull
in off of Main resulted in moving cabins around and eroded street scape on Main
so the parking came back to the alley where the historic cabins were located. It
was determined that 3 cabins could be moved off site, which was not HPCs best
alternative but they were trying to balance issues. Guthrie said that HPC approved
this plan conceptually in terms of massing and site plan but have not discussed
materials or fenestration. HPC did not was to grant any parking variances without
knowing how P&Z and Council felt about the issue. HPC in general supported the
proj ect.
Steve Skadron asked what HPC's perspective is: support of the project within the
architectural parameters that fit along Main Street but not land use. Guthrie replied
that land use was not in the HPC purview; they did not discuss traffic counts or the
level of detail that was in the P&Z application. Alan Richman stated that it was
important to understand that they did spend 18 months with HPC together arriving
at a site plan, overall massing and beginnings of the architecture on how this site
can work.
Dylan Johns asked their position on the new configuration of Main Street lanes.
Guthrie answered they were not asked to take a position on that. Johns asked from
a historical perspective do the new lanes add anything or subtract anything.
Guthrie replied that HPC hasn't talked about it because the period of significance
for Main Street was Victorian when cars weren't even considered or even
sidewalks, which were considered modern additions.
Alan Richman introduced Rabbi Mendel Mintz, Lennie Oates and Arthur Chabon.
Richman said they were in the City process for the better part of 2 years and this
was the first time before the planning commission after 18 months with HPC.
Richman said that HPC helped to mold this project into one that was consistent
with the Aspen Area Community Plan and complies with the standards of the code
and not asking for any special dispensation that you might see in other projects.
Richman said there were many elements of the original proposal that HPC was not
comfortable with. This proposal was drastically different and they were able to
5
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Special Meetine: Minutes July 11. 2006
work with HPC and quite a bit of public input; this project needs to be prominent
because it is a religious facility where there will be worship services which needs
grandeur and awe inspiring spaces.
Richman said this project was different from projects that the commission has been
seeing. The first way that it was different was that it was a community center
facility; it's not a resort or a second home development. Richman said it was
intended to provide basic services that were in need by members of the community
today including a day care center (a non-denominational day care), a religious
school and a place for religious worship. Richman said there were no floor area
variances requested, they were under .75 in floor area; the height was within the
mixed use zone and no PUD.
Richman said that parking requires special review because it was required to be set
from the code in this manner. Parking will be the topic of the next meeting with
data from 2004 when they first entered into the process. Richman said that they
collected summer data during the Jazz Aspen weekend and there was no demand of
crowding on the surrounding blocks; this was not in the downtown area and there
was available parking.
Mendel Mintz provided his background of moving here 6 years ago founding the
Jewish Community Center Chabbad. Mintz said the holiday events, just a few
times a year, attract anywhere between 200 to 500 people, generally in different
locations such as Aspen Mountain, the ARC and places like that. Currently they
serve about 50 children a week after school hours or other programs. Mintz said
that the facility will service children and adults on a daily basis making it a true
and vibrant community center; this will be a unique building that will not only
have a sanctuary but also serve many educational events and add a sense to the
community in education and in culture. Mintz said it will be called a Jewish
Community Center by name at this point but it will be a community center for the
whole community; about 80% of the programs will serve the community as a
whole and won't be religious in nature but educational access to the whole
community. Mintz said that he will continue to be hands on and run everything in
the center with a non-judgmental place for children and adults. Mintz said this will
be a place for awareness to obtain Jewish knowledge and Jewish identity.
Steve Skadron asked Chabbad meant. Rabbi Mintz replied that Chabbad was the
acronym of three words in Hebrew meaning wisdom, understanding and
knowledge; the theology that Rabbi believes in the service of God that was
generally known as an organization that's primary concern and goals are to spread
Jewish awareness, identity and pride in a non-judgmental positive way. This
6
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Special Meetine: Minutes July 11. 2006
branch was local but there were about 4,000 branches around the world all
independently operated.
Richman said they thought this was the right location for this particular use
because it was a prominent location on Main Street; it was an easily accessible site
in town for the daycare center and where guests and residents can get to it easily by
bus or walking; this was a mix oflocal serving and visitor serving uses with
lodges, offices, residences and restaurants. Richman described the way the
property evolved over the years.
Richman explained the duplex owned by Goldenberg and the previous owners of
this property entered into a covenant to keep the rectangular area as open space.
Richman said they knew that there would be a daycare facility so a safe drop-off
area was needed therefore the only possible place was on the alley side. Richman
said that sub-grade parking was determined not feasible because then a basement
could not be built on this site; the basement functioned with the library, kitchens,
teen social room and the entrance for a below grade parking structure would be at
the drop off area for the children, which would be a very poor trade-off.
Arthur Chabon, architect, displayed drawings of the project with views from Third
to Fourth and the opposite direction (from Fourth to Third) with a lobby that
surrounded the courtyard with glass on both sides giving a sense of transparency to
further diminish the connection of the two buildings. Chabon said there were 3
employee housing units and 3 more units, which serve the building itself. The first
cabin functions as an entrance to the basement ritual bath and the second cabin
functions as a service entrance. The preschool faced out toward Fourth Street, the
preschool has a play yard. The classrooms have direct access to the play yard.
There were bicycle racks along the alley and on Third Street. Chabon utilized
drawings to show the relationship of this building to the Christiania Lodge and the
Office Building on Third Street.
Jasmine Tygre asked how many square feet the day care center was. Rabbi Mintz
replied there were 3 classrooms were under a thousand feet each; originally they
were smaller but the state licensing person said that 15 preschoolers in a classroom
needed at least 1000 square feet. Mintz said this facility will be designed with
children in mind; there will also be a teen group, adult education, lectures, a
Hebrew School, Holiday Programs and Services, a Library and a small Judaic
Shop. Mintz said this will be low impact on the neighborhood and benefit the
neighborhood.
7
Aspen Plan nine: & Zonine: Commission Special Meetine: Minutes July 11. 2006
Chabon said there was a courtyard for gathering and in the center was a skylight
for the lower level. The entrance to the basement was by stair that runs along the
back, which takes you to the lower gallery and to the library. The teen activity
room was under the preschool and administration; there were a couple of
bathrooms, mechanical spaces, storage, the two kitchens for the dietary laws and
ritual bath was under the two cabins.
Tygre asked about the employee housing. Chabon replied there were three units
that run along Third Street; there were two studios (approximately 379 square feet
each) and a one bedroom (547 square feet). Tygre asked if those employee units
would be part of the regular housing pool or associated with the facility. Richman
answered they hoped to associate with the facility but if the demand was not there
by employees of the facility then the units will be deed-restricted by the Housing
Authority. Tygre asked if they have talked to housing about the possibility of
obtaining funds from the housing and daycare tax to help fund the preschool. The
answer was no.
Public Comments:
John Baty said that he represents the Scott Building across the alley and their main
issue was parking and concerns about the drop-off area.
Commission Comments:
Skadron asked if more information was coming forward at the next meeting.
Tygre replied that the commission mayor may not need more information there
were the 4 different reviews and if the members of the commission feel that the
reviews were sufficient straight forward and that the applicant provided adequate
information that would allow the commission to go through the individual reviews;
there was nothing magic about having another meeting next week.
Skadron asked about the process. Skadron said that Amy's comment was that it
first came to HPC and the architectural use was approved to assure the aesthetic of
this building was appropriate for that area. Skadron asked why the aesthetic
review supersedes the land use review. Amy Guthrie responded that it doesn't
supersede it but the code actually requires when a land marked property was
involved there were multiple steps beginning with HPC Conceptual. Guthrie said
there were community issues to be addressed since it was a sensitive site and has
been in place for a long time for HPC to begin the process. Joyce Allgaier said
that after the City Council Review it goes back to HPC for Final Review. Allgaier
stated that all the uses were permitted in the Zone District.
8
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Special Meetine: Minutes July 11. 2006
Skadron said the busiest time for the Sanctuary most likely would be the fall and
the spring with the high holidays and he asked does the summer traffic study and
the winter study apply to those days. Rabbi Mintz replied that many people due to
religious observance don't drive on those days, which is their experience now
having 20 or 30 people at a religious ceremony with 5 cars present. Mintz said that
if you see him in a car on a Saturday you know there is a major emergency; many
people don't drive due to the laws about driving on the Sabbath. Richman said
that they were happy to bring up the parking consultant next week; Richman was
confident that the study encompasses the needs that might arise. Richman said the
maximum seating capacity in the Sanctuary was 200 and close to the maximum
level for the social hall.
Richman said there would be a kosher kitchen, which would limit the people using
this facility. Mintz said that this facility was not suited for the big show but a
lower key use.
Skadron said that he wanted to think through the Essential Public Facility. Guthrie
said that recognizing cultural facilities were essential to the quality of life in the
community. Richman said that this commission has reviewed religious facilities
before. Tygre asked what the different review criteria would be in evaluating this
project from the essential public facility or another land use application. Gagnon
responded that under essential public facility review criteria the first one talks
about the community development director determining whether it was an essential
public facility and in this case it has been determined as such based on the
definition. Gagnon said that this was not free market residential or commercial or
office and was unique. Richman said that Growth Management was necessary to
pass through our code.
John Rowland said this was a good site plan with two years oflabor despite the
lack of parking, which he actually applauded. Rowland did not know why P&Z
had to belabor the process any more and would like to vote on the project tonight.
Brian Speck said that he felt the same way as John; he thought the project
aesthetically fit into the area. Speck liked incorporating the family and children
into a project. Speck voiced concern for the area with the children being on Main
Street with the increased traffic. Chabon said that there was a proposed masonry
wall to provide safety and a buffer. Mintz said the person who licenses for the
State Daycares will provide some options for fencing and walls. Speck said that he
had concerns about the parking.
9
Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission Special Meetine: Minutes July 11.2006
Dylan Johns stated the project looks great and had much needed programs. Johns
said initially he had concerns about the parking but once the hours of operation
were provided and as the project was outlined he became less concerned. Johns
said that he works down the block and during the day the parking spaces tend to
fill up but the only general concern was the schedule and number of special events.
Jasmine Tygre agreed and as the rest of the commission has indicated that there
was general approval of the concept, location, architecture and purpose of this
facility. Tygre said that she felt the need to represent Ruth in not under parking a
facility. Tygre said that the parking for Harris Hall has been a thorn in the side of
the west end ever since so there must be some parking or traffic management plan
that has to do with the number of special events and how it fits into the community.
Tygre stated that a community facility would become sufficiently attractive to the
community in general then it would become more popular that would fulfill the
plans for education and community involvement. Tygre said that maybe the
consultant could help the commission with a plan for the community facility.
Tygre said like the rest of the commission she was very much in favor of the
project. Rabbi Mintz said that they have discussed some of the issues of how to
deal with the cases of traffic or when the neighborhood was overwhelmed and
some of the answers were an outside monitor to move things along for pick-up and
drop-offtimes for the school; the website will list that there is not parking for
events so please car pool or use public transportation.
Tygre said that the conditions of approval should include all of the issues of
parking and incorporated into a Resolution of Approval. Richman and Mintz
replied that they would be conditions that have been discussed. Rabbi Mintz said
that he consulted with his Christian colleagues and they said it was a non-issue and
were good neighbors.
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearing on the Jewish
Community Center, 435 West Main Street to July 18th; seconded by John Rowland.
All infavor, APPROVED.
Ben Gagnon pointed out on page 4 of the Resolution, Section 10 with regards to
the parking requirements and the drop off for the preschool.
Meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
ckie LothIan, Deputy City Clerkw
10