HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20060815
-- ....-I -
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Re!!:ular Meetin!!: Minutes -
Au!!:ust 15. 2006
COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2
MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST ................................................. 2
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT...... 3
625 EAST MAIN STREET - STAGE III - REDEVELOPMENT.......................... 5
1
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Re!!:ular Meetin!!: Minutes -
Au!!:ust 15. 2006
Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning
Commission in the Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:35 p.m. Commissioners Brian
Speck, Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns, Ruth Kruger and Jasmine Tygre were present.
John Rowland was excused. Staff in attendance were Joyce Allgaier, Jessica
Garrow, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Brian Speck said that the new lights at the high school were very bright and asked
who approved them; he suggested the lights be on a motor that goes up and down.
Joyce Allgaier responded that the school was exempt from all of the land use codes
and permits; another exempt entity was the Given Institute. Allgaier noted there
was no construction management plan for the school project, which has become an
important subject.
Jasmine Tygre asked at what point in the process were timeshare projects required
to submit their operating agreements to make sure that they were in compliance
with the timeshare regulations. Joyce Allgaier replied they were required at the
time ofPUD. Tygre asked if they were normally required to provide facilities for
rentals. Allgaier responded normally yes; there was a provision in the timeshare
regulation, which requires an operational plan and amenities like a lodge such as
pool, spa and/or front desk. Tygre asked what happens if the applicant stated that
they would have a front desk and once the project was built there was no front
desk. Allgaier answered then they go and enforce showing the ordinance or
approval by sending a letter and turn it over to the city attorney if there was not
compliance. Kruger asked if there was a fee or penalty. Allgaier replied up to
$1,000.00 a day.
Allgaier will send follow up information on the Dancing Bear; their declarations
indicate the rental requirements.
Allgaier mentioned the Colorado Chapter of the Planning Association sponsors the
State Conference and invited the Planning Commissioners to attend in Telluride
this year on September 20th to the 22nd.
MINUTES
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve the minutes of August 1'1, seconded by
Steve Skadron. All infavor, APPROVED.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None stated.
2
-----~j-
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Re!!:ular Meetin!!: Minutes -
Au!!:ust 15. 2006
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (08/01106):
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Jerome Professional
redevelopment. Joyce Allgaier stated the three areas of concern from the previous
meeting.
I. Clarify who determines whether the affordable housing units are ownership or
rental units. Also are there regulations that allow the developer to pick qualified
purchasers. If the applicant can pick the purchasers then they agree to for sale
units otherwise the applicant prefers that they be rental units. Allgaier said that the
Planning Commission was the final review on this Grow Management Review.
2. Clarify the use percentages within the building and whether any standards within
the Land Use Code address use percentage. Allgaier said the development
contains 10,515 square feet in Commercial Floor Area; 3,000 square feet in
Affordable Housing Floor Area and 10,442 square feet in Free-Market Multi-
family Floor Area with a total for the building of 23,957 square feet. Calculated as
percentages the commercial component was 43.89%; affordable housing
component was 12.52% and the free-market residential component was 43.58% of
the total floor area. Allgaier said that Ordinance #12-06 provided a maximum cap
on the size of the free-market residential unit of2,000 square feet of net livable
area and all 6 of the units meet that size limitation.
3. Review the parking requirements. Allgaier said that there were 20 parking
spaces proposed within the parking garage; 4 spaces are in tandem configuration
resulting in 2 spaces so there were a total of 18 spaces in the garage. Required
were I parking space per residential unit so there were a total of9 spaces for the
residential component and for the commercial office it was one space per 1,000
square feet or 11 spaces required. Staff was not in favor of the proposed affordable
housing units parking in the Rio Grande garage during the day instead there should
be 3 dedicated spaces to the affordable housing units in the parking garage.
Allgaier said that staffs position was to recommend in favor of this land use
application with minor changes to the resolution for typographical reasons.
Ruth Kruger asked the current square footage of the office building. Mitch Haas
responded the net leasable now was 7,550 square feet.
Mitch Haas said that they have responded to some of the concerns from the last
meeting with regards to the architecture. Haas said that 3 parking spaces would be
3
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Re!!:ular Meetin!!: Minutes -
Au!!:ust 15. 2006
dedicated to the affordable housing units so there would not be shuffling of the
cars.
David Warner and JeffOrsulak presented a slide show of the proposed building in
context with some vegetation and different ways of dealing with the comer of the
building. Warner noted the visor was lowered. Warner said that the steps were at
grade and wanted the steps to be a nice balance to be able to be utilized.
Public Comments:
1. Letter from Mark Richards, Comfort Products, 225 North Mill Street.
2. Sherry Michaels said that she worked with the building owner of225 North
Mill Street and brought the letter from Mark Joseph. Michaels said that she was
more concerned with the alley than anything else and whoever improves the alley
(either the Blue Vic or this group) that was not clear at this point. Michaels said
the Blue Vic agreed to try to do a 4 foot greenbelt between 225 North Mill and the
alley when the alley was improved and hoped that would be considered at this
point as well.
Steve Skadron asked if the application as it was currently written addressed the
concerns of Mark Joseph. Allgaier asked if Steve shared these concerns. Haas
said there was a 5 foot setback off the alley and would like to maintain a 4 foot
greenbelt also if the fire marshal would allow it; that would make the alley 16 feet
wide instead of 20 feet wide. Haas said the idea of a 6 to 8 foot high wall was not
a good idea from the building next door's perspective; they would be looking
directly at a wall rather than the 4 feet plus the alley and the 5 foot setback before
the wall. Haas said that by moving the building closer to Mill Street would not
allow them to take advantage of the slope and there would be more garage door
showing; this would also impact the whole floor plan of the building. David
Warner stated that the city required the alley entrance for the garage.
Kruger asked if the sidewalks would be snow melted. Haas said that there were
conditions addressing if they were but the sidewalks were currently not snow
melted but the applicant has not decided on that one way or another with energy
calculations to consider.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #26, series of 2006,
approving with conditions the 3 Growth Management Reviews, the Commercial
Design Review and the Special Review under the purview of the Planning
Commission and recommending that City Council approve with conditions, the
subdivision request for the Jerome Professional Building to construct a mixed use
4
___________1_
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Re!!:ular Meetin!!: Minutes -
Au!!:ust 15. 2006
structure on the property on the property known as Jerome Professional Building
Condominiums (Lots P, Q, Rand S, Block 78, Town site of Aspen). Seconded by
Dylan Johns. Roll call vote: Johns, yes; Speck, yes; Skadron, yes; Kruger, yes;
Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5-0.
Discussion: Dylan Johns said that bringing the comer down was good. Jasmine
Tygre stated her concern was not with this application because it followed the rules
that were in place but was with the way the regulations were written. Tygre said
that she felt that this was not was intended in the Special Review Criteria and
found it contrary to the spirit of what the commission thought that they were
getting in terms of mixed use projects when the greatest increase in the use was the
free market residential, which is allowed under the rules in place at this time.
Joyce Allgaier clarified what the applicants sought through this application through
Special Review was to have the free market component go from a .75 to 1 ratio to
a .87 to 1 ratio, which adds about 1400 extra square feet split amongst the units.
Allgaier said the commercial component was going from .75 though Special
Review to .88 to I. Mitch Haas said that the corridors added the square footage.
PUBLIC HEARING:
625 EAST MAIN STREET - STAGE II1- REDEVELOPMENT
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Stage III redevelopment,
subdivision, commercial design review, growth management review for affordable
housing and free market units and expansion/new construction, lodge or mixed use
development. Jessica Garrow provided the proof of notice and mailing.
Jessica Garrow distributed the revised resolution with some minor changes and
criteria sheets. Garrow stated this was an application for a mixed use project in the
Cl Zone District; the property was commonly known as Stage III located at 625
East Main Street. The existing 2 story building has a 3 screen movie theatre and
provides 3 off-street parking spaces; the existing structure has a deficit 4 off-street
parking spaces. The lot is 10,000 square feet and currently includes less than 10%
pedestrian amenity; the land use code states that if an existing site provides less
than 10% pedestrian amenity space a cash-in-lieu payment was permitted without
further review and the applicant proposed that for this case.
Garrow stated the proposed 3 story building includes a sub grade level with a
parking lift; 14 parking spaces and storage areas. The street level contains 2
commercial spaces, the top end of the auto lift, which has access from the alley and
3 parking spaces along the alley. The second level has 2 office spaces, I free
market residence and 4 affordable housing units. The third level has 4 free market
5
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Re!!:ular Meetin!!: Minutes -
Au!!:ust 15. 2006
residences with access to the roof with mechanical and elevator access for ADA
Accessibility. Garrow said that the proposal meets all the zoning requirements for
the Cl Zone District (outlined on pages 3 and 4 of the staff memo). There were
zero setbacks for the side yards, rear yard and front yard. The building height was
42 feet; the elevator shaft extends 5 feet making that one portion 47 feet located
two-thirds back on the building looking from Main Street. There was cash-in-lieu
provided for the Pedestrian Amenity. The floor area ratio cumulative maximum in
this zone district was 3 to 1 and this proposal was 2.64 to 1; broken down that was
1.28 to 1 for commercial, free market was I to 1 and the affordable housing has no
limit. The percentages of the building were 48.4% commercial, 13.8% affordable
housing and the free market was 37.8%. The free market units were below the
2,000 square foot limit and the affordable units were 700 square feet except for I,
which was 691 square feet approved by the Housing Authority.
Garrow said there were 3 separate Growth Management Reviews. # 1. Growth
Management approval for a mixed use building, which requires 60% of the
employees generated by the commercial development were mitigated for and in
this development there were 7.47 full time employees generated and resulting in
mitigation of 4.482 full time employees. #2. 30% of the additional free market
residential net livable space must be mitigated for and that results in 2,574 square
feet and affordable housing is being provided on site that exceeds that amount with
4 one-bedroom affordable housing units; each calculated as housing 1.75
employees equaling 7 full time employees being mitigated. #3. The Affordable
Housing Units meet all the requirements with 100% of the units above grade and
will be for sale units.
Garrow said that this project was consistent with the AACP Standards, it provides
affordable housing within city limits, it contains new development within the urban
growth boundary and promotes the infill goals. This project also promotes
alternate transportation modes; it was close to transit and near the commercial core
so it was accessible for walking.
Garrow stated there were 5 commercial design review standards. The first was the
building relationship to the primary street; this proposal was built to the setback
and will include improvements to the front sidewalk. The second was Pedestrian
amenity space provided by cash-in-lieu, which was permitted. The third was Street
Level Elements which occur with the first floor commercial space with defined
entrances. The fourth was the parking requirement with access through the alley,
which meets the commercial design standard review and they were exceeding the
parking requirement. The fifth was utility, delivery and trash service provision
was also met in the alley.
6
----".~--._ -" ..--1
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Re!!:ular Meetin!!: Minutes -
Au!!:ust 15. 2006
Garrow said the applicant requested subdivision because the development of
multifamily units requires subdivision approval. After subdivision there would be
a condominium plat.
Mitch Haas, planner for the applicant, stated this was an ideal infill development as
a mixed use project; there was no historic overlay and the project was located on
Main Street. Haas reviewed the adjacent properties. Haas utilized drawings to
illustrate the floor plans, which have changed. The sub-grade space has storage
units and two more parking spaces; there was an auto elevator also accessed off the
back. There were 14 parking spaces and tenant storage spaces. There was an
elevator and 2 sets of stairs to get into the building for egress requirements. Haas
said there were 3 more parking spaces along the alley with the service area for
trash and utility. The first floor off of Main Street provided 2 commercial spaces
instead of the current arcade or cantilever over the sidewalk; there was a main
entrance in the center of the building with hallways and both commercial spaces
have front doors to access the street. The spaces will be tenant finished so there
was no internal circulation, storage or bathrooms. They exceeded the affordable
housing requirements based on 95%. The second floor contained 4 one-bedroom
affordable housing units with the comers stepped back on the sides, 2 office spaces
and I free market residential unit in the back comer. The top floor contained 4 free
market units, all under the 2,000 square foot limit, there were 2 decks cut out in the
back ofthe building and the roof had deck space also. Haas said because of ADA
requirements the elevator had to be brought up to the roof and under the code the
elevator was allowed to exceed the height limit by up to 5 feet.
Haas said that the existing building had a deficit of 4 parking spaces per code and
the code would allow that debt carried forward that deficit and as a result only 6
spaces would be required, instead they have provided 17 spaces with the 14 below
ground in the garage and 3 on the alley.
Haas said there were no issues to the resolution that was just handed out.
Charles Cunniffe said that in the bigger sense there were similar scaled buildings
on either side; there was a two story element building surrounded by a more
transparent third floor and side elements for the stairs to give the building a
reduced sense of scale and pedestrian level.
Jeff Lester stated that he and Charles worked on the Isis and there were similarities
from a pedestrian and vehicular standpoint; there was an articulated two story
stone fa<;ade that fronts a recessed higher residential component. Lester said it was
compatible with design guidelines updated for this neighborhood; the basic
7
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Re!!:ular Meetin!!: Minutes -
Au!!:ust 15. 2006
building was 39 feet to the dominant roof form with a few projections coming up
to 42 feet with a transparent guardrail. Haas said they were hoping to breathe
some pedestrian life into the neighborhood with the commercial uses fronting the
street and possibly a restaurant use with windows that can open to the street.
Steve Skadron asked Charles if they were not using red brick. Cunniffe replied
that red brick was a nice material but the choice of color being brown or beige fit
into this neighborhood. Skadron said his question had to do with community
character and why not pull elements of the core into this part of the community.
Cunniffe responded this wasn't part ofthe core; this has its own neighborhood
sense of scale, material and color. Jeff Lester said it was not a matter of the color
of red or buff but the scale and the massing and the Victorian rhythm of the
windows that make a relative gesture but not a mimicking gesture in full.
Dylan Johns asked the floor to floor heights. Jeff Lester responded that the first
floor was about 14 feet with a ceiling height of about 9 to 10 feet; 12 the middle
level and 13 feet on the third level. Cunniffe said that the duct work would go into
the ceilings. Johns asked if the parking was for customers. Lester replied it was
not for customers but rather owners only. Haas said also for the commercial
tenants. Lester said the parking was long term in the garage. Johns asked if the
green space to the west belonged to this property. Cunniffe replied that most of it
belonged to the Hunter Building.
Skadron asked for an explanation for the cash-in-lieu pedestrian amenity; why was
it allowed. Allgaier answered there was some history and this came with the
changes; pedestrian amenity was not always a valuable or functional public space
so there were some options. Allgaier said that if the public space could not be
provided on site that fee would be paid to go towards the embellishment of other
spaces or new spaces. Garrow read for the code that "if fees were not spent within
7 years from the date fees were paid, unless city council shall have earmarked the
funds and to obtain a refund the present owner must submit a petition to the
finance director within one year following the end of the seventh year".
Tygre asked if the requirements were part of the new Cl and requested something
with the old Cl requirements showing the differences in height, FAR and setbacks.
Public Comments:
1. Phil Rothblum said that he lived at 614 East Hopkins, directly behind the
Stage III Theatre; he said he built 8 years ago and the back of the theatre was not
one of the proud buildings in Aspen, so any improvement will be better. Rothblum
8
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Re!!ular Meetin!! Minutes -
Au!!ust 15. 2006
said that he also served on the infill committee and submitted a letter regarding the
purpose of the CI zone. Rothblum said the mass could be broken up including
some street setback and to reduce the rear building massing could be terraced.
Rothblem said that the dumpsters should be removed from the alley and a
restaurant should be prohibited to avoid cooking odors. Rothblum also suggested
the elimination of food waste because they attract bears and reduce the size of the
individual commercial spaces to promote neighborhood or local retail usage.
Rothblum said that red brick blends in with East Hopkins. Rothblum said that the
transition of the CI zone was not part of this application but rather the same as the
CC zone.
2. Jeff Gibson was in the building across the street and the roofline of the
Concept 600 at the highest peak was 38 feet from the street level on the southeast
comer and 33 feet from street on the southwest comer. Gibson said for the sense
that the building would have on pedestrians would be to take the Concept 600
building add several feet to it and move it up to the sidewalk. Gibson said that he
was concerned with the size, height and mass of this project; he noted that they had
a lot of interaction with Obermeyer Place as it was being developed. Gibson said
that this process seems to be different and almost a rush to approve. Gibson said
the plan seemed to be changing continuously so they were not sure what to
comment on, which was troubling to him.
3. Paul Taddune said he was here on behalf of Jurine Biers who owns the
property next door (Hunter Square Building). Taddune stated concern for the
beautiful landscaped area next to the Hunter Square Building, which would be
dramatically impacted and there were a number of ways that it could be mitigated.
Taddune said that they would be willing to work with the developer on making this
a better project.
4. Jurine Biers said that the plans have changed since yesterday and was not
sure what the final plan would be; she said that the meeting was good today and as
the plans continue to evolve they will be able to work out problems but need some
time to accomplish that. Biers said infill's main objective was to develop on site
affordable housing and she felt this project was providing a minimum level of
affordable housing and had some questions about that. Biers questioned the
employee generation and the pedestrian amenity space for this project. Biers stated
concern for the 100 foot long 39 foot tall wall next to her building and how it
would impact her building; she said that was not a park it was the landscape her
husband put in 33 years ago in keeping with the old Aspen regulations on not
building out to the lot line. Biers stated concern for the lack oflight impacted on
the garden and tenants of the building.
9
II r~
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Re!!:ular Meetin!!: Minutes -
Au!!:ust 15. 2006
5. Lindsey Smith said that she lived in Concept 600 and asked looking at one
of the photo renderings what happened to Aspen Mountain; you could not see it
from the sidewalk with the new project. Smith stated that was sad because Aspen
Mountain was part ofthe town and this was one of the few locations that you can
still see Aspen Mountain. Smith said that the pedestrian experience was lost by
this new building and questioned the number of employees. Smith said that this
proposal was larger than the proposal that was turned down. Smith requested the
application be tabled until they can work with the neighborhood to get a building
that worked in the neighborhood.
6. Susan Whitney said that she managed the Hunter Square Building and she
maintains the garden. Whitney said that the massiveness of the proposed building
would cut out the light for the garden,
7. A letter from Patsy Hicks who lives in Concept 600 voiced concern for
parking in this neighborhood and preserving the setbacks.
8. A message from Beverly Fick was left for Community Development
regarding this project and stated concern for not enough parking in the area now;
she did not like the height and said mechanical allowed above the height limit
should be stopped.
Jessica Garrow explained the calculations for FTEs and it was in the staff memo on
pages 4,5 and 6 pursuant to Code Section 26.470.050, which speaks to employee
generation calculations and mitigation.
Cunniffe stated the building was 39 feet not 42 feet high and the existing building
was built to the front property line and over the Main Street sidewalk at the
marquee with no windows and was about 2 stories. Tygre said that the sheet that
they have shows the proposed height was 42 feet in the application. Haas said that
was to the top of the handrail.
Garrow said the prior code regulations for the Cl Zone were 40 feet high not to
exceed 4 stories above grade; the FAR was 1 to 1 for a mixture of uses allowed to
increase to 1.5 to 1 through Special Review and no requirements for setbacks.
Haas stated the application was submitted in April so they were 4 months down the
road and this was not a rushed project. Haas said the redevelopment rights were
the same for this building as the building next door.
10
_______1_
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Re!!:ular Meetin!!: Minutes -
Au!!:ust 15. 2006
Kruger clarified that the Obermeyer project was a COWOP project, which was a
public/private development with a totally different process. Kruger said there was
a city requirement for trash in the alleys; she said that she can't imagine how that
will ever go away. Kruger noted the restaurant was a commercial use allowable in
the zoning. Kruger said this project was well within the allowable guidelines.
Johns wanted to see a site plan with the building footprint so that everyone was
clear about where everything was located. Johns said the proposed building looked
attractive and it will ultimately improve the neighborhood. Garrow said that the
requirements of the Cl Zone District were met by this redevelopment.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing to September 51h
seconded by Steve Skadron. All infavor, APPROVED.
Tygre said the front fa<;ade will be attractive; the height limit was the height limit;
the employee housing units above grade, which was wonderful; pedestrian amenity
was site specific and thought that some type of pedestrian amenity should be on
this site.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to extend the meetingfor 10 minutes seconded by
Steve Skadron. All infavor, APPROVED.
Skadron asked what retail operations best utilize the spaces as currently
configured. Haas replied that he did not know the answer to that because the
spaces were not configured yet because the spaces were tenant finished. Skadron
said that he would like to see smaller retail spaces utilized by more local serving
businesses if possible. Steve Jones, owner, said that this was designed for
flexibility. Kruger said that in that location there would be a destination retailer,
there won't be much walk by traffic. Skadron asked what a destination retailer
would be. Kruger replied that would be home furnishings, furniture, restaurant and
offices; unlikely clothing. Skadron said the building aesthetic could go a longer
way towards serving this idea of the traditional community character of Aspen; he
asked for more break-up in the fa<;ade. Skadron said that it was a beautiful
building but it could be found in any city and was not unique to Aspen.
Brain Speck looked forward to the site plan and would like to see some relief in the
front and side of the building. Speck asked if the parking elevator had door that
closed to keep it quiet. Cunniffe said it was basically a lift with the door that
closes then goes down. Speck said that he was sensitive to the neighbors and
should continue to listen to them. Speck stated concern for the elevator at 47 feet
because of handicap. Haas replied that it was code and required.
11
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Re!!:ular Meetin!!: Minutes -
Au!!:ust 15. 2006
Kruger agreed with her fellow commissioners; the C 1 Zone District was intended
to be a transitional zone but the way it converted into the new infill rules doesn't
follow the intent. Kruger suggested the commissioners attend the work sessions
that City Council set up regarding the land use code regulations regarding the infill
rules and intent. Kruger said that she also wanted to see more breaks in the fa<;ade.
Adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
~
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
12