Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20060905 ^ "~-~-'....._~- ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES _ SEPTEMBER 5. 2006 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................2 MINUTES .................................................................................................................2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST ................................................. 3 625 EAST MAIN STREET - MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT .............................. 3 WEINERSTUBE GROWTH MANAGEMENT, SUBDIVISION & MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 9 LIFT ONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT, SUBDIVISION & SPECIAL REVIEW9 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 5. 2006 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning and Zoning Meeting in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30pm. Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns, Ruth Kruger, John Rowland and Jasmine Tygre were present. Brian Speck was excused. Staffin attendance were Joyce Allgaier, James Lindt, Jessica Garrow, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Ruth Kruger commented that she has been billed for weed control management on her tax role if tenants had not mowed the yard and noticed some properties around town particularly on Main Street that had very tall weeds. Kruger asked if there was a program for unsightly weeds. Joyce Allgaier replied there were regulations about weeds and the responsibility of property owners to maintain their property; she will inform the right people. Jasmine Tygre asked about the Dancing Bear regarding the incentives for lodges and stated the incentives were not for free market residential. Tygre clarified that the free market did not provide the hotbeds that were lost when the lodges were demolished; there were many lodges that went through the lodge incentive replacement program, which are not functioning as lodges. Tygre mentioned that big cities have great big buildings going up all the time and they do not have individual workers riding one per truck with their tools; it might be helpful to find out what happens in congested cities for construction management plans. Tygre said that there were still changes that needed to be incorporated into the code like the mixed use doesn't get a specific enough blend. Allgaier said that Community Development would like the Commission to flag the items now. Steve Skadron inquired about the resignation of the land use consultant. Allgaier responded that she had a personal conflict and could not speak to the matter and suggested that Chris Bendon could explain the reasons at the next meeting. Allgaier asked for a member of the Planning Commission to serve on the Puppy Smith COWOP, which was on a short time line with very distinct parameters. Ruth Kruger agreed to serve on the Puppy Smith COWOP. MINUTES The minutes of 8/15; 8/1; and 7/18 were postponed until the next meeting. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES _ SEPTEMBER 5. 2006 DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Dylan Johns was conflicted on the Weinerstube Redevelopment. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (08/15/06): 625 EAST MAIN STREET - MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for 625 East Main Street. Tygre asked John Rowland ifhe had read the materials and minutes from the prior hearing. John Rowland replied that he was current. The rest of the commissioners present attended the previous hearing. Jessica Garrow distributed an addition to the packet from the applicant regarding new drawings of the project and the applicant provided large scale drawings. Garrow stated the staff memo refers to an August 1 st meeting and it should be an August 15th meeting. Garrow also provided copies of the staff memo and new drawings for the members of the public. Garrow noted this required 3 Growth Management Reviews and Commercial Design Review decisions made by Planning & Zoning and the Subdivision Review, which Planning & Zoning makes recommendations to Council on approval or denial. Garrow stated at the previous meeting the commission requested clarification of a "transition" zone and Exhibit B in the staff memo outlined the Commercial Core, Cl, Mixed Use and Multifamily District Requirements. Garrow said the heights certainly step down from the CC District to the Cl District. Garrow said that Exhibit C outlined how the existing 8.5% Pedestrian Amenity was calculated. Not all open space on any lot is considered a Pedestrian Amenity; it has to be open to the sky, viewable from the street and can't include any parking or service areas. Garrow said that in the event of any parcel of land being redeveloped and the existing lot has less than 10% of existing Pedestrian Amenity a cash-in-1ieu is automatically allowed without any review by the Planning Commission and in this case it was 8% so the cash-in-1ieu would be $8,000.00. Garrow stated the applicant retumed with a revised fa9ade and staff felt this was an improvement over the last fa9ade rendering; it reads as a two story building at the pedestrian level; the stepping back of the third level with the use of a more transparent materials helps decrease the size of the building as you were walking down the street. Staff recommended approval ofthe project. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 5. 2006 Jasmine Tygre asked why the calculations for the Pedestrian Amenity were based on a two dimensional calculation. Garrow replied that was how it was in the code. Tygre said that she understood that but it was a three dimensional space. Joyce Allgaier said it was open space without a ceiling. Ruth Kruger inquired about the MotherLode open space being covered in the latest drawings. Allgaier replied that she would look into that. Mitch Haas stated the resolution was in an acceptable form. JeffOrsulak, architect, stated they took the good feedback from the last meeting and worked further to articulate the two story front fa9ade; they broke it up in form and used native red sandstone. Orsulak said that the building was broken up into three sections each with its individual entry canopy and to further accentuate that massing division native red sandstone will be used as the primary material separated by the center portion of what could be limestone or beige sandstone. Orsulak presented a drawing of the block site plan with the three buildings in a row with the relationship of each building; the highlighted dotted line was the original footprint of the Stage III Theatre. Charles Cunniffe stated the sandstone was a proud stone and the colors differentiate the entrances and break up the building. Ruth Kruger said the applicant did a very good job providing the information. Dylan Johns asked ifthere were any issues with the buildings to the east as far as the zero lot line. Cunniffe replied there did not seem to be a conflict and it was not treated as open space. Steve Skadron asked how the scale was improved, relative to what. Orsulak replied that before they had an 80 foot fa9ade that was unbroken and in this case it has been improved by breaking it up based on more historic modules of sections going across the building; 3 sections, the 2 outboard ones being sandstone and the center (narrower) being a differentiating material. Cunniffe stated there would be shadow lines created by dimensional differences between elements of the fa9ade. Jasmine Tygre asked the distance between the canopies. Orsulak replied that was not actually determined at this point; the entries were recessed already so this would be an addition of a 3 foot eyebrow to the property line. Garrow responded that there was no request for a variance so it could only extend 18 inches from the property line. Public Comments: 1. A letter from Jim Smith, Concept 600, was entered into the record with concerns for parking and roof deck planters. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES _ SEPTEMBER 5. 2006 2. Tom Passavant, Concept 600, stated his comments were from the commercial tenants as well as the private owners and they were not opposed to improvements on this site but have some serious objections to the mass and scale, parking, congestion and loss of unprotected Aspen Mountain View Plane. Passavant said the loss of the walkway will more than offset any of the positive gains of the proposal. Passavant said the public and the city have the right to demand continued use through the courts if necessary of this walkway based on historic use. Passavant said they disagree that the building reads as 2 levels from the street and the use of the word transparency was disingenuous for a 3 story building. 3. Beverly Fick, Concept 600, agreed with staff that the Stage III building needed to be replaced and although the project met the C1 Zone Codes it does not meet the original intent of the Cl as a transition zone between the commercial core and residential. Fick said this was a lot line to lot line commercial core building overwhelming a residential area. Fick said the rooftop deck adds to the height of what it was on the original plan from the new drawings. 4. Bill Poss, tenant of the building next door, stated that that was not a pocket park but private property. Poss said their concerns were with the construction management plan and the owner assured them that those concerns would be met with the protection of the plantings and landscape, irrigation, iron benches and bike racks. Poss complimented the building design and said that the owner has been accommodating. 5. Phil Rothblum said that he lived directly behind this property; he spoke about the concept of transition. Rothblum served on the infill committee and the C 1 permitted office use on the first floor was a dramatic change from the commercial core bans. Rothb1um said the C1 Zone was a mixed bag; it covers from Cooper to Main and Spring to Hunter; there was really no commercial. Rothblum said that he doesn't see anything in this development that is transition. Rothb1um said neighborhood services should be emphasized and not just two large commercial spaces that would not receive the foot traffic needed to support local retail. 6. Bill Stirling, tenant of Concept 600, stated that the Concept 600 building was probably one of the worst looking buildings in Aspen. Stirling said from his desk in Concept 600 he could still see the juncture of Copper and Spar, which was reassuring at the moment. Stirling said this project for the redevelopment of Stage III was overwhelming in its mass and urged the design team to break it up. Stirling spoke of the walkway having a nice sense of a passage way as a local feeling and 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 5. 2006 preserving this would be best for town. Bill Stirling said the open space for the building next to this project was voluntary and private but it makes a big difference having that openness where you can sit. Stirling said that maybe the city could work with the applicant and subsidize in some way those local serving uses and maybe this could be the first example of how this might be able to be done on the ground floor just like affordable housing is subsidized. 7. Susan Whitney, manager of Hunter Square Building, stated that the Hunter Square Building owns the courtyard and it is private property; the owner is not interested in having that a public park, the tenants of the building use that space. Whitney said the wall that was presently planned up on the north to south of that courtyard, which was approximately 40 feet tall and 100 feet long will cut off the light. Whitney said that they wanted to see what was built there was right and something the developer would be proud of and the town could live with. 8. Patsy Hicks stated that she was concerned about not seeing the mountain from the Concept 600 and felt this building does not fit into Main Street. Mitch Haas stated they were fully consistent with the Cl Zone District and the Aspen Area Community Plan. Haas said the roof decks were in the original submittal and lawn chairs or umbrellas on the roof deck were unregulated. Haas said the open space next door actually was signed as private property and the walkway was also private property and the zone district calls for no side yard setbacks or front yard setbacks. Haas said there were several designated view planes, 2 from the Court House and 2 from the Hotel Jerome; otherwise you look up the streets to see Aspen Mountain. Charles Cunniffe stated that the Jerome and Wheeler were built to withstand time with local materials, edge to edge on the property and looking back at the history of Aspen that was the way buildings were built. Cunniffe said that this building was 3 stories and 100 feet long and the Concept 600 was 3 stories and 260 feet long and did not think that they were out of context in the neighborhood. Orsulak noted their building height was at 39 feet and 37 feet at the back alley and only a few small portions go up to the 42 foot height. Orsulak said they have carved away at least two-thirds of the 3rd floor to give some relief to that park and the building was 6 feet back from the property line; only the emergency stair tower goes the full 3 stories and they were sensitive to that area so the wall will be articulated. 9. Curt Whitney, public, stated that he owned the building to the east of Stage III and there was a utility corridor with gas lines, meters and code states that there 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES _ SEPTEMBER 5. 2006 has to be 3 feet between the electric utility for service to the utilities on that side. Whitney said where the pin is set into the concrete outside of Stage III would encroach into their easement for utilities on their property; they would not have the 3 foot ruling that code states. Whitney voiced concern about the micro piling and under pinning, which has not yet been worked out with the developers. Jasmine Tygre responded that what Mr. Whitney was speaking about was a building department issue. Ruth Kruger asked the height of the Concept 600 building and the Hunter Square building. Susan Whitney replied the Hunter Square building was 29 feet at the flat roof at the height point of the peak was 44 feet sloping down. Kruger appreciated the neighbors coming in for comments but she supported the project because it was fully within its rights to build and was compatible with the neighborhood surrounded by commercial except on the east side. Dylan Johns shared a lot of Ruth's sentiments even looking at the old code with the height limit of 40 feet; a 1 to 1 floor ratio, which was slightly above that; there was no PUD requested. Johns said that the utility easements would get worked out and as long as the unit count of affordable housing doesn't go down the project meets the requirements. Johns noted the walkway was on private land and if someone wanted to go after a prescriptive easement to keep that open that was their business but not something that was part of this commission's job to oversee. Johns hoped the developer would continue to work with the neighbors to help mitigate visual impacts of the walls to their neighbors. Johns supported the project and said it was certainly better looking than what was there now and this will be an enhancement to the neighborhood overall. Steve Skadron complimented Jessica on the well written memo; he said the building represented a high quality of design and complimented the applicant for incorporating the comments from the prior meeting into a redesign. Skadron appreciated the affordable housing inside the urban growth boundary and a mixed use building near the core on the transit line however he did not believe this building went far enough to satisfy the intent of the C1 Zone District. Skadron said that he could not support the project because he did not think the transition from the commercial core to the residential is great enough. John Rowland shared Ruth and Dylan's views on the strength of the building and redefine this portion of Main Street with good urban design taking on leadership. Rowland said the conformities were across the board, which was not always easy to do; he approves of the project. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 5. 2006 Jasmine Tygre stated mixed feelings about this project because of what the code has come to say rather than what the code amendments were intended to say. Tygre said what they thought Cl to be a transitional zone were reflections of mistakes made in the draft revisions of the code, in her opinion. Tygre noted that C 1 was always a problem zone because restaurants were always trying to get into the C1 zone mostly because the rents were more affordable. Tygre spoke of the small breakfast place (Freddie's) in the Concept 600 building in the 1970s, which would have been an appropriate type of restaurant for the C1 zone district in her mind. Tygre agreed with Mr. Rothblum on the way to revitalize the downtown and peripheral areas has more to do with the uses in the building then with the dimensions of the building. Tygre stated concern about the building and the existing pedestrian amenity (the walkway) going away; she questioned the consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan and provided relief from wall to wall buildings and the private beautiful landscaped area from the Hunter Square Building. Tygre said the fee for this pedestrian amenity was ridiculous; without the pedestrian amenity the project fails because it was not consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Tygre said once these things go away they never come back. Tygre said a walkway doesn't really take up much room; as it stands she could not support the project. Jessica Garrow added a sentence to Section 3 part d page 4 The construction management plan shall also identifY that the adjacent sidewalks will be kept open and maintained throughout construction, that landscaping, planting and amenities on adjacent property shall be protected, and the construction parking will not encroach on private property. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #27, series 2006, approving with conditions, the 3 Growth Management Reviews, and the Commercial Design Review under the purview of the Planning Commission recommending that City Council approve with conditions the Subdivision of the America Development to construct a mixed use structure on the property known as Stage III Building, at 625 East Main Street, Lots E, F, G, easterly 10 feet of Lot D, Block 98 City and Townsite of Aspen and the addition as stated above to Section 3. Dylan Johns seconded. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Skadron, no; Johns, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, no. APPROVED 3-2. Kruger urged the applicant to take Jasmine's comments to heart. 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES _ SEPTEMBER 5. 2006 PUBLIC HEARING: WEINERSTUBE GROWTH MANAGEMENT. SUBDIVISION & MIXED USE REDEVELOPMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing on the Weinerstube Growth Management, Subdivision and Mixed Use Redevelopment to September 19th; seconded by John Rowland. All infavor, APPROVED. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (6/6/6): LIFT ONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT. SUBDIVISION & SPECIAL REVIEW Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for the Lift One Growth Management, Subdivision and Special Review. Tygre asked if the application had to be re-noticed since it was so long ago; she asked how the people know that the hearing is taking place. James Lindt replied that notice was provided in June and presumably the people would have been at the hearing when it was continued to this meeting. Tygre stated concern for the amount of time lapsed and 3 months later having a hearing. Lindt shared Jasmine's concern and the code stated that the original notice was sufficient. Ruth Kruger agreed with a time limit on the notice. Dylan Johns said it gets more confusing when the hearings are bounced around more than once. Lindt said staff could propose a code amendment as part of the moratorium code amendments and put a time limit on the original notice. Lindt stated this was a Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing and a Special Review for a parking wavier to legalize a bandit dwelling unit than has existed since the 1970s. The applicant would like to legalize the unit to a category 4 affordable housing unit. The Planning and Zoning Commission was the final review on both requests. Lindt stated the floor plan changed since the last meeting included as Exhibit B and the Housing Board has granted asset/income restrictions that were required in the Housing Guidelines as well as a size waiver. Staff said it meets the review standards. Lindt distributed a revised Resolution, which suggested if the unit went out of compliance with the housing occupancy requirements then the unit would revert back to a for sale unit or common space for the building as it was prior to becoming a bandit unit. Lindt said the applicant requested this because their condo association needed a 100% vote based on their covenants to make this a for sale unit. 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 5. 2006 Ruth Kruger asked for readability for maps and drawings. Seth Hmielowski, architect, presented a larger drawing showing the unit in color. Dylan Johns asked why there were 2 doors for the unit. Hmielowski said in order to move the project forward they had to connect it to the conference area; those doors would be removed. Kruger asked what the current use was. Hmielowski replied it was currently used as an overflow area for guests that have to check out earlier. Tygre asked who used the unit before. Hmie10wski said the drawing that they are seeing is what is in for permit, which is currently being reviewed. Hmielowski said the current unit doesn't comply with some of the egress requirements but it was a 2 bedroom bandit unit occupied by 2 employees until a couple of weeks ago when they began demolition. Lindt explained that a bandit unit was a unit that contained a kitchen or cooking device and was not included in the original unit count for permitting or land use. Lindt said that Unit 110 was originally the entire space and at some point in time the unit 109 was carved out. John Rowland said this was just housekeeping. Lindt replied that he wouldn't call it housekeeping but it was necessary for approval to maintain the unit. Johns asked ifit was to be restored back to something. Hmielowski responded by making access to the lobby and conference room it was public space being used by the association and they want to close it off completely and make it a living unit. Lind clarified that the unit right now was a residential unit however they have submitted a permit as if it were being converted to common space to finish other improvements to the fa9ade of the outside of the building. Kruger and Tygre asked again what they were trying to do. Johns answered they were lo.oking to do the other improvements to the building that P&Z already reviewed but the building has to be brought up to compliance, which means no bandit units and non-conformities have to be done away with. No public comments. MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to approve Resolution #21, series 2006, as amended and revised approving with conditions, the Lift One Condominiums Growth Management Review for the development of affordable housing and special review to establish the existing off-street parking as the required parking to convert bandit dwelling unit known as Unit 109 into a deed-restricted, Category 4 affordable housing unit. Ruth Kruger seconded. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes; Kruger, Johns, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. , ~ 10 _ oh/) ;