Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20061017 Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes October 17. 2006 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST............................................. 2 ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE ........................................................................... 3 WEINERSTUBE REDEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 3 1150 CEMETERY LANE......................................................................................... 7 1 Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes October 17. 2006 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning & Zoning Meeting in the Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:35 pm. Commissioners Ruth Kruger, Steve Skadron Brian Speck and Jasmine Tygre were present. John Rowland and Dylan Johns were excused. Staff in attendance were Joyce Allgaier, Jessica Garrow, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Ruth Kruger inquired about the weed control policy. Joyce Allgaier replied that she informed the Parks Department about the spot next to the Holland House and on Main Street that Ruth spoke about previously. Kruger voiced concern for the Puppy Smith COWOP. Allgaier responded there was an appeal to the City Council decision to consider the Puppy Smith COWOP eligible. Kruger asked that the commission receive a memo regarding the preparedness of P&Z for public hearings. Kruger stated the communication between Council and P&Z was of great importance and suggested a lunch meeting. Jasmine Tygre said as part of the original Rio Grande Master Plan it was stated that the vistas from the top of the steps be open to views of Aspen Mountain and Rio Grande Park; currently the blue roof cover going down the Rio Grande steps, which takes away the Rio Grand Park view. Tygre noted in cities there were clear covers on stairways to subways. Tygre said that Ron Erickson always asked about the covering over the Caribou Alley, which was now a roof and she asked what happened in this case. Allgaier stated there were a series ofletters that have gone out to the estate and manager of the club and community development was pursuing as a zoning violation. Allgaier announced a work session following their regular meeting with Mark White, a consultant, and a lodging consultant. MINUTES MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve the minutes from July 18th, August Ft, 15th, September 5th and 19th; seconded by Steve Skadron. All in favor, APPROVED. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Dylan Johns was conflicted on the Weinerstube Redevelopment. 2 Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes October 17. 2006 PUBLIC HEARING: ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. Jessica Garrow provided the proof of notice. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue Aspen Highlands to November 2Ft; seconded by Steve Skadron. All infavor, APPROVED. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (09/19/06; lO/03): WEINERSTUBE REDEVELOPMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Weinerstube Redevelopment. Jessica Garrow stated the applicant was 633 Spring Street LLC represented by Stan Clauson. The application required Growth Management for mixed use development, for free market units in a mixed use development, for affordable housing in a mixed use development, replacement of commercial floor area, multi- year development allotments; Commercial Design Review and Subdivision. Planning & Zoning was the final review for the Commercial Design Review and Growth Management Reviews with the exception of the multi-year development allotments and Subdivision. Garrow explained the property was located at the corner of Hyman and Spring, 18,000 square feet covering 6 townsite lots. The existing property contained a 37 space gravel parking lot and a 6,000 square foot building in the Cl zone district. The proposed building included a 1 st floor of 12,000 square feet for commercial and restaurant space and 14 surface parking spaces along the alley. The proposed second floor contained 10,670 square feet of commercial office space and 12 two- bedroom affordable housing units (6 units were category 3 and 6 units were category 4 at 950 square feet each). The third floor proposal contained 10,805 square feet of multi-family units (4 two bedroom units at 2,000 square feet each) and two studios (1200 and 1500 square feet). The basement proposal contained storage for the affordable housing and commercial uses. Garrow said the dimensional requirements were 42 feet in height with a total FAR of 2.58 to 1; the proposed development met all underlying zoning requirements. There will be cash-in-lieu for the remaining required 5.7 parking spaces. Garrow said the project met all subdivision standards and currently served by utilities; affordable housing, free market units and commercial uses were consistent with the neighborhood and were permitted uses in the C 1 zone district. 3 Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes October 17. 2006 Garrow said there were 5 Growth Management Reviews. Garrow said the project meets minimum mitigation requirements; there were 25.9 FTEs generated by the commercial uses and the 12 two-bedroom units mitigate for 27 FTEs. 30% of the free-market floor area must be mitigated through employee housing and they were providing 13,000 square feet, which exceeds the requirement. Garrow said the applicant needs a multi-year allotment for free-market housing. The project called for 6 free market units and there was only 1 allotment left for the 2006 year so they will need 5 from next year's multi-year allotment. Multi- year allotments require compliance with exceptional project criteria; the categories were to assist a sustainable economy, mitigation for affordable housing, green building and architecture and design. Stafffelt that the project met a majority of these but not all. Garrow stated the project provided a significant amount of office and commercial space, which was consistent with the AACP and will help lead to a sustainable economy. It exceeds the affordable mitigation requirement and provides all affordable housing on site. The applicant has pledged to exceed the green building requirements by 15%. Staffrecommended a condition for an energy audit to insure that this has occurred. Staff felt the applicant was deficient in the design and mass; there was an abrupt change in architecture and staff would like the applicant to re-study and make changes to this transition. Staff believed the project met many of the project goals but would like Planning & Zoning to recommend that the applicant look at the massing and design before it can be deemed an exceptional project for the multi-year allotments. Garrow said the project met all the commercial design standards; it was parallel to adjacent streets; commercial space was at sidewalk grade; it satisfied the window fenestration requirements and trash and utility areas will be walled and located appropriately in the alley. The building was not setback more than the average setbacks on the block. Garrow said the required pedestrian amenity was l600 square feet and the applicant proposed 1060 square feet of pedestrian amenity space along Spring Street, which would allow for outdoor seating for the Weinerstube Restaurant and the rest would be paid through cash-in-lieu. Stan Clauson thanked Jessica for an excellent presentation; all of the significant aspects from the unit count and the site. Clauson utilized drawings for the depiction ofthe fist floor with the entrances ofthe commercial spaces onto the street and the new proposed Weinerstube. The parking lot next door was private and the driveway cut would be restored to street parking. Clauson said the replacement development will have a valuable effect on the street. 4 Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes October 17. 2006 Clauson introduced Andy Weisnowski and Bill Poss the architects for the building. Clauson said the design was an enhancement to the location and complimented the existing streetscape elements and provides an exciting fusion of historical and contemporary elements. Clauson said this was entirely within the code from a parameter standpoint; it meets the height requirements and was below the allowable FAR. Andy Weisnowski said they broke down the building into masses that correlate with the grid of the city (30 foot or 60 foot masses), which was the traditional development pattern throughout Aspen. Weisnowski noted the corner related to Spring and Hyman with a reduced mass to a two story structure and to introduce some interest to that corner and the higher points of the building were generally set back from 8 to 10 to 15 feet. A model was presented for the sense of the scale of the project. Weisnowski said there were distinct massing breaks to scale to the town and not read as one block building. The outdoor seating for the restaurant was covered. Weisnowski said the affordable housing will have great views to Aspen Mountain and morning sun. Bill Poss said that this building has an iconic corner of interest similar to other buildings in town; there was a lot of interest and vitality in this building. Poss said they met with HPC staff and the renderings did not show all the street trees. Steve Skadron asked the height from the street to the ceiling on the outdoor portion where the Weinerstube Restaurant would be located. Weisnowski said the smaller section was 8 to 9 foot high but the majority was about 13 feet. Ruth Kruger asked the size of the restaurant. Weisnowski replied about 3500 square feet. Skadron asked for an explanation of multi-year allotments. Garrow responded that there were certain allotments available each year; the C 1 and CC zone districts 6 free market units available. Stage III took 5 of those units for 2006 so the allotments needed are borrowed from 2007; next year that would leave 1 available. Tygre said that she understood that a certain number of allotments had to be available for future years. Garrow said it was Ordinance 12 that amended this. Clauson said that Ordinance 12 amended this and reduced the growth rate by about half; the 2000 square foot limit on free market residential units. The commission and staff had different interpretations of the evaluation for the allocation process. The commission wanted to make sure they were using the same criteria. Clauson stated that this was an exceptional project and determined the allocation process. Kruger asked if the open space requirement was required to be open to the public. Garrow answered staff understood that the open space seating was for the 5 Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes October 17. 2006 Weinerstube was open to air, which would qualify for pedestrian amenity; with this design it does not comply with a roof; the applicant would have to pay cash-in-lieu. Kruger said an audit was required in 3 years (staff memo page 5) to see if they were exceeding the international energy conservation code by 50%; how was this enforceable. Garrow said it was in the Resolution as well and at 3 years the building department would choose an energy consultant that knows how to do the audit at the expense of the applicant and if it does not meet the requirements the applicant would be required to upgrade to those standards. Kruger said that "exceptional building" was a nebulous term and how it was defined; she said that responsible builders should be building a "green building" anyway and that should not make it exceptional but other qualities should make it exceptional. Allgaier responded that the application itemized how they attain greater than the code requirements. Kruger asked what was in the front of the building on the second floor. Poss replied that it was commercial, office and residential. Poss utilized drawings to show the levels for the employee housing, floor to floor at 10 feet and floor to floor for the retail was 13.6 feet. Poss said that they were meeting everything that staff asked them to do to make this an exceptional project. Brian Speck asked how they viewed the pedestrian amenity. Clauson replied there was no pedestrian amenity, the requirement was 10% that they would pay cash-in- lieu for the pedestrian amenity. Clauson noted the overhang was a pedestrian amenity. Poss stated there was angle parking right there. Speck asked if they felt they addressed the breaking up of the massing through the design of the building and asked if that was their representation for the corner being an anchor. Poss replied that was the contemporary corner on the building. Speck asked how this was an exceptional building. Clauson said there were specific criteria for an exceptional building; the criteria include affordable housing, the green building techniques, design, and under the FAR. Poss said that when the plan was submitted there was a form to fill out for the green building specifically, which was judged by points. Clauson said there were 8 criteria for exceptional building and 1 did not apply; the AACP goal advances, it exceeds minimum affordable housing requirements, historic (does not apply), provide the appropriate categories from APCHA, maximizes public transit uses, promotes sustainability of the local economy, locating employees within the infill area, design elements of a desirable site plan and compatible with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Tygre asked if the retail uses would be limited to those uses that were allowed under CI zoning unless they came in for special review. Garrow replied that was correct. Tygre asked where the cash-in-lieu would be used for the pedestrian amenity. Garrow replied that the money went into a fund and determined by City Council where the pedestrian amenity or streetscape improvements would take 6 Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes October 17. 2006 place. Tygre asked ifthere was a location established for the cash-in-lieu for the parking spaces. Garrow replied there was not a specific location for the money. Kruger asked if the affordable housing was for sale. Garrow replied yes for sale, category 3 and 4. No public comments. Dan Mysko sent a letter against the project. PUBLIC HEARING: 1150 CEMETERY LANE Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing for 1150 Cemetery Lane to November 7th; seconded by Steve Skadron. All infavor, APPROVED. Resume public hearing on 307 South Spring Street. Skadron asked for more clarification on the dramatic architectural transition from the traditional component to the more modern component. Weisnowski replied the transitions occur at the corner, which was the most active part of the project and the other more modern occur on the third floor setback were more subdued. Weisnowski said the appropriateness comes from the materials, scale, and respond to the context of the neighbors. Poss said the downtown guidelines ask for contemporary buildings so this design has the more contemporary statement on the end and the more traditional towards the mall. Tygre said there were questions of the design standards. Tygre stated that the CI zone districts had problems with high end restaurants; she said that a list of allowed uses in the C 1 zone would be helpful to this discussion. Tygre requested the differences between Cl and CC Zone Districts; the current Cl uses and the current CC. Skadron requested further explanation for the recessed walkway along the north fayade does not create dead space. Clauson replied it was only a slight recess (7 feet), which allows people to look into store windows and more variegation to the front fayade and at the same time keeps the store windows right at the street but provides a small sheltered area. Kruger expressed concern for the process. Kruger said she liked the architectural masses being broken up. Kruger felt the consumer experience was diminished by setting the windows back and she said that retailers did not like it either so this 7 Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes October 17. 2006 probably was not where the high end retailers would be going. Kruger said the list for exceptional project was nothing less than what a project should be anyway; there was nothing exceptional on the list. Kruger said this was a perfect place for more parking and parking was being taken away. Speck wanted the corner more traditional in nature. Speck said that he was impressed with the amount of employee housing; the breaking up of the massing was acceptable. Speck asked if the elevators went to the roof. Weisnowski said the two elevators went to the third floor but not to the roof. Speck said that the project fit into the neighborhood. Tygre stated that Ruth covered a lot of the items that she had especially that this site should not be under parked, which would be a great benefit to the tenants of the building. Tygre said that it was shocking to approve a project with cash-in-lieu for parking when the site can accommodate parking; that was a real black mark against this project. Tygre said the building looked attractive and had no objection to the pointy roof on the corner; she appreciated the 30/60 foot modules. Tygre commended the applicant on the fully above grade employee housing. Tygre felt the categories on the housing, the under parking and no pedestrian amenity on site were all wrong. Tygre urged the applicant to keep some pedestrian amenity on site. Tygre said that the proposal as submitted does not qualify as an exceptional project. All of the commissioners requested the list of uses, code changes and exceptional project standards. Clauson stated that they responded to all the criteria for dimensional requirements; they were not required to provide all the parking on site and the code was clear about that. Clauson said with the exceptional project the criteria were laid out and it was not something that says it has to be more exceptional than what the criteria state. Clauson said that Ordinance l2 was passed during the course of work on this project and the design had to be altered because of changes from Ordinance 12 for the size of the units; they have tried to meet the code and exceed the code. Clauson said exceeding the energy requirements by 50% was huge and meets the affordable housing. Clauson said the only way to provide more parking was to provide a deeper basement to provide a number more spaces but because of the site constraints to ramp down would not provide that much more additional parking. They will look at the analysis of the uses and further explore the energy qualitites of the building. 8 Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes October 17. 2006 MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearing on the Weinerstube Redevelopment to November 7th; seconded by Brain Speck. All in favor, APPROVED. Meeting adjourned at 7:05 pm. \.. ifckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 9