HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20061107
_< ______.~~_~__.._'.___.,_.~__~__r.. ~..,~"".>',..,,__,~...... _e.... _.". _'~" ......_.._r.._....._w.... ...____.
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes November 7. 2006
COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2
MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................2
SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB ............................................................................. 2
SKY HOTEL REDEVELOPMENT, SUBDIVISION/GMQS ................................ 3
WEINERSTUBE REDEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 3
1150 CEMETERY LANE..................................................................................,...... 7
1
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes November 7. 2006
Ruth Kruger opened the regular Planning & Zoning Meeting in the Council
Chambers at 4:30 pm. Commissioners Steve Skadron, John Rowland, Dylan Johns
and Ruth Kruger were present. Brian Speck and Jasmine Tygre were excused.
Staffin attendance were Joyce Allgaier, Jessica Garrow and Stephen Kanipe,
Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Ruth Kruger asked about the designation of Hearthstone House and what other
properties were being designated. Joyce Allgaier said there were several properties
being designated; there was criteria to be met in order to qualify to be listed having
to do with the history of the building, the architecture and people associated with
the building. Kruger asked how the owners were involved. Allgaier replied they
were contacted and there would be a hearing with Historic Preservation and then
with City Council. Kruger asked that P&Z receive a notice when projects were
going to public hearings.
Kruger had questions about the GMQS allotments and how it works.
Kruger said it was inconceivable that a building as big as the Weinerstube
redevelopment could only have 20 parking spaces; she said it was one of those un-
intended consequences. Allgaier suggested a lunch meeting with staff on the
subject.
Steve Skadron requested information oncash-in-lieu for parking, pedestrian
amenity, employee housing and everything.
MINUTES
The minutes were postponed to the next meeting.
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Dylan Johns was conflicted on the Weinerstube Redevelopment, Smuggler
Racquet Club Conceptual PUD and the Sky Hotel Redevelopment.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB
Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for the Smuggler Racquet Club PUD.
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the public hearingfor the Smuggler
Racquet Club to November 14'\. seconded by John Rowland. All in favor,
APPROVED.
2
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes November 7. 2006
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
SKY HOTEL REDEVELOPMENT. SUBDIVISIONIGMQS
Ruth Kruger opened the Sky Hotel public hearing. Sunny Vann had provided
notice previously.
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to continue the Sky Hotel Redevelopment,
Subdivision/GMQS to January 2, 2007; seconded by John Rowland. All in favor,
APPROVED.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (09/19/06; 10103, 10/17):
WEINERSTUBE REDEVELOPMENT
Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing on the Weinerstube
Redevelopment. It was made clear to the applicant that in order for a motion to be
approved all three votes had to be affirmative. Stan Clauson stated that was
understood and wanted to proceed.
Jessica Garrow stated at the previous meeting the commission requested some
changes to the application and requested staff to clarify how the land use code
related to uses in the CC and Cl Zone Districts. Exhibit C outlined the permitted
uses.
Garrow said the commission asked for clarification regarding Growth Management
for an exceptional project and a multi-year allotment; the review criteria were the
same for multi-year allotments and an exceptional project (detailed on page 2 of
the staff memo). Garrow explained that in anyone year there were 18 free market
allotments for the entire city; at no point can more than 6 allotments occur in the
CC or Cl Zone District. Within the total 18 allotments 6 are allowed to be used
for an exceptional project; an exceptional project goes through the criteria. Garrow
said 5 of this year's allotments for the CC and Cl Zone Districts were used by the
Stage III project; the Weinerstube is requesting the 1 remaining allotment for this
year and is requesting the rest of the allotments form the multi-year, which would
draw from next year's allotments for the CC and Cl Zone District. Kruger still
disagreed with the staff interpretation; she asked where it shows that they can dip
into the next year. Garrow replied it said that there were only 6 allotments in the
CC and Cl Zone District in a year regardless ifit was exceptional so if they use
those 6 allotments in that year then an exceptional project can come in but can not
go in as an exceptional project in that zone district (part 400 page 112 d). Kruger
said that she did not interpret this in that way. Garrow noted on page 119 it began
with Planning and Zoning Commission review and d on page 126 was City
Council review; part one of that was exceptional project or multi-year development
allotment. Kruger said they would continue to disagree. Joyce Allgaier stated that
3
Aspen Plaooin!!: & Zooio!!: Commission Meetio!!: Minutes November 7. 2006
it was the Community Development Director's interpretation. Stan Clauson stated
they accepted the staff interpretation and have tried to meet the criteria for either
the exceptional project or the multi-year allotment. Kruger asked what was the
point of having an exceptional project ifthere were no extra allotments. Kruger
said that was the way she understood the rule to be written; she did not know how
it became diluted into this. Garrow said for regular projects there were a total of
12 allotments available.
Clauson said that Stephen Kanipe was present to address the commission's
requests regarding the energy component. Garrow noted that 50% was significant
and how it would be enforced. Stephen Kanipe stated that this project proposed to
exceed the energy code by 50%; that was a significant effort on the applicant's part
and on the teams' part to include very technical state of the art designs that were
measurable. Kanipe said that Burlingame was at 48% and the new building at the
Meadows (Doerhoiser Conference Center) was at 52%, which was considered state
of the art. Kanipe explained there were a group of designers, mechanical system
and building envelope specialists and detailers and material suppliers that were
able to do this. Kanipe stated that he would love to be part of that level of
achievement. Kanipe said it will be more common to have a commitment to
accomplish that energy efficiency. Clauson said that the other part of the Planning
Commission's concern was it measurable. Kanipe responded that energy can be
measured but what it discounts is occupant behavior, which was a matter of
education.
Garrow stated the parking increased to 47 spaces, most underground and staff
supported the new parking scheme. The applicant still will provide cash-in-lieu for
the pedestrian amenity and was permitted in the code. Garrow noted the recessed
portion has been brought up and staff supported the change but staff also felt that it
was struggling for an architectural identity and would like to see a better transition
between the more modem building on the comer and the more traditional buildings
on Hyman. Staff also wanted the building broken up into the 30 and 60 foot
module characteristic in that zone district.
Stan Clauson said there was an addendum submitted on November 2nd with
significant changes in response to Planning & Zoning. Clauson stated there were
approximately 47 parking spaces, the current wall and structure has been moved
and the square footage remains the same because of the ramping required for the
parking from the alley. Clauson explained that the 30 and 60 foot modules were
repeated throughout the building format. Andy Weisnowski utilized a model and
drawings for the articulation of the building. Weisnowski said that the comer was
more unique and addressed the residential neighborhood. John Rowland asked
what the dark material in the back was going to be. Weisnowski replied it would
4
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes November 7. 2006
be a darker metal material and the whole upper level would be darker so the eye
perceived it as a recessive nature. Steve Skadron asked if the spaces on the first
level were retail spaces with storefront windows. Weisnowski replied that was
exactly what it was. Rowland asked if the windows were double hung on the bank.
Weisnowski replied that would become a question of the energy efficiency of the
systems that were used. Clauson said that since this met the code and was not a
PUD it would not be seen by P&Z again.
Clauson said there would be planters and ash trees with pavers on the sidewalks;
the outdoor dining area was covered by a roof, which would be a more flexible,
useful and functional for the restaurant. Weisnowski said the covering done in a
more permanent way and would be better than a more contrived way. Skadron
asked if the space was conditioned for a restaurant. Kruger replied that restaurants
attract people and the code used to say locally serving restaurants but it was not
enforceable. Allgaier said that it was also un-interpretable. Skadron asked the
uses allowed. Garrow replied that it was in Exhibit C and read the allowed uses.
Clauson said that a change in use would be required; there were 6 retail locations
and the Weinerstube would be the ih commercial location. Skadron asked if that
meant 6 doors. Clauson replied they were showing 6 entries and the Weinerstube.
Weisnowski said that the Weinerstube was best known for the breakfasts and this
was a better side for the dining and outdoor dining.
Skadron asked the current building's open space component. Clauson replied zero.
Skadron asked how the parking would operate; was it paid parking; was it
dedicated to the store operators and residents. Clauson replied that the code does
not address any specific requirements for how the parking operates. Kruger said
the 47 parking spots were offthe street and underground. Skadron said if they
would be used. Kruger stated they would be used; the spaces would be a benefit to
the tenants and the amentias such as parking would attract tenants.
Skadron asked why staff was not satisfied with the 30 and 60 foot modules.
Garrow replied even though there was a portion of the building that responded to
the next building and the side was 90 feet without any fenestration that would
show a 60 and a 30 and did not feel that the transition was enough. Weisnowski
said there were materials, height variations, the fenestration, windows and detailing
were in this design to create the differentiations in the sections. Weisnowski said
they went to great extents to create a building that had more bite sized pieces that
were more consistent with the historic nature of town and this block alone had
architecture that varied drastically in terms of styles. Clauson said this building
meets all the stated commercial design standards in the land use code.
5
Aspen Planninl!: & Zoninl!: Commission Meetinl!: Minutes November 7. 2006
Garrow said that staff felt this was an improvement from the previous design; they
were happy with the store fronts brought out. Garrow said this was a 180 foot long
lot and with the exception of a portion of the Weinerstube at the very front was all
one height and staff felt this detracted from the more traditional 30 and 60 foot
modules. Skadron asked what was the proposed area for the Weinerstube spot and
what was the current Weinerstube. Weisnowski replied 3200 square feet give or
take for the proposed and the current was about 3500 square feet.
John Rowland asked if staff agreed that all the commercial design standards had
been met. Garrow replied that was correct.
Kruger said that the requirements for an exceptional project were for all projects
and said that she did not know how the exceptional project came about. Kruger
asked how the garage circulation went. Weisnowski utilized a map to show the
one way alley from Spring Street with a ramping system going down to the garage
and loop around and go down another level or come back up on the other ramp;
there were two ramps (like a scissor) in opposite directions. Kruger asked what the
problem was with the ramps previously. Weisnowski said the code no longer
allows 16% and will only allow 12%; so the ramp was fairly deep and it was safe
with the alley.
Public Comments:
Kevin Willson, current owner of the Weinerstube, asked where the Weinerstube
would be located in the new building and the number of square feet. Clauson
pointed out the location on the model. Weisnowski replied that there were about
3200 square feet.
Rowland said that this proposed building was good and the energy code
compliance was fantastic. Rowland said that he did not have a problem with the
30 and 60 foot modules.
Kruger appreciated the applicant adding parking and bringing the retail up to the
sidewalk and the restaurant being covered. Kruger said the affordable housing and
parking did make it an exceptional project along with the green building.
Skadron suggested a condition for the parking allocation of one space per unit for
affordable housing units, available for tenants of the building and not
condominiumized and not sold. Clauson stated they would accept that condition of
approval.
Skadron said the review criteria for an exceptional project "i" promoted
sustainability and he realized that the commission cannot dictate what goes into the
6
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes November 7. 2006
retail spots. Allgaier said the hard zoning would continue to apply to the
commercial and office uses of the Cl Zone. Allgaier noted the project exceeded
the affordable housing, which keeps people and brings people downtown. Allgaier
said that the mixed use was a step in gaining social economic sustainability
downtown.
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve Resolution #28, Series of2006 as
amended with conditions, commercial design review, growth management
exemption for a new mixed use development, growth management for free-market
residential units within a mixed use project, growth management review for the
development of affordable housing; and recommending City Council approve a
subdivision and multi-year growth management construction of a mixed use
building with 18,000 square feet of commercial/office space, six free-market
residential units and twelve affordable housing units. Second by John Rowland.
Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED 3-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1150 CEMETERY LANE
Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for the residential design standards for
1150 Cemetery Lane. Notice was provided.
Jessica Garrow stated the applicant was YE II, LLC represented by Jack Miller and
Associates. The applicant requested three residential design standard variances
with Planning & Zoning being the final review authority.
Garrow said the 1 st request was garage width variance; there were 2 garages each
22 feet in width and the living area was only 25 feet. Staff felt that the expanse of
the garages created a lifeless streetscape and promotes the automobile over the
people living area. The 2nd variance was the garage setback variance and the
garage was the front most wall of the building; the garage seems dominant and
primary structure. Garrow said the applicant was required to provide parking, one
spot per unit but was not required to be in a garage or carport. Garrow said there
were buildable portions on the lot that staff feels could be used to create a design
that would better address the residential design standards. Garrow said the 3rd
request was the entry door setback no more than 10 feet from the building's front
most wall; this was a duplex so there were two front entryways. The southern unit
was setback 21 feet, the right most unit looking at the picture so the garage was
seen as the primary structure. Staff recommended against approving the variances.
Jack Miller provided his background and John Elmore's. Miller stated this
property was the last one on Cemetery Lane as you go down to the Slaughterhouse
7
Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes November 7. 2006
Bridge; the property had about a 75 foot buildable frontage. Miller said there was
not very much area on the lot and they tried side yard driveways but there was not
enough room to back a car out of a garage and the lot was geographically
challenged. Miller said there were front loaded garages in the neighborhood and
were standard more than an exception.
Miller said the units should be separated as townhouses. John Elmore utilized a
drawing showing all of the front loading garages in the neighborhood; there was a
reason for the front loading garages because of the narrow lots on Cemetery Lane.
Elmore said that this was a community that was hard to meet these design
guidelines.
John Elmore said that having a two car garage in a snowy environment with kids
and adults was better than having cars parked on the street; this was a very busy
street across from the elevated bikelpedestrian path. Elmore said that the front of
the house was not particularly inviting.
Skadron asked if the house was smaller could the garage be positioned in a
different place. Miller replied the difficulty was the size of the lot and most of the
houses on Cemetery Lane had front loading garages.
Public Comments:
1. Gideon Kaufman stated that he owned Y2 of the duplex next door to this
project for almost 30 years; he explained the history of the neighborhood.
Kaufman said the guidelines were written for the West End where it made sense to
have garages off the alleys. Kaufman said almost every house or duplex in the
Cemetery Lane neighborhood have garages that were front loading.
2. Roger Kuen, 130 Pitkin Mesa Drive, sent an email opposed to the variances.
3. Catherine Porter, 180 Pitkin Mesa, sent an email opposed to the variances.
Steve Skadron asked why staff suggested not approving the variances. Jessica
Garrow replied that garages were not required and there was only 1 parking space
per dwelling unit required; the garages were driving the variances.
Dylan Johns stated the design standards went through many discussions because of
Snowbunny and Cemetery Lane; they tried to exclude a lot of areas when the
commission reviewed the design standard requirements. Johns said that he did not
think parking cars and other belongings on the street were what the design
standards were trying to accomplish; this triangle lot was especially difficult to
8
Aspen Planninl!: & Zoninl!: Commission Meetinl!: Minutes November 7. 2006
develop and there were safety issues with Cemetery Lane. Johns supported the
approval of the variances.
John Rowland said that he would also approve the variances and that the
residential design guidelines go against the grain of what this neighborhood was
really about.
Ruth Kruger said that she respected the opinions of staff but the design guidelines
were written for the West End and were not appropriate for most lots on Cemetery
Lane. Kruger stated that she clearly supported the variances from the criteria for
reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints on each of the issues
especially #1 and #3. Kruger said that she would support these variances.
Steve Skadron said that he was sensitive to the application of global design
standards to areas were they may not apply however he could not support these
variances. Skadron said the site specific constraints dictate something smaller to
be proposed and agreed with staff.
Jack Miller said there were 1500 square feet in subgrade space adding 2 more
bedrooms with the total square footage about 4550, which was the allowable in the
R-15 Zone District. Kruger said each duplex unit was about 2250 square feet plus
the subgrade.
MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to approve Resolution #30, series of 2006,
approving the 3 residential design standards variances of YE II, LLC to construct
a duplex on the property located 1150 Cemetery Lane; seconded by John Rowland.
Roll call vote: Skadron, no; Rowland, yes; Johns, yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED
3-1.
Ruth Kruger reported on the Puppy Smith COWOP. Jessica Garrow stated there
were 2 3bedroom units and I 2bedroom unit. There would be solar panels.
Meeting adjourned at 7:05 pm.
9