Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20070320 Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes - March 20. 2007 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 3 MINUTES ... ... .... ... .... ... .... ... ... ... ... .......... ... .......... ..... ....... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... .... ... ... ..... 3 DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST ...............................................3 LA COCINA REDEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 3 CHATEAU DUMONT/HALL AFFORDABLE HOUSING - 725 EAST DURANT, UNIT 22A............................................................................................... 3 CHATEAU DUMONT/HALL III WEST HYMAN GMQS ................................. 6 COOPER STREET PIER REDEVELOPMENT ...................................................... 8 1 Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes - March 20. 2007 Ruth Kruger opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30pm. Members present were Dylan Johns, Steve Skadron, David Guthrie, LJ Erspamer, and Ruth Kruger. Brian Speck and John Rowland were excused. Elizabeth Atkins resigned since she moved into Snowmass Village. Staff present were Sara Adams, Jennifer Phelan, Jessica Garrow, Jason Lasser and Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Jim True arrived at 5:20pm. COMMENTS Ruth Kruger said that there was not a quorum present for the work sessions and the Public Hearing for Land Use; it was continued to Wednesday, April4th. Jennifer Phelan apologized for the increase in meetings. Phelan proposed a meeting on Wednesday, Apri14th with HPC to discuss the commercial and lodging design standards draft. Phelan asked if the Planning Commission could hold a public hearing to discuss changes to the Land Use Code March 27th and Monday, April 2nd. MINUTES MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve the minutes of March 6th, U seconded. (2 abstained) 3 in favor, approved. DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Dylan Johns was conflicted on the Cooper Street Pier. PUBLIC HEARING: LA COCINA REDEVELOPMENT Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing. MOTION: David Guthrie moved to continue the public hearingfor La CoGina Redevelopment to April 17th; seconded by U Erspamer. All in favor, approved. PUBLIC HEARING: CHATEAU DUMONT/HALL AFFORDABLE HOUSING - 725 EAST DURANT. UNIT 22A Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing for the Chateau Dumont/Hall Affordable Housing - 725 East Durant, Unit 22A. Jason Lasser explained Jennifer Hall was represented by Alan Richman. Lasser said the applicant was asking for Growth Management Review for a Change in Use; Growth Management Review for Affordable Housing; Conditional Use to have a residential unit in the Lodge Zone 3 Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes - March 20. 2007 District; and Special Review for parking. Housing recommended an RO designation for the affordable unit. Lasser said that the unit was existing; the growth management review was to allow a residential unit in the lodge district and then the unit would be deed restricted. Jennifer Hall stated that she purchased the unit in December of 2005 and applied for a building permit a few days later but community development said that this unit did not have a land use approval; the nature of the problem was that the 1968 building permit for the Chateau Dumont stated there would be 24 units and the recorded plat and declaration refers to 26 units. Hall said that this particular unit has been taxed as a residential unit and used as residential property since at least 1972. Hall said that when she purchased the unit it looked like a free standing unit with a kitchen, bathroom etc; there was a problem with the condo plat with the way that the internal walls were rearranged between two units but the seller recoded an amended plat that reflected the current depiction so she thought she had a legally existing unit when she purchased it. Hall said that she began working on the employee housing option; the first application makes this a legally existing unit because the city's position is that the unit was Y, laundry room and Y, manager's unit. The second application involved the off-site mitigation; taking the employee housing from the basement of III West Hyman and putting it into Chateau Dumont 22A, which will be further deed restrict the property from RO Category 3. Alan Richman, planner for applicant, stated that Jennifer Hall has not been able to occupy her unit for the entire time that she has owned it (15 months), which has been an economic hardship for Jennifer. Richman said deed restricting this unit would bring this unit into the city's housing inventory with no public cost; it would be remodeled to meet the housing guidelines. Richman said there were no public impacts and he requested that no parking impact fee be imposed on this unit. LJ Erspamer asked if the square footage of the laundry space and ifit was common area. Hall replied the laundry space never existed; 22A was depicted on the original condominium map as laundry/storage and the other half was a part unit 22, which was about 340 square feet. Hall said that when she purchased the unit the walls had been reconfigured and the unit was 605 square feet without access from the garage. Erspamer asked if Jennifer took out title insurance. Hall responded that she did but because this was a land use matter that was excluded from coverage. Erspamer asked if this unit was permanently deed restricted and why did it go from RO to Category 3. Hall answered that originally she was going to deed restrict to RO and live there but she did not have the ability to live in it anymore. Richman said that the second aspect of this was to have the same unit 4 Aspen Planninl! & Zoninl! Commission Meetinl! Minutes - March 20. 2007 deed restriction at Category 3 in exchange for the mitigation being removed from another unit. Erspamer asked where the parking was located for this Chateau Dumont unit. Hall replied there were 6 underground garage spaces and 4 outside; the garage spaces were only used by owners. Richman said that there were 10 spaces for the Chateau. Hall mentioned the central location of this Chateau unit. Dylan Johns asked if the manager's unit was shown in the original approval as part of the 24 units. Hall said all that was on record was the plat map and the declaration with no distinction that 22A had to be used as a laundry room; the plat depicted unit 22 as a 2 bedroom unit through a side door to the manager's unit and through another door to the laundry/storage room and out into the garage. Public Comments: 1. Jim Smith, public, stated one of the long term goals was to get affordable housing in the core part; he said this proposal was a good idea. 2. Lindsey Smith, public, supported what Jim Smith said and that this was an easy way to get another employee in town. 3. Sally Golden, public, agreed with everything that was said and she supported Jennifer's proposal. 4. A letter was entered into the record from Freddan Richard in support of the application. Dylan Johns said this wasn't a problem adding an affordable housing unit downtown and stated that he did not follow the logic of how they got to this point. Johns supported this application and would waive the fees. Steve Skadron stated that in recognition that this unit would be added to the city's affordable housing inventory he could support the existing parking deficit; he supported the application. David Guthrie said that this application meets the goals of the AACP and he can support; this was one of the places that he can support the parking variance. LJ Erspamer supported the proposal. Ruth Kruger said that she would have liked to have known about the second part of the application but she could support this application. 5 Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes - March 20, 2007 MOTION: U Erspamer moved to approve Resolution #8, series of2007 to approve the Growth Management Review for the development of affordable housing, Growth Management Review for a Change in Use and Special Review for parking to allow the newly expanded residential unit to be an affordable housing unit in the Lodge District with the amendment to Condition 3 to read "this shall not include parking cash-in-lieu added on". Seconded by David Guthrie. Roll call Johns, yes; Skadron, yes; Guthrie, yes; Erspamer, yes; Kruger, yes; APPROVED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: CHATEAU DUMONT/HALL 111 WEST HYMAN GMQS Ruth Kruger opened the public hearing. Chris Bendon said that public hearing was to consider effectively exchanging the mitigation requirement for III West Hyman with #22A Chateau Dumont to make the Chateau unit a Category 3 unit in exchange for relieving the III its affordable housing requirement. The code allows approvals to be amended and what this comes down to this was better mitigation for the city. Bendon said the III West Hyman was a single family house that has a unit within the house that was required to be a rental (Category 1) unit at about 800 square feet. This was done before the State made a finding at the Supreme Court level that cities do not have the ability to enforce rental rate restrictions on private properties; they have to have an interest in rental units. Bendon said in addition this unit was physically connected to the house, which makes it an additional room within the house. Bendon said at the Chateau Unit would be a Category 3 and sold to the Housing Authority. Bendon said that the housing authority supported this change and community development supported this change. Bendon said that Housing wanted Jennifer to provide the monetary difference between the square footage of the units but that equates to about $100,000. Jennifer Hall added originally when the owner purchased this III property he was told that the deed restriction could be bought from the housing authority; so he thought that he could do that for about $441,000.00 and he was prepared to do this. Hall said that when the unit was built on III West Hyman they got points to build this 800 square foot unit and could have built a 600 square foot unit. David Guthrie asked if the 725 East Durant was sub-grade. Bendon said it was toward the rear of the building with the grade traveled up. Hall stated that it had fire sprinkl ers. 6 Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes - March 20, 2007 Steve Skadron asked what the benefit was to the West Hyman property; wasn't it additional free market space. Bendon said effectively that space was already part of their residence so they don't get any bonus FAR or FAR that was exempt from the code; the extra bedroom or family room does not have the deed restriction. Skadron asked the total square footage of the West Hyman property with the 800 square feet. Hall replied the FAR was around 2100 square feet; the basement was totally underground with the 800 square feet there was a large mechanicallaundry room area. Skadron said that his support for this project was based on the benefit to the city. Guthrie said that having 600 square feet used was better than 800 square feet not used; he said that was his finding for the community benefit. Guthrie asked ifP&Z had the authority to remove that extra mitigation request. Bendon replied the authority granted to P&Z was to approve affordable housing and reconsider the growth management; a recommendation from housing was received. LJ Erspamer asked how Jennifer could be charged for the difference in square footage and why Jennifer should bear the burden. Bendon said the trade off was an obvious one. Public Comments: 1. Jeffrey Halferty, public, stated that he was a personal friend of the III West Hyman owners (the Solomon's); he said this was a win-win situation for Jennifer, the Solomon's and the community. 2. Jim Smith, public, supported the application and was perplexed by housing simply basing the affordable housing strictly on square footage; there was the location differential and quality of the unit. 3. Sally Golden, public, supported the application and not make the cash-in- lieu applicable to this application. Dylan Johns favored this straight swap but he was not in favor of the additional mitigation for 195 square feet. Steve Skadron supported this request and said that the community benefited. LJ Erspamer said that he was undecided because of the change and asked who would bear the burden. Ruth Kruger asked what the 800 square foot unit looked like and what the access was. Jennifer Hall said that it was planned to have a kitchen. Jeffrey Halferty 7 Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes - March 20. 2007 replied there was a staircase from the east side of the structure; there was very little naturallight; it was one large room with a couple of secondary walls. Kruger asked if the $100,000.00 was based on a category 3; she asked where the number came from. Chris Bendon responded that in the housing guideline there were housing square footage requirements for mitigating commercial space. Hall said there was a provision in the code for the buyout of a unit in a single family home. MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to approve Resolution #007-07 for a Substantial Amendment to Growth Management approvals for 111 West Hyman Avenue with a modification to Section 2 striking the requirement for additional mitigation fee based upon the 195 square feet difference. Steve Skadron seconded. Roll call: Guthrie, yes; Erspamer, no; Skadron, yes; Johns, yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED 4-1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (3/8/7): COOPER STREET PIER REDEVELOPMENT Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing on Cooper Street Pier Redevelopment. Jessica Garrow stated the applicant was Joshua Saslove represented by Mitch Haas and Poss Architecture. Garrow noted P&Z was charged with Growth Management for new commercial space in a Mixed Use building; Growth management for free market units in a Mixed Use building; Growth Management Review for affordable housing and Special Review to vary the trash, utility and recycle area. P&Z will make a recommendation to City Council on Subdivision. Garrow said the applicant will also go through multi-family replacement with an administrative review. The property was located in the commercial core, a historic district, and was reviewed by HPC for conceptual design review and commercial design standards. The lot was 2,842 square feet and currently houses a Mixed Use building including 1 free market unit and 4,373 square feet of net leaseable area. The redevelopment proposal was for a mixed use building with 3,827 square feet of net leaseable area and 1 free market residential unit at 2,008 square feet; the application was submitted prior to Ordinance 12-06 so it does not have to abide by the 2,000 square foot limit on multi-family units in the Commercial Core Zone District. The height of the building was proposed at 34 feet along Cooper Avenue and 44 feet at the top floor; the total FAR was 2.5 to 1 with commercial FAR of 1.5 to 1 and free-market at 1 to 1. Garrow said the existing building generates 15.05 FTEs and the proposed redevelopment will generate 13.13 FTEs resulting in a reduction in the FTEs generated by the development therefore there was no affordable housing mitigation 8 Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes - March 20. 2007 required and staff finds the redevelopment meets the criteria for commercial space in a mixed use building. Garrow said there was Growth Management for a free market unit in a mixed use building. The existing development includes a single one-bedroom free market unit in a mixed use building at 1,966 square feet of net livable space; the proposal includes a single free market unit with 2,008 square feet of net livable. The redevelopment generates a total of 42 square feet of net livable space and the mitigation requirements in the growth management review require the applicant to mitigate 30% of the new square footage provided; that requirement would be 12.6 square feet. The applicant proposed and the Housing Board recommended that this requirement be satisfied with a cash-in-lieu payment, which is just under $4,000.00 and will go into housing fund to buy down other units. Garrow said the next Growth Management review was for affordable housing, which was satisfied with a cash-in-lieu payment and staff felt this met the review criteria. Garrow said there was a Special Review to vary the trash, utility and recycling area; due to site specific constraints the applicant requested special review to vary the dimensions of this area. The code required a trash/utility/recycle area that measures 15 feet in width (along the alley), 10 foot in depth and 10 foot clearance; this lot has only 2.34 linear feet in the alley. The applicant acquired an adjacent parking space so the total alley frontage was 9.5 feet for the trash/utility/recycle area; the depth was 17.5 feet; the total of the trash/utility/recycle area 166.25 square feet, which exceeded the required. Staff recommended approval. Garrow said that Subdivision met all of the criteria and the site was appropriate for development and the proposal was consistent with the character of the area and uses in the area and met the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The proposal placed new development inside the urban growth boundary, promotes transportation goals by providing development in close proximity to transit routes and does not require Growth Management Allotments. Garrow said the Multi-family replacement was an administrative review; the applicant will pay almost $311,000.00 allocated to the housing fund; the total the applicant will pay is $314,975.43. Staff recommends approval of the project. Mitch Haas, planner for the applicant, stated the existing property was quite small and constrained at 2800 + square feet with a flagpole shape extending to the alley. Haas said the basement was a restaurant and the ground floor was the Cooper Street Pier with a mezzanine level and above that was a residential rental unit that 9 Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes - March 20. 2007 has been there for some time. Haas said the proposal was essentially a clean redevelopment and the property has been through HPC even though the property was not designated historic but just within the Commercial Core. Haas said that they did engage in a historic preservation effort that was not required. The proposal was a basement level and 151 level of commercial use with an open area that would look down to the 1 st floor and the east side was circulation and common areas (stairways). There was a reduction in the net leasable commercial square footage so there were no affordable housing or parking mitigation requirements; the existing property has no parking whatsoever. Haas said in the basement level there would be a passage through the basement easterly wall to the parking garage next door to be able to use 2 parking spaces. They have acquired one of the parking spaces in the back to use as a trash service area but could not meet the 15 foot requirement for the alley frontage; the requirement for trash service/utility area was 15 feet by 10 feet or 150 square feet; they are providing 166 square feet. Haas said that they were providing 2 parking spaces next door. Haas noted the total mitigation for affordable housing was 12.6 square feet of affordable housing so they were providing cash-in-lieu. The multi-family replacement requirement was an administrative review. Haas stated that the city designated a view plane from this property and the city requested street trees planted right in front of the view plane. Andy Wisnoski, architect, stated that this was a constrained challenging site being land locked on both sides; the building fronts one direction. The vertical circulation plan was new to this proposal with two means of egress from the building with an elevator in the center. Wisnoski provided the history of the building beginning when it was originally built in the late 1800s and the building burnt down or collapsed from decay during the 1940s; he provided photos and somewhere in the 1960s it was brought to the way the building sits today. Wisnoski said that the two brick walls were all that was left of the original building, which maintains an important piece of the history of this particular building. Wisnoski eXplained the architecture and showed what the code allows in height for this building; the proposed building fits into the neighboring building heights along the street. Wisnoski said there was a penthouse on the top floor. LJ Erspamer asked about the tree placement. Jessica Garrow responded that Parks requested street trees added in specific locations. Garrow said the placement of the tree does not hinder the view plane and will not have a negative impact on that view plane; it was not a land use but a landscaping feature. 10 Aspen Plannin!!: & Zonin!!: Commission Meetin!!: Minutes - March 20. 2007 Steve Skadron said that he found himself conflicted by the HPC conceptual approval and requested clarification on the HPC Resolution Criteria A that said the structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel. Skadron felt that the pedestrian amenity space contributed to the parcel and brought vitality to area. Garrow said that the HPC went through a number of iterations at conceptual; the design added operable windows along the street frontage and could potentially be a restaurant again. Haas said there were 3 HPC hearings; the first form was similar to the existing space but HPC did not approve that iteration. Wisnoski said the current thinking within the commercial guidelines was that in this zone district the building should front the street; the only setback was for the door very similar to the original building. Jason Lasser explained historic building form. Ruth Kruger inquired about the view plane designated for that amenity space. Haas said that he did not want to belabor the street tree. Garrow noted that P&Z could recommend the street tree be removed. Skadron asked if condominiumization was to solely demark ownership. Garrow replied that there would be different ownership within the building. LJ Erspamer asked if the space was vented for a restaurant. Wisnoski replied at the time it was not but it can be. David Guthrie asked the highest point of the building and the buildings next to it. Ruth Kruger asked why it was an administrative review for the multi-family replacement. Jessica Garrow replied that was the way it was written in the code. Kruger asked for the how and why that happened for the next meeting. Kruger said that she hated to see the commercial space get so small. Haas said the basement had commercial space and it was mitigated as net leaseable. Kruger asked if the parking was purchased in the building next door. Andy Hecht replied that there were parking spaces in the back of the building next door that were purchased and 2 spaces in the basement. Kruger asked what the construction management plan for this constrained site was. Haas responded that very detailed construction management plans would be required before a building permit would be issued. Public Comments: 1. Toni Kronberg, public, said that the attractiveness of this spot was all of the sunshine and did not want to see this go to a referendum. Kronberg said that restaurants were an amenity and the trees were an impediment to the shopping experience. Kronberg applauded the first design but not the current. 11 Aspen Plannin2 & Zonin2 Commission Meetin2 Minutes - March 20. 2007 Garrow commented that she would like to add that there were 7 parking spaces provided by the redevelopment. Skadron complimented the applicant on the aesthetic improvement of this building and attempting to capture the structural components. Skadron said that he could not support this because he did not feel that it met the fundamental goals set forth in the Aspen Area Community Plan specifically it fails in creating social interaction, it fails in promoting lifestyle diversity and it fails in encouraging a diverse retail environment and makes it more restrictive. Skadron said that it does not meet criteria A for Subdivision or for the growth management for free-market residential units. Guthrie mentioned the store fronts in other western historic towns with big street windows had restaurants. Guthrie said the walls were the best part of that building. Guthrie said that was a terrible place for another tree and suggested putting another tree somewhere else. Erspamer said the project that he liked has the front setback. Wisnoski said the windows would open. Kruger said that she had a problem because the view plane was created for a pedestrian amenity and she could not see having the view plane without the pedestrian amenity. Garrow clarified the view plane by saying that they originate at one point and fan out and up in elevation; the view plane does not originate on the Cooper Street property but at a point on the right-of-way; same with the Courthouse, Wheeler and Jerome. Garrow stated the view plane starts off of the Cooper Street property and goes up. . Motion: Steve Skadron moved to continue the hearing on Cooper Street to May ]'t; seconded by David Guthrie. All infavor, APPROVED. Adjourned at 7:05 pm. \.JaCk~ /Jackie Lothi'an, Deputy City Clerk v 12