Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.pz.gmc.011497GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1997 Sara Garton called the Special Meeting of the Growth Management Commission to order. This is a joint commission of the City and County Planning & Zoning members. Members Sara Garton, David Guthrie, Marcella Larsen, Kathy Tripodi, Jake Vickery, Steve Whipple, Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney and Steve Buettow were present. Marta Chaikovska, Bob Blaich and Dave Johnston were excused and Alice Hubbard was absent. Steve Buettow asked to be recused. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: STAGE 3 PENTHOUSES GMQS EXEMPTION SPECIAL REVIEW & SUBDIVISION (continued from 12/17/96) Suzanne Wolff explained that the applicants, George Carisch, represented by Alan Richman & Dave Gibson, are requesting one metro area residential GMQS allotment to develop one free market dwelling unit above the Stage 3 Theatres. Stage 3 is located at 625 East Main Street. She said there was no competition and staff awarded the project a total of 12 points. She stated each of the criteria must receive at least 3 points and each of the 4 criteria did receive 3 points each in order to receive the development allotment. Wolff said that staff recommends approval of their scoring and to move forward to City Council and the Board of County Commissioners. She explained that scoring was based on a range of 0 - 5. The first criteria is . The applicant will Revitalizing the Permanent Community provide 3 affordable housing units (deed restricted Category 3). Wolff said these units fill a need in the Community, provides a mix of unit types to address different housing needs and exceed the specifications in the housing guidelines. Wolff stated the project is consistent with the standards and goal of the AACP. The second criteria is . Wolff said that as an Providing Transportation Alternatives in fill project creating affordable housing, the project automatically contributes to the goal of transportation alternatives and reducing automobile impacts. She noted that creating residential development could create less traffic than the alternative commercial development on site. The third criteria is Wolff Promoting Environmentally Sustainable Development. said this is an in fill project not extending the urban area or removing open space. Wolff explained the existing building will remain so they are not creating 1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1997 additional impacts on the land. She said there would be one wood burning device on the property. Staff suggested they not have this device, but one is allowed. The fourth criteria is Maintaining Design Quality, Historic Compatibility and Wolff stated the residential units will be set back from the Community Character. existing structure in order to reduce the perceived mass and step the structure down as it approaches adjacent structures. She said staff felt the design was compatible with surrounding buildings but did not enhance the area. Garton asked Alan Richman for a presentation. Richman introduced George Carisch. Carisch said he has owned a home here since the mid 70’s and purchased the Playhouse Theatre in 1984, remodeled it into a Stage 3 and sold the operating business in 1988 while retaining the property. Carisch said they were interested in the Community. Richman said this was the only application for this allotment and would be happy if the commission accepted the scoring from Community Development staff. In particular he wanted to go over the criteria in Revitalizing the Permanent and Dave Gibson would provide the design criteria. Richman said the Community, code states the evaluation of projects according to reasonable expectations regarding what can be expected given their size and scale. He handed out a table and explained they are providing 75% for employee housing (3 of the 4 units are employee units). Richman said each of the units exceeds the size standards for Category 3, which make them larger and more desirable to the occupants. He stated the units are located in the center of Aspen making housing close to work, shopping and public transportation activities. He noted this was the kind of in fill project the AACP encouraged because there is no land development involved with this project, just air space. He stated because there is a free market unit and employee units with no additional commercial space are being developed, they are exceeding the requirement for mitigating the housing needs. Richman said by expanding the existing building, the important local service is being preserved (Stage 3 Theatres). Richman stated there have been many comments from neighbors, particularly relating to the parking. He said part of the proposal is to pay cash-in-lieu for 4 spaces and cash-in-lieu for 2 additional spaces that are required. One of the comments asked how we may better serve the community. Richman stated they asked to pay cash-in-lieu $15,000 per commercial space to remove the commercial requirement so the housing units could have spaces provided on site. The application had 2 additional required spaces bringing the cash-in-lieu to 6 spaces or $90,000.00 and would provide 4 on-site spaces if this is the approved plan. 2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1997 Richman said a suggestion would be to look at the Benedict Commons parking spaces since out of the 31 spaces only 7 are being used (24 are vacant). He said this would be good for the applicant to lease 2 spaces at Benedict Commons which would cover all the bedroom required parking spaces for this project. Richman stated they did not want to add any impacts to the neighborhood by creating these additional 4 units. Gibson - Reno had developed visual materials for the discussion. Gibson stated in designing the project they picked up on some of the materials, shapes and forms used in the neighborhood. He said the stucco finish on the buildings was predominant and wanted to incorporate more timber and stone accents. Gibson noted the scale was broken down appropriately to decrease the other neighboring buildings. He said most of the other buildings had flats roofs, so in response they won’t have to exceed the forty feet to accomplish their design goals by reducing the site lines. Gibson explained that the proposed addition was stepped back from the street in 15’ increments to increase solar access to the sidewalk. He said the light to the street, sidewalk and Hunter Square Garden will not be reduced. He said they have tried to study the sight lines from the buildings in the area. Richman referred to the height of neighboring buildings and FAR numbers from the assessors office. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Kathy Tripodi asked what kind of employee housing mitigation exists today for that commercial space. Richman said the building was built prior to the Growth Management System or affordable housing mitigation was adopted in Aspen. David Guthrie asked how the 16’ relate to the balconies of the second or third floor of the Concept 600 building. Gibson explained the photo was taken in effect from the middle balcony. Guthrie asked if the free market unit could be condominimized and sold. Richman stated this unit is being done for Mr. & Mrs. Carisch. Garton asked the height for the projection of the elevator. Gibson stated it was another 4’ above cab was required. Sara Garton opened the public hearing. PUBLIC COMMENTS 3 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1997 Jim Curtis, Public, speaking for Housing Advisory Group of AACP, stated that conceptually this project promotes and supports what the group wanted. He said there were three points: (1.) places residential units downtown; (2.) developed 2nd and 3rd levels of buildings as housing (both free market and affordable vs. commercial and office space) which was encouraged and (3.) creates incentives for private developers to do affordable housing in a mixed use configuration. Curtis stated that conceptually, this project does all of those things. He hoped the bulk and mass of the building could be viewed as a win-win situation with flexibility of the parties. Curtis said one option may be to reduce the size of the affordable units which may address the bulk and mass issues. He noted there should be good sound between the theatre and the residential units. Curtis applauded the applicant for coming up with a plan that actually provided parking spaces because the cash-in- lieu doesn’t solve the parking problems. Dave Kidder, #306 Concept 600, said he has skied in Aspen since the 1940’s and bought his unit 10 years ago for the view of Aspen Mountain. He remarked the value of the units are dependent upon the view of the Mountain, it may be a selfish concern, but it is his concern. Phil Rothblum, 624 E. Hopkins, built a home behind the Stage 3 and showed drawings of the building. He said they were concerned and mindful building this single family home between the Stewart Title Building and office building on the corner. He said his building was about 28’ high plus an open roof terrace and tried to be sensitive of the street scape adding interests and off-sets into the building. Rothblum stated they knew what the Stage 3 was, but had hoped to speak to the owner about mitigating the appearance of that stucco wall in the back. He showed a photo of the wall and the illegal dumpsters. Rothblum said they provided an ADU, so he is not objecting to the concept but the height is pushing the height limitations. He said the code required the volume must be considered in a residential building or part thereof. He said the free market unit is 3500 sf which is pretty large for the building and the project should be scaled back to keep in character with the neighborhood. Garton noted that Mr. Rothblum’s letter was also part of the record. Bob Miller, Vice President Concept 600 Association, stated all the owners reiterate what Mr. Kidder said about the view. He said they were also concerned about the parking. He noted the tower for the elevator should be shown on the photos for consideration. Bob Bailey, Concept 600, was concerned about their view because that was part of the price of the unit. He stated the poles placed on top of the building do not represent the blockage of view or the elevator shafts. Gibson said the poles show 4 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1997 the forward corners with regards to Main Street. He said there is a potential loss of value of their property which would also be a loss of tax dollars. Joe Edwards, Attorney representing Concept 600, stated the code provides that all adjourned public hearings shall commence only upon the giving of all notices which would have been required for the initial call of the public hearing. He said in December there was no quorum, the quota system was not heard therefore hearings were not in process but rather an adjourned meeting. Edwards said the meeting was to be re-noticed and was not done. He said the GMQS notice was to be posted and mailed, it was only published and none of the condo association owners received the notice in the mail. He said no one ever saw a sign and notice is a jurisdictional pre-requisite in order to proceed with a hearing. He said all of the quotes from the code are attached as exhibits with his letter dated 1/14/97. Edwards said that before GMQS can give a quota, the applicant must have met all applicable requirements of the code. He said “if an existing development is expanded additional off-street parking space shall be provided for that increment of the expansion as if it is a separate development” and there proposal here-to-fore the expanded development. Edwards continued that is a requirement of the code to build new parking and not complied with the application therefore GMQS cannot be awarded. He quoted from his letter regarding the mass and volume. Hoefer quoted the code Chapter 26.26.040 that no meeting at which than less than a quorum is present shall conduct any business (which did not occur) other than to continue a posted agenda item to a date certain, which was done. Therefore you have jurisdiction to proceed. Richman stated the affidavit was posted and mailed. COMMISSION COMMENTS Tripodi questioned the transportation/parking issues but was in favor of the project being downtown. Garton responded the parking might be required to be on site or waived to encourage public transportation. Guthrie asked if these units were dedicated to Stage 3 employees. Richman answered no, these units would be registered with the housing authority. Guthrie asked where the cash-in-lieu money went. Wolff understood that the money went into a fund for the parking. 5 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1997 Garton noted the scoring must meet the criteria for the scoring to go forward. Vickery discussed criteria #1 regarding scoring at a 5 and criteria #4 he could not score at even a 3, and said the particulars fall short. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to accept the staff scoring for the 1996 Residential GMQS competition to the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners. Jasmine Tygre seconded. MOTION DENIED, 6 -3. Whipple, Larsen, Mooney, Garton, Guthrie and Vickery against. Tripodi, Tygre and Hunt in favor. Since the motion to accept staff scoring was denied, the commission must now individually score on the four criteria. Clauson stated the commission will score as they see fit but there must be a threshold score of 3 for the GMQS allotment to be allocated, if denied it will be another year. The tape reflects the discussion of the board amongst themselves regarding scoring. Wolff took the individual scoring and Garton read the results: 4.3 Revitalizing the Permanent C ommunity 3.3 Providing Transportation Alternatives 3.1 Promoting Environmentally Sustainable Development 2.5 Maintaining Design Quality, Historic Compatibility and Community Character. Garton explained the project did not make threshold in every category which is 3.0. Richman encouraged the GMC to take a hard look at the system which has been set up. He said there is not even an opportunity to speak to the commission about ways to mitigate the FAR, height. He asked for the GMC to review all four criteria as to if you are above or below 12. He said the old scoring did not eliminate the project because of one criteria not passing. Richman said the applicant has a hard time responding to the criteria with the current scoring system having a fundamental flaw. Hunt said if this were a competition of more than one project, the out come would be different, but with only one project being dropped out of the system because of the method, is difficult for him to accept. He said the project was a good one. Richman said the reason only one project was in the system was that no one wants to compete with this “open ended” system not being able to review the criteria and say what is a 3 or a 5. He said this is a difficult approach to one project and tells people to do something else. He said if they had the 70/30 view they would be in front of the commission. 6 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 1997 Tripodi said they could have come to the GMC prior to this meeting to discuss the potential problems. She said the neighbors view could have been discussed. Richman noted in the code the views have nothing to do with the GMQS or scoring. Garton adjourned the GMC at 6:30 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 7