Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20071002Aspen PlanninE & ZOnfnE Meeting Minutes -October 02, 2007 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2 HIGHLANDS GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW .......................................... 3 MOUNTAIN PLAZA BUILDING GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ASSOCIATED REVIEWS - 434 E COOPER ......................................................... 3 CODE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE 30 ............................................................. 10 1 Aspen Plannine & ZOninE Meetine Minutes -October 02 2007 Brian Speck opened the regular Aspen Planning and Zoning Meeting in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners Cliff Weiss, Stan Gibbs, LJ Erspamer and Brian Speck were present. Dylan Johns, Jim DeFrancia and Dina Bloom were excused. Michael Wampler was absent. Staff present were Chris Bendon, Jennifer Phelan, Jessica Garrow, Sara Adams, Community Development; Jim True, Special Counsel; and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Jennifer Phelan stated there was a full P&Z now; on Thursday October 4`h from noon to lpm there would be training with new members or any members who were interested in attending with the assistant city attorney, David Hoefer, to talk about ethical issues. Phelan said they would send out an email. Phelan said that the packets generally go out the Thursday prior to the Tuesday meeting. Phelan stated that public hearing have certain protocol and Brian would lead through tonight's meting. All land use applications have specific review criteria, which were included in the packets with the application and staff memo. Chris Bendon said that Jennifer Phelan will be the contact for P&Z and Chris Bendon served the City Council. MINUTES LJ Erspamer wanted the correction to the minutes from the August 7`h meeting to include "not a sales tax district" to make sure that there was not a civic assessment to the Lift One approval. Erspamer, regarding the Episcopal Church, wanted the minutes (page 3 after the first paragraph) to include in his statement that the old building would have to be extended because the trees out front would not be cut down per Parks. Erspamer asked if some of the language regarding the encroachment into the alley could be modified to elaborate on the implications of RLUIPA. Jim True stated that he was reviewing the minutes and would address the actual discussion, if appropriate. MOTION.• LJErspamer moved to approve the minutes from August 21, 2007; seconded by Brian Speck. APPROVED. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None stated. 2 Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes -October 02, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING: HIGHLANDS GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW Brian Speck opened the public hearing for the Highlands Growth Management Review. Notice was provided. Jessica Garrow said the applicant's representative, Glenn Hom, requested the hearing be continued to October 16`h. The reason for the continuance was that staff requested some additional information of how those spaces were intended to be used regarding the nature of the condominium meeting room spaces within all of Highlands, which would include this space that was under consideration and the other condo meeting space within the PUD. Garrow said that it was requested that the applicant clarify the growth management calculations that were done within this application with relation to how they were calculated in the PUD. MOTION: LJErspamer moved to continue the Highlands Growth Management Review to October 16`h; seconded by Brian Speck. All in favor, APPROVED. PUBLIC HEARING: MOUNTAIN PLAZA BUILDING GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ASSOCIATED REVIEWS - 434 E COOPER Brain Speck opened the public hearing on 434 East Cooper. Jennifer Phelan provided the proof of notice. Phelan stated the application was to demolish the existing commercial office building and replace it with a mixed use building that contains sub-grade parking, commercial on the first and second floors as well as affordable housing on the second floor and free market residential on the third floor. The application was submitted for the initial review in March 2006 so based on that date the application was in the pipeline from March 2006; if the rules change from March 2006 to today the applicant has the ability to stay with the rules that were in place in March 2006. Phelan said that since this time the moratorium was in place and growth management was affected by the way growth management happens. Phelan said that the changes to growth management were on an annual basis for free market and commercial net leaseable space; everyone would submit on a certain date, the first one in was the first one to be review and first up for those allotments. Phelan said that with the moratorium Council said that would not guarantee the best project was the first in line for allotments; there were a limited number of allotments for the different uses. Phelan said the growth management was changed so there was now an annual cap on free market allotments, net leaseable, additional lodging pillows were added and an over all cap for affordable housing but not a yearly cap and the growth management review was now based 3 Aspen Planning & Zoning Meetine Minutes -October 02 2007 on a scoring system. The new scoring was based on 3 criteria: affordable housing; green building and small lodge development. Phelan said this project scored points because they proposed to be at a Silver LEEDS project and the affordable housing units were bigger than required and 2 were a lower category than required. This was the first project in the queue for growth management allotments. Phelan noted the project was located in the commercial core zone district and the commercial core historic district, which means HPC reviewed the project for the design, pedestrian amenity, view plane issues and received approval through HPC Resolution #26-06. This project was before P&Z for the three growth management reviews; redevelop the commercial component of the building, to build 3 new affordable housing units and 3 new free market units and a recommendation of subdivision approval to City Council. Phelan said the growth management reviews were final at Planning & Zoning. Phelan said the application met all of the dimensional requirements of the commercial core that were in place March 2006; the applicants were at or below the height, setback requirements, unit sizes and floor area ratios. Phelan said that with regard to the growth management reviews staff found there were sufficient allotments available for this project for free market, affordable housing and the net leaseable space. By providing affordable housing within the city and within the urban growth boundary and providing a choice of travel modes since this was in the downtown core, staff finds compliance with the AACP. The building meets the dimensional standards and has received conceptual approval. The mitigation requirements were met for the commercial and residential component (explained in detail in the staff report); the commercial component was working off an existing credit from the current building. The free market was providing the three affordable housing units, which was 30% of the required net livable of the free market components, which exceeded the requirement because they were providing more than the 1800 square feet; they were providing 2241 square feet. All of the units were required to be above grade and were above grade; the affordable housing units were required to be mitigated at category 4 and one unit was a category 4 and two units were deed restricted at category 2. On page 18 subsection d of the packet "with regard to affordable housing the code says they shall be for sale units but they may be rentals"; the applicant requested the units be rentals and city staff and housing staff recommended that the units be for sale units. The application meets all the review criteria for growth management and meets the criteria for subdivision because there were utilities available for service with existing infrastructure and was consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and staff recommended approval of the growth management reviews and recommendation of approval for the subdivision. 4 Aspen Planning & Zoning MeetinE Minutes -October 02, 2007 Phelan noted that in the resolution in this packet there were two choices for the affordable housing units; for sale or rental units. The planning commission needed to make the choice, which should stay in the resolution. LJ Erspamer asked if they were under the guidelines of the previous code yet they came to this commission because they were the highest grade; the scoring system was the only new issue that staff judged this by. Jennifer Phelan replied that was correct and with the moratorium ending there was a new growth management system review. Erspamer asked if the points were used for "for sale" or "rental" units. Phelan responded that the units "for sale" or "rental" had nothing to do with the point system. Stan Gibbs asked why staff preferred "for sale" units. Phelan replied the wording said "they shall be for sale units" and does give the option for "rentals" and encourages lodging projects have rentals for employee needs; staff went with the language "shall be for sale units" and there was a referral from housing staff that they prefer that affordable housing units "be for sale versus rental units". Gibbs asked if there was a philosophical statement that "for sale units" do a better job of bringing people into the community on a permanent basis. Phelan responded that for housing "for sale units" were easier to manage and keep track of than the rentals. Phelan stated there was a need for both rentals and for sale units in the community. Mitch Haas, planning representative for the applicant, Burt Bidwell Investment Corporation and Haas introduced John Rowland from Rowland + Broughton Architects. Haas stated they were happy with the staff review and recommendations. Haas said the application was for a project that exceeds every goal the city asks for and should be approved as is. Haas said that they have not used all of the allowable floor area and were under the allowable height limit at about 39 feet; they were at 82% of the free market floor area (7,392 square feet). There were 3 free market units and 3 affordable housing units; the categories were a one bedroom category 2 with 701 net livable square feet, one studio category 2 unit with 530 square feet net livable and the third was a 2 bedroom category 4 unit with 1010 square feet. Haas said that the affordable housing provided a mix of income ranges and unit types; these units were located on the second floor and were integrated with the free market uses in the building; they share the same lobbies, stairs, elevators and directly across from the second floor office space. Haas said that they have committed to be a minimum LEED certification at the Silver level and they know there were a lot of available points in the LEED scoring criteria. Haas said the sub-grade parking level was accessed from the alley off of an auto- lift, which was really the only way on a 9022 square foot lot to get down to the sub-grade with 11 parking spaces; the required parking was actually only 1'/z spaces because there was no parking required in the Commercial Core for a Mixed 5 Aspen Plannin¢ & Zon1nE Meetine Minutes -October 02 2007 Use building for residential uses and the parking requirement was for 1 space per 1,000 square feet of net leaseable. Haas said there were 10500 square feet of net leaseable square feet but the code allowed a deficit in parking to be carried from the existing location so there were only 1'/z parking spaces required but they have provided 11. Haas said they have proposed the rental of the affordable housing units because they were within a mixed use building, across the hall from office uses. Haas said the housing office and P&Z approved rental units in mixed use buildings for the Stage Three Project, The Ajax Mountain Building and the Jerome Professional Building. Haas said that there should be rental units in this mixed use project and they have done everything properly; if the rental units were out of compliance for a year then all of the units go to ownership through the housing lottery. John Rowland, architect, said that there were two meetings with historical preservation and they listened very carefully and made some minor alternations with success. Rowland said that they looked at their design principals with respect to the historic patterns of Aspen; modern interpretations of architecture within the core; transition from historic neighbors (the Red Onion and Aspen Block Buildings); creating a building that has multiple modules that reduces the mass and scale; contemporary use of materials and detailing and implementing green sustainable building practices as much as possible and plan to exceed what the city asked for. Rowland said they began with the archives from the Historical Society to study photographs of the Tomkins Hardware Store, which was where the Bidwell Building sits and how that building (Tompkins) came out to the corner. Rowland said there were a lot of tampered corners throughout town and they measured those corners and feel that this project was proportionate with this segment. Rowland utilized site plans and floor plans to show how the corner holds the edge of that downtown street in working with the historic patterns of downtown Aspen; the corner of the entry will have a contemporary element above the entry. There were 11 spaces in the garage with one suitable for a handicap van; there were the same number of storage units for the affordable and free market units; there was retail storage and a large mechanical room. The second level had the office space, which would be subdivided, and three affordable housing units. The third level had the three free-market units accessed through a courtyard similar to the Kandycom Building with water efficient landscaping and each unit will have their own entry point. An HPC recommendation was to step back two units, which was very successful. Only one of the free-market units had access to the rooftop, which 6 Ashen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes -October 02, 2007 would be a green roof with the LEED consultant working with them for certification. Rowland said the predominant building materials were red brick to work with the historic core, buff sandstone as the base cornice line and some metal that will bring out the contemporary, which will work with the context around it. Haas noted that the final selection of materials had to be worked out with HPC and final review. Haas said there would be a green rooftop and all new street trees. Cliff Weiss asked if the one unit that had access to the rooftop would have deck chairs that would be visible. Haas replied that no because the deck was setback a good distance into the center of the building and from the street and sidewalk you would see the parapet. Weiss asked if the retail space would be large enough for a restaurant or was it strictly dry goods. Haas said they were going to finish the building to enable restaurant use with proper ventilation, flues and grease traps. Weiss complimented the building design and asked if HPC was concerned about public access space. Rowland said HPC was not particularly concerned because it was all on the mall, which was ari enormous pedestrian amenity. Haas explained that on redevelopment if you are under 10% pedestrian amenity then the applicant may provide cash-in-lieu; the existing comes in under 10% because most of it doesn't count with it up a few steps or down in a hole or covered by an arcade. Haas said that the feeling was that the Guido's Building and Paradise Bakery Building had the setback corners and the relationship was with the Independence Square Building and the pedestrian malls. LJ Erspamer asked about the alleyway and anticipated any traffic problems with the access to the garage downstairs. Haas responded that they worked with the design of the garage and the loading area to make sure the turning radius worked. Rowland provided a plan of the garage setback. Erspamer asked what will they do about delivery trucks who park in the alley half of the day. Haas answered the existing building only has 3 parking spaces and not much of a loading area so it has been that way and the city has restrictions on delivery times. Rowland said that inherently it will make delivery trucks pull into the alley and minimize the congestion. Haas said they were careful to put the trash and loading as far in to the west as they could go on the alley and were not pushing out into Galena. Erspamer said with the deluge of rain and asked if they designed something to prevent the basement from being flooded and the sewer from backing up. Haas replied the real reason the sewer has been backed up according to a memo from the Aspen Consolidated San District was that the lines weren't put in deep enough and because of gravity feed on the sewer line, the sewer backs up when there is a lot of rain; when the sewer lines are rebuilt they will be to ACSD specifications and 7 Aspen Plannine & Zoning MeetinE Minutes -October 02 2007 engineered accordingly. Haas stated there would be a lot less run off on this new building with the green roof to help store that storm water before it goes into the drains. Erspamer asked if there was parking for employee housing units. Haas replied there were 11 spaces and they haven't gotten to that detail yet; the free- market units were not specified yet either. Erspamer said even though he has a lot of questions the project should be commended. Erspamer asked where the materials would be staged when the construction takes place. Haas responded that was a difficult question and they haven't completely figured it out yet; they will prepare a construction management plan before a building permit will be issued. Erspamer asked if the request for story poles by this commission was out of their purview because it was established by a previous commission. Phelan replied that P&Z was not under the purview of design review and it would be the HPC. Erspamer asked what the height from floor to ceiling was. Rowland replied that the first go round was at 11 feet and HPC asked for the height so they are now at 14 feet floor to floor with 18 inches of structure. Erspamer asked what the city counts as a pedestrian amenity. Haas said from ground to sky without roof overhangs or arcades and not more than 18 inches below grade. Phelan said that the sunken spaces were not viable as pedestrian amenities so the code was changed to require public amenity space to be at grade; standards were created and the sunken spaces do not count as pedestrian amenities now even though they did at the time they were built. Erspamer asked the height of the Independence Square Building and this building. Phelan replied the Independence Square was 42 feet and this one was 39 feet. Rowland said the comer that was directly opposite was 37 feet; there was a 3 foot grade change. Erspamer said that he had concerns that this building would overshadow the Independence Square and this project was like a box and runs right up to the sidewalk without any public gathering places; he said this would be a wonderful spot to have a little room for the public according to the Aspen Area Community Plan. Haas said that many of the important building in town were on corner locations, which tend to be taller with a big corner presence; the HPC Guidelines talk about corner lots should be prominent buildings so that's what they set out to achieve. Weiss said he also wanted the pedestrian amenity but that was not the P&Z purview. Erspamer asked if the mechanical went above the height of the roof. Haas answered the mechanical was in the basement and the elevator doesn't go up to the roof. Erspamer asked if the lift for the garage would make a lot of noise as far as the tenants and employee housing. Haas replied that lifts were in use all over the world. 8 Aspen Planning & ZOriInE Meeting Minutes -October 02, 2007 Chris Bendon stated that this project has been through design review and has to address a lot of these issues; he suggested the commission focus on the criteria provided. Erspamer asked if they would attract community assets into the new building, such as the eye doctor that was located there. Haas replied that the second floor was office space. Stan Gibbs asked if other buildings in town have used this "green roof'. Haas responded that not yet but in Chicago they were everywhere. Haas said the Stage Three will have a partial "green roof'. Brian Speck asked if there was a rooftop elevator. Haas replied there was nothing that went up to the rooftop and there were no ADA requirements. Speck asked if there were any lift garages in the valley. Haas answered that one was being built at Stage Three but he did not know of any others. Public Comments: 1. Toni Kronberg spoke about the perceived view plane of the neighborhood and the moratorium and what the community feels about redevelopment. Kronberg gave the history of this building site and spoke about the corner and open space. 2. Gary Morrie, manager of Helly Hansen, asked what was going on with the retail spaces that were currently in the building. Morrie said that it was usually UPS and Fed Ex park in the alleyway. Phelan replied that the lease issues were private issues. Brian Speck asked if delivery trucks could go down to the garage. Rowland replied that a handicap van can go into the garage. Erspamer said that someone in community informed him that this was the second busiest intersection in the community and he thought the mall would be very busy and eventually expand the mall area. Erspamer said the Information Booth was a permanent structure per Debbie at the Chamber said Erspamer. Erspamer said that the bricks and design were good for the downtown area but at this corner it was to overbearing on the community. Weiss said that the commission was here to look at growth management and not design. 9 Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes -October 02 2007 Gibbs thanked the applicant and said this was a nice project and glad that it exceeded the guidelines. Gibbs asked if there were numbers from the AACP of rental versus for sale units. Phelan replied that there was target of how many affordable housing units and how many people the city wants to house but there was not a specific on the proportion of rental to for sale units. Phelan said that it was the purview of the commission on rental versus for sale. Speck commended the applicant on the project and understood some of the concerns from LJ. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve Resolution #26 series 2007 approving with conditions the three Growth management Reviews under the purview of the Planning Commission including requiring the affordable housing units to be rental units and deleting Section S.B(1) of the resolution and renumbering Section S.B(2) and recommending that City Council approve the subdivision request of the Mountain Plaza Building to construct amixed-use structure on the property known as 434 E. Cooper Avenue. Seconded by Stan Gibbs. Erspamer, no; Gibbs, yes; Weiss, yes; Speck, yes. APPROVED 3-1. Discussion: Erspamer said the Aspen Area Community Plan was ambiguous at best but it does talk about pedestrian amenities and public gathering places and this application does not provide that. Weiss said that he agreed with LJ about public amenities space but that was not the commission's purpose here today. Speck also had concerns about the open space for the public. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE 30 Brian Speck opened the public hearing. Sara Adams, historic preservation planner for the city, provided a new Resolution #27, which was an elaboration of what has been changed in the resolution. Public notice was provided. Cliff Weiss stated that he lived at 1280 Snowbunny Lane and his house was built in 1955 but was dramatically renovated two years ago. Jim True said that Cliff was not on the list. Stan Gibbs said that his house was on the historic list already. Sara Adams stated that Ordinance 30 was passed as an emergency ordinance on July 10`h to identify and protect potential historic resources. Basically all buildings in the city limits that were 30 years and older must go through a preliminary review with Com Dev staff to look at the building and if it potentially met the criteria for historic designation. The designation hearing starts at HPC who makes a recommendation to City Council then there were two hearings at City Council 10 Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes -October 02, 2007 (15` and 2"d reading of an ordinance). If Com Dev staff determined that the property did not meet the criteria for designation then the property owner would be issued a certificate that was good for five years (a certificate of no historic significance). Adams noted that for five years they could pull a building permit or demo the house. There were time constraints of 30 days on this review to respond to the homeowners if they met the potential to be historic or no a certificate that they were not historic. Adams stated there were numerous work sessions with City Council and the Aspen Citizens Group and Staff discussing the Ordinance and if was working. Three main issues were (1) the creation of a specific list, (2) the idea of a super majority to designate without owner consent and (3) incorporating an economic hardship review into the designation hearings. P&Z is asked to make a recommendation to City Council in order to amend the land use code. Adams said that properties will be added to this list for 10 years after the adoption of this Ordinance and there were less than 100 properties on this list. A super majority was a majority plus one that was needed to support a recommendation to City Council by HPC. City Council cannot have a super majority vote because it conflicts with the City Charter so it would have to go to a public vote to allow a super majority at City Council. The economic hardship was incorporated into the designation hearings (page 4 #6) and (page 5 #6). Jim True explained that an economic hardship was different than a takings issue by the evaluation of expectations and the economic hardship may be individually driven. Cliff Weiss said that it could be an economic hardship being put on this list against their will with lawyers fees ect. Adams said that at the request of the property owner the City will establish a hearing officer and a joint report prepared by the historic preservation officer (Amy Guthrie) and the City Attorney; that memo would be responding to the property owner. Weiss said there was nothing that would reimburse the homeowner for the legal expenses that they will go through. Adams replied in this amendment no. LJ Erspamer asked if there was a timeline to object before you cannot object anymore. Adams said the Exhibit A was the list going before City Council for second reading on October 22"a. Jim True said there was no deadline to object once placed on the list. Adams said that HPC recommended that City Council discuss the economic hardship. Adams stated that they were just voting on the changes, which were in bold underlines and in red. Stan Gibbs asked why 10 years. Adams replied that came up at City Council during an Ordinance 30 discussion. Gibbs said that any property that was 29 years 11 Aspen Plannine & Zonine Meetine Minutes -October 02 2007 today could not be added to the list for 10 years and was that what was intended to have properties that old. Adams said that they thought about that because Ordinance 30 was a blanket ordinance and at the direction of City Council they have come back with this 10 year idea of narrowing the scope to a list. Gibbs asked if there were any studies that correlate the historic status with a decrease in value. Adams said that she has come across some studies that relate to historic districts but not specific landmarks, which actually had a higher value in New York than buildings that weren't in a historic district. Adams said these changes would not change the permitted uses on the property. Chris Bendon said the criteria for that section were for both changes to the zone district map or changes to the text of the land use code. Public Comments: 1. Marilyn Marks stated that she was heavily involved with reviewing Ordinance 30 and involved with the Aspen Citizens Group; she doesn't have any property involved in this but was interested from a good government standpoint. Adams distributed Marilyn Marks responses to the fundamental community principal, immediate Ordinance 30 Revisions, Exhibit A and from 9.10.07 Council minutes. Marks said there was a gap between the super majority from HPC and Council. Marks said there were 90 properties but over 500 property owners because of the condominiums. Adams said there were 88 properties on the list. 2. Jerry Blumberg said that he lived on McSkimming Road and was on the list; he was against the Ordinance but was for voluntary designation. Bendon said that waiving the fees would be done. Weiss said that it was onerous to hit these folks with legal fees if legal fees were reimbursed to the homeowner, should the homeowner win a delisting case. Gibbs asked what procedurally was the effect of P&Z denying or voting this down. Phelan responded that it would be a recommendation of denial that goes to Council to consider that recommendation. True stated that this gets complicated because there was the emergency Resolution of Ordinance 30 that was in place; there were people in the public that were interested in having amendments done rather than repealing it altogether. True said that the commission could recommend that Ordinance 30 stay as it is with 2000 properties and not the amendments or various changes to the proposed amendments. Erspamer suggested that they make a motion with caveats that they continue to work with the citizens group like they have been and that they find an avenue to create less of a hardship on the protesting, the financial cost of those protesting and leave it as general as possible without being too specific. 12 Aspen Planning & ZonlnS MeetinE Minutes -October 02, 2007 MOTION.• L,I Erspamer moved to approve Resolution #27, 2007 and the recommendations of Community Development with the caveat that Community Development continues to work with the Citizens Group like they have been and that City Council focuses on avenues to minimize the financial hardship on any parry that wants to object to the designation. Seconded by Brian Speck. Roll call vote: Gibbs, yes; Weiss, no; Erspamer, yes; Speck, yes; APPROVED 3-1. Discussion: Gibbs asked to replace "make less" with minimize in the motion. Erspamer agreed and S~eck agreed. Phelan noted that this was going to Council on Tuesday, October 9` ,for first reading. Adjourned at 7:15,~p.m. City Clerk. 13