HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20080415ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15.2008
MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST ................................................. 2
300 NICHOLAS (CENTENNIAL) GMQS REVIEW ............................................. 2
404 PARK AVE,/414 PARK CIRCLE (ASPENWALK) CONCEPTUAL PUD.... 2
1
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15, 2008
LJ Erspamer opened the regular Planning & Zoning Commission meeting in Sister
Cities meeting room at 4:30 pm. Commissioners Michael Wampler, Cliff Weiss,
Stan Gibbs, Jim DeFrancia, Brian Speck and LJ Erspamer were present. Staff in
attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel; Jennifer Phelan, Community
Development; Reed Patterson, Court Clerk.
MINUTES
MOTION.• Cliff Weiss moved to approve the minutes from April 1 S` with
corrections to pages 5, 8, 10 and 11; seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor
approved 6-0.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
LJ Erspamer was conflicted on 300 Nicholas Lane.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
300 NICHOLAS (CENTENNIAL) GMQS REVIEW
Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing. Jennifer Phelan noted that this hearing was
continued to today's date because of some legal issues and the applicant needed
BOCC consent to develop the two lots; that consent has not been received so this
item will be taken off of the agenda and withdrawn at this time.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (04/01/08):
404 PARK AVE,/414 PARK CIRCLE (ASPENWALK) CONCEPTUAL PUD
LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing. Jim True said the notice had to be
provided to his office within 24 hours of the hearing. The notice was received.
Jennifer Phelan stated the application before the commission was for a conceptual
planned unit development to redevelop 404 Park Avenue and 414 Park Circle with
a structure containing free-market and affordable housing units. There were 4
steps for the application the review process; details of the project being proposed;
sketch up and staff recommendation. The 2 properties 404 Park Avenue and 414
Park Circle are located in the Residential Multifamily Zone District and both lots
have a planned unit development overlay. A site specific development plan is
required for the planned unit development to be approved. Phelan said there was
the review process; conceptual planned unit development; final planned unit
development proposal and City Council to consider the final planned unit proposal
based on the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Phelan said there were 2 lots with an existing building on each lot; there were 14
free-market residential units on 404 Park Avenue and on 414 Park Circle there
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15.2008
were 11 existing affordable housing units in a multifamily building. Phelan noted
that currently there was not enough parking for the existing number of units and
the existing affordable units were category 1 rentals. The proposal before the
commission was to combine the 21ots into 1 lot and create 1 planned
redevelopment with a single structure that contains 14 free-market units and 25
affordable housing units. The affordable housing units were for sale units with a
mix of category 2 and 4; there were 54 parking space proposed; 30 for the free-
market component and 24 for the affordable housing units. Some of the parking
was below grade and some at finished grade.
Phelan said that the building at a conceptual level meets many of the underlying
zone district standards; there were variances requested through the planned unit
development. Phelan said that there were minimum setbacks; the applicant is
suggesting a possible land swap of approximately 600 + square feet to
accommodate the structure; part of Midland Avenue is located on this property.
Phelan said that the applicant was requesting a height variance; 32 feet was the
height limit and the applicant requested 42 feet at the entrance to the parking area
for about 25 feet in length. Phelan said there was a request to allow an increase in
the floor area of the project for the entire site; floor area was based on a sliding
scale for this zone district. Based on the density of this project 840 square feet of
lot area the applicant is allowed a 1.25 to 1 ratio for floor area so the lot is
approximately 33,000 square feet which would be 40,968 square feet allowed; the
applicant was asking for 1.5 to 1 which is 49,161 square feet. There was a parking
deficit for the affordable housing units.
Phelan said under the multifamily replacement program there were two options
100% replacement of affordable housing units, bedrooms and existing net livable
area and the remaining development on the site can be free-market units with no
requirement for mitigation; the second option was 50% replacement.
Jessica Garrow presented the sketch up of the project; the two parcels were in a
darker color. Jennifer Phelan provided the neighborhood developments with lot
sizes, building floor areas and heights.
Phelan said the scale of the project was not right for the neighborhood; staff
recommends the applicant revise the application to reduce the floor area, reduce
the mass of the structure, reconsideration ofoff-street parking and reduce the
height of the structure.
Stan Clauson introduced Tom McCabe, executive director of the Housing
Authority and there were representatives from the architectural company. Clauson
utilized the sketch up to clarify some of the questions from the site visit; the height
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15, 2008
of the existing buildings. There was a 3 story building at 34 feet and a 1 story
element and to the back was a 2 story element at 24 feet. Clauson said at 414 Park
Circle the existing heights were 28 to 26 feet and the Tailings Condo was 34 feet.
Clauson submitted exhibit F, a letter dated April 15, 2008 and exhibit G 11"x17"
drawings. Clauson provided the history of the parcels and developed goals and
objectives to share with the Housing Authority. Clauson stated that the free-
marketnumber of units at 14 has remained the same and the affordable housing
units were now at 25. Clauson said that this project was driven by the code.
Clauson stated that if the land swap would happen then they would have a 3.3 foot
setback. Clauson said the sub-grade parking would provide 53 parking spaces with
39 residential units and everyone would get a parking space and additionally there
were other parking spaces that could be allocated; this was an improvement over
the existing conditions. Clauson said they were looking at a LEED certified
building; the materials were stone and wood siding. Clauson said that if they broke
the building up with a courtyard in the middle they would not meet the code.
Tom McCabe stated the partnership presents the Housing Authority with a unique
opportunity; at the 414 Park Circle existing property there were 11 category 1
rental units. McCabe said that APCHA did not have the resources to re-develop
this property; he said governments, non-profits and private entities could partner
with APCHA on housing. McCabe noted APCHA will get out of the business of
managing this property but the Housing Authority would still qualify the
Affordable Housing owners. McCabe said they were proud of this project with the
partnership.
Cliff Weiss asked why was the Housing Board preferring the for sale units versus
rental units. McCabe replied that if they were presented with a large rental project
housing would expand the maintenance and property management departments to
encompass that and with the proper economies it would pencil out. McCabe this
existing 11 unit building requires a lot of maintenance and the Aspen Area
Community Plan requests workers buy into the community with more security in
the for sale property than a rental property. McCabe said Housing rules require
residents in rental properties to qualify every year; the for sale units provide a
better benefit to the community. Weiss asked who didn't get the parking space
with 24 spaces for 25 units. Clauson responded that there would be a space for
every unit.
Jim DeFrancia asked what the permitted FAR was and what was the applicant
seeking. Jennifer Phelan replied the permitted FAR was 1.25 to 1 at 40,900 square
feet and they requested 1.5 to 1. DeFrancia asked what the permitted height was
and what was the applicant seeking. Phelan responded that the permitted height
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15.2008
was 32 feet and the applicant asked for 42 feet in one place. Clauson said that it
was less than 25 feet across because of more articulation and at finish grade where
it dips in it was probably 43 feet.
Michael Wampler asked where the proceeds from the affordable housing sales
went. McCabe answered that the sales commission went to the Housing fund and
the rest went to the developer.
Stan Gibbs asked if the elevator towers were 40 some feet. Jennifer Phelan replied
that it would be good to site them in a planned unit development overlay because
they would be memorialized; there were certain allowances in building heights
such as chimneys, antennas, mechanical, ect., which could exceed the height limit
by no greater than 10 feet. Gibbs said it appears the affordable housing was
isolated or sepazated from the free-market and asked if there were any design
options looked at where it was integrated. Clauson responded they were asked by
the Housing Authority to cluster the affordable housing together and there would
be two separate associations one for the affordable housing and one for the free-
market. McCabe said that if they were truly integrated it caused more problems.
Weiss said there were Jacuzzis and all kinds of things on the rooftops of the free-
market; he asked if the elevators were going to the rooftops. Clauson replied they
were.
Wampler said the current council was adamant about height limits; he asked if the
parking entrance was lowered on the property could it allow for that portion of the
building to come down.
Brain Speck asked where the trash was located; in the garage and where did fire
trucks go. Clauson replied that fire trucks wouldn't need to go into the garage.
LJ Erspamer asked if solar panels were exempt for the height requirements.
Jennifer Phelan answered they were not because solar panels could be 5 feet above
the height limit. Clauson said the roof had features in it to conceal the solar panels.
Erspamer asked when his group closed on this property. Clauson said the
ownership group that originally proposed this sold the project to the current
ownership group.
Public Comments:
1. Jay Maytin said that he was an HPC Commissioner and lived in the Tailings;
this was a 50,000 square foot building and he had big concerns. Maytin said this
was 21ots and the project was making this into 1 lot taking out the setbacks, which
creates more mass instead of breaking up the massing by using 2 buildings.
5
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15.2008
Maytin said it was curious that the architect decided to build the largest mass and
longest linear lines on the highest part of the property. Maytin said that the mass
of the project itself did not fit the neighborhood. Maytin said that he was for the
re-development of this property but would ask the Commission to continue for
more study.
2. Tom Lester stated the biggest concern was the proximity and privacy that
they would lose at the Tailings and the protection of their view. Lester said that
something had to done about the disarray of the current building. Lester voiced
concern for traffic coming out of that area where the proposed garage access was
located with traffic and buses coming down that hill.
3. Nina Merzbach also a Tailings resident stated that she opposed the height
and mass of the proposed project and it was out of character with the
neighborhood. Merzbach said this proposed building will cause their building to
be in the shadow, take away the views of Aspen Mountain and reduce the market
value of their condos.
4. Matt Lilleberg said that he live in the 401 Victorian; he supported the project
but had concern for the infrastructure, traffic and pedestrian traffic.
5. Ron Erickson said that he was on the Housing Board and this project was
something that was wanted under the Aspen Area Community Plan; 414 brings
employees downtown, no cost to the city (it's apublic/private partnership) and it
has so many problems that no one in the area wants to build it. Erickson suggested
compromises when it comes to density, bulk, height; they will be able to house 25
families. Erickson said this project has been in the works for 2 years.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to continue the hearing until 7:1 Spm seconded
by Brain Speck. All in favor, approved.
Clauson responded saying there was a process to combine the two lots into one.
Clauson said that rooftop decks do not calculate into the square footage. Clauson
said that infrastructure was very important and the city of Aspen has a plan that
would extend sidewalks up to Smuggler Mountain Road, which was a very
important area.
LJ Erspamer asked if there were requirements in the code to protect views.
Jennifer Phelan replied these views were not protected and the only view planes
that were protected were in the downtown core. Phelan said that PUDs were
allowed on any size lot with public benefit.
6
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 15, 2008
Erspamer asked if any commissioners wanted to see story poles. Mike Wampler
said that he would. Stan Gibbs said that he would like to see them on the Tailings
side. Brian Speck said that he would like to see one by the Tailings.
Jim DeFrancia encouraged the applicant to have flexibility in options; there was a
clear staff report that does not advocate the application as submitted.
MOTION.• Jim DeFrancia moved to continue to 7: 30 pm seconded by Mike
Wampler, all in favor, approved.
Cliff Weiss stated this was a large scale building and he liked it. Weiss said that he
was bothered by just a few things and felt for the Tailings just up from this project
and saw a few decorative things could be re-considered to help them not be in their
face essentially. Weiss objected to the elevators because of their size and that there
were 4 of them; he was bothered by the amount of rooftop development. Weiss
said without those stone structures the building would appear smaller.
Jim DeFrancia stated that there were variances of about 30% on height and 20% on
the floor area and he requested that staff provide the basis for their objection and
what they think is appropriate. DeFrancia said he also wanted to hear from the
applicant and there should be a clear public benefit for the variance to be granted.
LJ Erspamer said that he would like to see a story pole on the corner. Erspamer
said the street and traffic were problems at the corner where the garage entrance
was located; the height was a problem and the FAR.
Stan Gibbs said overall the project had a tremendous amount of benefits especially
in the affordable housing. Gibbs said that something should go forward and the
question was what should go forward. Gibbs said there was concern for the mass
of the building from the Tailings and would like to see more work on that. Gibbs
understood the overall height of the building but it wasn't to scale in the
neighborhood.
MOTION.• Cliff Weiss moved to continue this hearing on Aspenwalk to May 20`"
seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor, approved.
Adj oumed.
p~~~v
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
7