Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20080520ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2 404 PARK AVENUE/4I4 PARK CIRCLE ASPENWALK CONCEPTUAL PUD2 CODE AMENDMENT LANDING TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ON LANDMARKS ................................................................................... 9 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting at 4:30 pm in the Sister Cities Meeting Room. Commissioners Jim DeFrancia, Dina Bloom, Michael Wampler, Stan Gibbs, Cliff Weiss and LJ Erspamer were present. Brian Speck was absent. Staff in attendance were Chris Bendon, Travis Goggins, Jennifer Phelan, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk; Jim True, Special Counsel. COMMENTS LJ Erspamer noted that he and Stan would be gone for the next meeting, June 3`a Chris Bendon provided a brief update on the Lift One Master Plan; the group of 28 members met once a week broken up into 4 groups. Bendon said that the mission and goals will be established through goal buckets; history, accessibility, vitality and sustainability blend together and help the thought process along with the dynamic of resort and community. Bendon said the dynamic of the group was good. Motion: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve the minutes from May 6`~ with the corrections as stated by Stan Gibbs; seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor, APPROVED. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 404 PARK AVENUE/414 PARK CIRCLE ASPENWALK CONCEPTUAL PUD LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing 404 Park Avenue/414 Park Circle, Aspenwalk. Jennifer Phelan said that this was a conceptual PUD to demolish both existing buildings on the property on 404 Park Avenue and 414 Park Circle that has an APCHA owned building on it. Phelan utilized sketch-up to illustrate the project. Phelan noted. there was one less unit in the proposal; there were 24 affordable housing units being proposed rather than 25; there were 14 free-market units being proposed. The garage was modified and rotated further north with 25 affordable housing spaces and 28 for the 14 free market units. The applicant worked on lowering the height of the building and the height was compliant at 32 feet, which was achievable by the relocation of the parking garage and lowering the building into the ground a bit. Phelan said the structure was set back from the shared property line from the Tailings Condominium to the north; above the garage access was a proposed deck for the use of the residents of the affordable housing units. The location of the elevator shafts were pulled back and the overall floor area proposed has been reduced just 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 under 43,000 square feet of floor area, the initial proposal had just over 51,000 square feet. Phelan said that this project had great benefit with the Housing Authority getting additional inventory for free. Phelan said the massing of this project was still too big and needs to be broken up more and the floor area is too big for the site and the neighborhood. Michael Wampler asked where the 7,000 square feet went. Jennifer Phelan replied the sinking of the building reduced some of the exposed wall area on the first floor so that has reduced some of the floor area calculation. Cliff Weiss asked if the one big box were two boxes could they still have underground parking under the two buildings. Phelan responded the applicant talked about the elimination of lot lines to be able to do this project. Dina Bloom asked to go over the parking issue. Phelan answered the parking requirement for this part of town was either one parking space per bedroom or maximum of two spaces per unit; there was a provision that when a property got redeveloped the applicant can carry forward a deficit in parking spaces. Phelan said that they were not carrying over the deficit for the free market units with regards to parking; they are carrying a deficit over for the 11 existing parking spaces for the affordable housing units but you can't have a deficit for the new units. LJ Erspamer asked if P&Z had the authority to give a variance. Jennifer Phelan replied that the units had to be 50% above grade. Stan Clauson responded that no unit is more than 50% subgrade; that is permitted in the code so there was no variance required. Stan Clauson said that there was safe pedestrian circulation by providing infrastructure that currently did not exist; this project will make a leap forward in solving the current parking deficit that's on the property. Clauson said that combing the properties allows for an efficient use of the properties. Clauson stated the Smuggler Mountain Apartments which is also referred to as 414 Park Circle contains 11 rental units owned by the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority and they do not have the funding source for some immediately necessary repairs; these 11 rental units have 10 on site parking spaces, which generate a parking deficit. Clauson said that 404 Park Avenue, which is privately rented right now as free market units but represents 3 buildings with a variety of sizes of units with 5 on site parking spaces; these 3 buildings were also in need of repair. Clauson said that the current on site parking had a deficit of 21 spaces for the free market and affordable housing; the land use code says that you can carry forward a deficit and 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 the proposal generates a deficit of 10 spaces. Clauson stated the proposed underground parking garage would provide 25 spaces for the 24 affordable housing units and 28 garage parking spaces for the free market units, which is a tremendous improvement in parking. Clauson stated the bulk and massing for this project was of concern with the staff and Cliff asked if there could be two buildings with a garage underneath them both and Clauson stated there could be two buildings but it will not work for this project. Clauson stated this was the RMF zone district, the most dense zone district for housing; there were different formulas for the 100% replacement program for the free market and the affordable housing. Clauson said the intention is that this redevelopment will be 100% replacement and there is no room for two separate buildings on the site; they have provided for a substantial amount of green space. Clauson said the floor area ratio is at 1.42 to 1 and the square footage is at 46,723. Clauson said they will not need a front setback variance because it would be an even exchange in property square footage with the City of Aspen with a quit claim deed. Clauson said the only variance needed would be in the floor area ratio but allowed in this zone district. Clauson said the garage entrance was moved up farther on Park Circle and utilized sketch up to show the project. Ken O'Bryan, Architect for the project, stated that in pulling back the building 26 feet back from the Tailings (36 feet off the property line) and the building was dropped down 4 feet minimum. O'Bryan said if they opened up the stairwells that would provide reliefs that could be open and would create a negative space that would help to open up the building. Michael Wampler asked about added expenses opening up the hallways to the outside elements. O'Bryan responded that the hallways as planned now had insulation anyway for acoustic reasons; he said that the trade-off would be that they would have to put exterior siding on it. Clauson proposed changes to the resolution on page 2 and 3; amend the square footage to 46,725, the floor area ratio 1.42: l; the 3rd bullet 24 units and the 4"' bullet added to the end of it , or as accomplished through a land swap with the City of Aspen with respect to right-of--way. Clauson added to page 3 Section 4: Affordable Housing a provision of affordable housing shall be such as to provide 100% replacement for the existing free market units and the existing affordable housing units to be demolished. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 Phelan said the number of employees housed had to remain the same in the affordable housing replacement program; the free market replacement was chosen by the applicant to replace 100% of the number of units, 100% of the net leasable space and 100% of the number of bedrooms. Jim DeFrancia said there was a deficit of 10 spaces with the garage providing 53 spaces. Clauson stated that was correct. DeFrancia asked of the 11 existing affordable housing units owned by APCHA would be replaced at no cost to the government. Clauson replied that was correct. DeFrancia said the only variance that they were seeking was the FAR. Clauson replied that was correct. Weiss asked why with Ken's opening up of the stairways why they were seeking 46,725 square feet. Clauson responded that Ken's idea would be an improvement in floor area but the specific nature of that improvement he can't represent at this point. Dina Bloom asked how the community deck came about. Clauson replied that it was an outgrowth of the redesign of the garage entry that covered the drive. Bloom asked for clarification on the subgrade issue for the affordable housing at 50%. Phelan responded the standard for the affordable housing was that 50% of the finished floor area of a unit needs to be at or above finish or natural grade, whichever is more restrictive. Phelan said this was a review at final with the growth management review. Weiss asked if the affordable housing was 50% of the square footage has to be above ground. Phelan responded that it was the net livable area; the finished floor. Phelan said this code amendment came about because affordable housing could be put subgrade; the council did not feel that units below grade were very livable so that's where the 50% above grade came from. Clauson stated that he's put in 2 projects since this code amendment and one was at garden level; another one had 'h of the unit above grade and '/2 of the unit below grade. Clauson said that was what was happening here at garden level. Stan Gibbs asked if half of the floor could not be below grade and the other half had to be above the natural grade; that doesn't mean walls half above grade don't mean finished floor. Gibbs said the revised proposal goes from 51,000 down to 46,000; just not as far as what P&Z wanted. Gibbs asked the total floor area of the free market units was and the affordable housing was. Clauson replied the free market total is 33,239 and the affordable housing total is 16,127. Phelan stated that was the calculation of net livable area; inhabitable living spaces that excludes garages. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES MAY 20.2008 Erspamer asked if they met all of the setbacks. Kevin O'Bryan, architect, replied that they did. Jim True stated that the code was clear "each unit provided shall be designed such the finished floor level of fifty percent or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher". Jennifer Phelan said the intent was to require fifty percent of a unit's net livable area be at or above grade. Phelan said if it were a two story apartment or unit you could do one floor above grade and one floor below. Tom McCabe said as a partner in the project specific to this discussion (finished floor grade) he was on Council when this change was made; he said the idea was for half of the unit to be above grade not half of the floor and you can mix and match that so that we talked in terms of volume but they said area, which gets at the same thing. McCabe said so if half of your unit was above grade and half was below grade that was what they were looking for; some sunlight and it's more like a garden apartment concept, but they did not get that specific. Weiss asked if all of the rooms had light would that satisfy your original intent. McCabe replied that was right. Public Comments: 1. Jennifer Phelan entered into the record a letter from Shael Johnson and Mike McCollum; they were concerned for the parking provided and did not feel that it was adequate. 2. Jay Maytin lived at the Tailings; he showed a rendition from Nina Merzbach, which was done prior to this latest rendition of this project. Maytin said his wife does not agree with the mass and scale and he did not believe the mass and scale was in the character of the neighborhood. Maytin said that a zero lot line would be required between the two properties (the two lots) and there was a required setback between the two lots, which would need a variance. Maytin said that when a building gets sunk into the ground the FAR is reduced but the actual livable square footage of the building is calculated in a different way because some of the building is subgrade; he said the sinking helps out his personal situation. Maytin pointed out that housing was important but it should not be the deciding fact for this property. Maytin asked P&Z not to allow the FAR variance, the lot line variance to protect the scale and mass of this property, honor the neighbors that have spoken and follow the staff recommendations. Maytin said that this APCHA property was a gold mine and was sure that there was a way to finance renovation of that building. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 3. Mary Ellen Sheridan said that she was the property manager of 404 Park Avenue and agreed that this building was an eyesore; she said that this was a mixed character neighborhood. 4. Roger Moyer asked how many parking spaces were they requesting that were not on site now. Phelan replied that the existing 14 free market units should have 22 spaces and they have 5 according to what the design specs are so there is a deficit of 17 right now. Phelan stated the redevelopment would actually require 26 spaces but they are proposing 28 so they were satisfying their requirement for the free market. Phelan said the there was a deficit of 4 spaces currently for the affordable housing. Moyer said that if you have so many bedrooms and so many people in units that every person will have a car; there was not adequate parking in the entire neighborhood. Moyer cited examples of neighbors having more than one car. 5. Shael Johnson agreed with what Roger Moyer said about the parking. Johnson said one of the things that she liked about the neighborhood was that the streets were not to code and there weren't curbs and gutters because it adds some of the charm. 6. Marsha Goshorn said that she was on the housing board and one of the things that will change with this were the 2 current building that were there have so many people crammed into those units and there will be actually fewer people on site with the new development. Goshorn said there would be 24 new affordable units that would not cost one dime of public subsidy. Goshom said that the new development would actually clean up the neighborhood. 7. Mike McCollum asked where the overflow parking goes. McCollum agreed with Roger Moyer about the huge problem with parking. Stan Gibbs asked staff to respond to the parking issue; he asked if 39 units and 53 spaces are adequate according to the code. Jennifer Phelan replied the way that she did the calculations was that they were short 5 parking spaces for the affordable housing units. Phelan explained that an applicant was allowed to carry over a shortfall of parking; currently there were 11 affordable housing units that would require 14 spaces with 10 provided with a deficit of 4. Phelan said in the redevelopment they are providing 25 spaces for 24 units. Jim DeFrancia asked as presently configured how many parking spaces are there on site and off site. Phelan responded currently there are 15 parking spaces. DeFrancia said if this project were to advance there would be 53 spaces. DeFrancia asked how many units exist today and how many will exist with the new project. Phelan replied 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES MAY 20.2008 there were 25 units existing and there were 38 proposed. Stan Clauson said that clearly shows how much the situation is being corrected and addressed by the provision of an entire floor of parking. Clauson said that there were requesting a subdivision which essentially creates unified property and there are no internal setbacks in a unified property. Cliff Weiss said the free market units were roughly 2500 square feet and asked who would buy these units. Clauson replied it was unclear from a market standpoint. Weiss asked why the parking spaces were not reapportioned for the affordable housing units because the free market units would probably not need as many spaces for second home owners, which would satisfy a lot of the neighbors concerns. Gibbs asked if P&Z would be voting on a subdivision. Phelan answered the subdivision would be part of the final PUD application; it would be a recommendation from the planning commission to city council. DeFrancia said that we have to accept change; he said the public benefit was the affordable housing at no public cost. DeFrancia said that he was supportive of the project. Erspamer said all too often we don't listen to the neighborhoods; the setbacks were met with the combining of the lots. Erspamer said that the size of the building was too big. MOTION.• Cliff Weiss moved to extend the meeting until 7:30, seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor, APPROVED. Weiss stated that he has been in favor of this infill housing and private/public projects. Weiss said that he can not oppose something like this and the applicant has followed the suggestions of this commission. Weiss said there were probably better ways to mitigate the parking, the mass and scale and since this was conceptual he could live with this. Weiss said that if this satisfies what housing put in place with no dark bedrooms then he will go with the project. Dina Bloom said that the employee housing was great. Stan Gibbs said that with this discussion of the 50% floor area it was not clear and he would like to continue this hearing for that clarification on floor area. Gibbs said that if that building has to be raised up or the units reconfigured to provide ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 more above grade area then the FAR would change as well and he wanted to know the affect of that number as well. Clauson stated that if it was necessary to have a finished floor 50% above grade then they would just organize those units vertically. Jim True stated that he met with the City Attorney, John Worcester, and Stan Clauson about the exchange that they talked about and the City Attorney was of the opinion that as a vacation of aright-of--way it can't be done as an exchange, it was really a different type of process. True said it was different than a land exchange; it's a vacation process. Erspamer stated that the portion of the resolution should be amended to state "it's a process to be formulated by an agreement between the city attorney and the applicant." MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve the conceptual Resolution #1, Aspenwalk, with the changes as described by the applicant and a correction to the affordable housing count, and a clarification to the process of vacation. Seconded by Cliff Weiss; roll call vote: Wampler, yes; Bloom, yes; Gibbs, no; Weiss, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Erspamer, no. APPROVED 4-2. Discussion: Gibbs stated the applicant has been very responsive to P&Z and the neighbors to reduce the mass and scale of the building toward the Tailings; he agreed with Mr. DeFrancia about the parking that it will actually result in a parking benefit overall with a parking enforcement issue. Gibbs said that he wanted to see the affordable housing built but had a hard time with the current wording being based on something that we don't really know. Erspamer stated that he went along with the staff recommendations. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT LANDING TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ON LANDMARKS LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing on TDRs. Jennifer Phelan presented the request for the code amendment and stated as part of the larger moratorium code amendment a year ago a TDR was allowed to be severed from a historic property and landed elsewhere. Phelan said the existing program (up to this point) was that you severed 250 square foot increments from a historic property and landed them as 250 square feet of floor area on certain multifamily and mixed use projects within the city. Phelan said to create additional landing sites and potential opportunity towards this transferable development right program to work the code changes allowed these units that were capped at certain sizes (for example a unit could be only 2,000 square feet of net livable area) the purchase of a TDR allowed 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING -MINUTES MAY 20, 2008 a TDR the addition of 500 square feet of net livable area. This landing was allowed in the Commercial Core, Lodge Zone District, Neighborhood Commercial and Commercial Lodge but not on a historic property. Jim DeFrancia asked if a building like the Crystal Palace Building had 10,000 square feet and wanted to divide into four 2,500 square feet units that couldn't do that without this code amendment. Phelan replied that was correct there was no allowed increase in the actual floor area allowed for the site, the 10,000 square feet, but it allows a unit to go from 2,000 to 2,500 square feet of net livable area. Stan Gibbs said this was for multifamily and would not apply to a single family historic building. Phelan responded that it was allowed for multifamily units. Public Comments: Jay Maytin said that he understands the TDR program much better now and asked P&Z to amend this code because the TDR program was essential for historic preservation in Aspen. MOTION.• Jim DeFrancia moved to adopt Resolution #017, series 2008, recommending that Council approve amendments to the Municipal Code related to Transferable Development Rights, seconded by Mike Wampler. Roll call vote: Weiss, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Wampler, yes; Bloom, yes; Gibbs, yes; Erspamer, yes. APPROVED 6-0. MOTION: Michael Wampler moved to adjourn the meeting at 7.•30 pm seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor, APPROVED 6-0. ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 10