Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20100720City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 20, 2010 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 632 E. Hopkins - Conceptual Commercial Design Review 2 City Planning & Zoning Meetin¢ — Minutes — July 20, 2010 Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting of June 20, 2010 in Sister Cities Meeting Room to order at 4:30pm. Commissioners present were Mike Wampler, Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin, Brian Speck and Stan Gibbs. Jasmine Tygre, LJ Erspamer and Jim DeFrancia were excused. Staff in attendance: Jim True, Special Counsel; Drew Alexander, Community Development Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Bert Myrin voiced concern about the Wienerstube not coming back to P &Z. Jennifer Phelan responded it went to court and as a settlement it was negotiations with Council. Myrin was concerned that any project could do that same thing. Jim True said that any project can't do it; you have to go through a large process before you even get to a settlement procedure and it was a public hearing. Jennifer Phelan said there were a series of round tables next Wednesday and Thursday called Aspen Modem looking at Aspen post modern. Conflicts of Interest None stated. PUBLIC HEARING: 632 E Hopkins — Conceptual Commercial Design Review Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing on 632 E Hopkins. Drew Alexander summarized that the property was located on the corner of Hopkins and Spring Street; the lot was 4500 square feet and located in the C -1 Zone District. The adjacent properties to the east are mixed use properties and residential. Alexander said they are remodeling and expanding the existing building including site changes, structure changes and interior program changes. Alexander said there are two changes to the public amenity spaces; one along Hopkins and one along Spring. The building is getting updated new materials and the interior of the building is being reprogrammed. At this stage of design, the conceptual level, the second floor includes an affordable housing unit and commercial space and there was a 3` level being added that includes a small portion of office space and a free market residential unit. Alexander said the land use process for this case contains commercial conceptual design review, additional reviews include growth management, parking, subdivision and then final commercial design review. P &Z is the final review authority for conceptual commercial design review and the review criteria include public amenity spaces, utility, trash and delivery areas, and all of the criteria that are found within the commercial lodging and historic 2 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 20, 2010 objectives and guidelines. Alexander said you could find staff's comments regarding the review criteria in the memo in Exhibit A.1 through A.3. Alexander said that this proposal represents a reduced public amenity and the code says you are allowed to reduce the 25% required in the code but the reduction cannot go below 10 %; the project currently has 18% public amenity, the area is a mix of lawn and hardscape; the applicant is proposing reducing this to 16% public amenity on site, which is a difference of 810 square feet down to 720 square feet. The applicant is providing public amenity improvements off site on the public right -of -way on Spring Street, the landscape plan Exhibit D, staff asked for more permanent seating options to the plazas, the possibility of adding some public art and reduce the planter on Exhibit D so the site isn't screened as much. An additional recommendation was a parkway system on Spring Street and Hopkins Avenue in the memo there's a figure that shows a parkway on Hopkins where the sidewalk would be pulled back from the street to the corner with the parkway and a bulb out at the intersection where you cross the street. Alexander said on this block of Spring Street there is no parkway but across the street there is a parkway in place; there was no preference for a parkway from the Engineering Department or Parks Department but this was a Community Development specific recommendation and much stronger along Hopkins. Staff finds with the conditions just mentioned the public amenity space meets all the criteria. Alexander said that the utility, trash and delivery area was discussed on page 5 of the packet and the applicant's memo; this trash area was located perpendicular to the alleyway and staff likes to see these areas parallel to the alley and an additional concern was the walkway between the recycling bins and the cars parked; the minimum depth of these areas depth should be 10 feet and the proposal is for 22 feet by 6 feet. Alexander said the commercial district design guidelines address certain aspects of commercial properties and this property is located in the commercial character area. These standards address street and alley systems, parking, public amenity space, building placement, building height, mass and scale; staff s full response to this can be found on page 19. Staff recommendations were toning down the 3` floor because it was coming off too dominating and the 1 s ` and 2 " stories were giving enough attention; the applicant responded by reducing the cantilever and raising the parapet wall from the second floor up to increase the fagade height on the second level. An additional recommendation was to increase the impact and visibility the Hopkins entrance has; Exhibit D shows an entrance proposal and signage proposal. Alexander said that after reviewing the remainder of the criteria 3 City Planning & Zonine Meetin¢ — Minutes — July 20, 2010 staff felt that this proposal was in compliance and had no further recommendations; the architectural changes the applicant proposed satisfied staff's concerns. Alexander said staff received 2 letters from neighbors representing disapproval for the application; one was from Philip Rothblum that he changed his mind today and was not for the approval. Jennifer Phelan said the purpose of conceptual commercial design review is to look at the building or the size of the box, where is located on the site, is the initial public amenity space something that works for the commission and meets the guideline. Phelan said that they were not really looking at internally what was going on in the building. Phelan said it meets the height limitation in the C 1 zone district and meets the setbacks and conceptually it meets the allowable floor area. Cliff Weiss asked the setbacks for side and front at grade level. Alexander replied for a building of this mixed use there is no requirement. Alexander said the 25 feet that is mentioned in the letter speaks to the neighboring property. Weiss asked the height of C1 if it is 36 feet. Phelan said that it was knocked from 40 feet in 2007. Bert Myrin asked if any of the public amenity space was sunken. Alexander replied that it was on the Hopkins Avenue side was below grade. Phelan said that the public amenity space cannot be more than 4 feet above or 2 feet below the existing grade. Alexander said for this building it was existing at 16 inches. Myrin asked about exits on the second floor. Alexander replied the applicant was working with Denis Murray on that. Myrin said his concern was the size of the box to avoid a Dancing Bear issue. Phelan said that this has to go back to P &Z for final so a condition could be put in the resolution for exiting the building. Adam Roy said that he was a planner with David Johnston Architects and introduced Brian Beazley an architect and Michael Rudin, the applicant. Michael Rudin said he was the representative for the building that it was being improved. Adam Roy utilized power point and said the current building was roughly 26 feet high, the building currently 4,588 square feet with a basement. Roy said it was a rectangular building and the current floor to ceiling was just a hair over 8 feet on the ground floor and on the ground floor 7 feet' /4 inches; they are proposing to relocate those floor heights to get at least a 9 to 10 foot commercial levels. Roy explained the property utilizing power point. Ell City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 20, 2010 Adam Roy said there was a 2 car garage and leaving this open to the trash area. Roy said that this will be more trees and the entry court plaza the bench system that would make it a more inviting space. Roy said that they have increased the height of the building at the highest point of 10 feet and the 3` floor is setback 8 plus feet from the outside wall. Cliff Weiss said the Hopkins setback has not changed. Adam Roy said that was correct. Weiss noticed a Spring Street view a spiral staircase leading up to the top of the third floor, rooftop; he asked what was planned for up there. Roy said that is an alternative to a bulkhead and a lot of the mechanical will occur on the roof so it could be a programmable rooftop. Brian Beazley said there will be hatch access for the mechanical; the center portion of the roof is flat; there are 2 back portions, 1 is flat out to the alley and the north east comer is sloped at a 1:12 as well as the front roof at a 1:12. Beazley said any accessible area would be right in the center. Weiss asked if that's where the mechanicals were going in that center. Beazley replied no, the back portion would be solar panels. Weiss asked the height of the solar panels and mechanical. Beazley responded probably 3 feet. Phelan said that solar panels and mechanical were allowed to extend no more than 5 feet above the specified height limit. Beazley said the portions of the roof that were maxed out at 36 feet were the 112 roofs. Weiss said there was a 112 roof on the 3` floor and asked what was protruding out of the 2 sets of windows. Beazley replied they were sunscreens and part of the passive solar design; so in the winter the lower glass can be shaded. Mike Wampler asked if there was any place on that roof that could place a hot tub or entertainment area. Beazley answered possibly in the center of the roof. Bert Myrin said that moving the sidewalk closer to the building allows the pedestrians to connect with the building a little more than the barrier and was in the resolution. Beazley said they weren't strongly opposed to that but those trees they wanted were to screen the building; if they brought the sidewalk in it makes more hardscape to the building. Adam Roy said that they can't relocate that lower floor. Brain Beazley said that there needs to be some type of buffer in and around that space and ramp entrance to make it as inviting as possible. Myrin said there was no shading for the area that is across the street from the residential. Beazley said that relates to threshold where you are creating more of a private space or a public space and in fact one of the recommendations was to eliminate a planter that screened some of that area from the view across the street. Roy said they would explore some screening in that plaza area but quickly when you bring the planting all the way out to the curb you lose all of that public gathering space that you 5 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 20, 2010 achieve by leaving it in its current configuration. Roy said that it was effective to have some grass or landscaping that leads up to the building to soften but if there were opportunities to screen that further they would be happy to explore that. Myrin asked about the door on Spring Street and it seems like a private entrance. Beazley answered the door was an entrance to the office space, the ADU and the free - market unit. Myrin said that the space on Hopkins was a little more public. Roy said this really is going to serve as a permanent lobby, which the building doesn't have now. Myrin asked if the roof was included in any of the mechanical drawings. Beazley replied they were in the process of that now. Roy said the mechanical would be set away from the edge of the building. Phelan said that was a final design review. Beazley said a majority is in the building in the basement; it would just be ductwork, pipes, solar panels and they are determining how much and they are going for LEED Certification on the building. Stan Gibbs asked of the variation in the right -of -way for the C 1 District on the Spring Street side. Alexander said that was correct, Spring had a wider sidewalk. Beazley said that Spring sidewalk matches all the way down. Gibbs asked if the first floor amenity just couldn't n be sunk in from the grade. Beazley asked creating a step down once you enter into the door. Gibbs asked if you could physically for the building to fill half of that amenity space on the lower half of the building at grade; remove the retaining wall on that half of the building go right up, is this a possibility. Beazley responded that it was probably do able but they were not changing the elevation of the entire office retail space; they would have to modify the foundation to bring that grade up against. Gibbs said so if you don't do that it's impossible. Beazley said yes because you would have to bring the storefront windows but those windows would be shorter. Gibbs asked if the ADA ramp was necessary or can you get ADA entrance through the side fagade. Beazley said it was necessary if that space is divided; the single main entrance would be divided up. Public Comments: 1. Fern Hurst said she lives directly across the street from the Spring Street entrance to this building; she said it was an improvement. Hurst said her concerns were the 3 story addition obscures her view of the alley, St. Mary's and the western sky; she said that the corners should be angled which would give her a nice view. Hurst said it intrudes on her views from her living room and entrance going the other way. Hurst did not like the public City Plannine & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 20, 2010 amenity with all the paving and would like to see it less of a public amenity because they are residential condos across the street. Hurst also thought the sign at the corner could definitely be approved on. Hurst voiced concern for the mechanical on the roof as well. 2. Wes Cantrell said that he was Phil Rothblum's property manager and he would like to see story poles to give a good visual and would like to see it back to the comer. Cantrell said the 3 rd story cuts out probably 75% of his view of Independence Pass from his deck; it is 11 feet from the existing roof to their parapet wall. Cantrell asked where the mechanical was located on the roof. Stan Gibbs closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Adam Roy said that they sent out a letter on their own beside the public noticing to their immediate property owners to get their comments and they had only heard back from a couple of the neighbors. Roy said they have met with Ms. Hurst and well as Mr. Rothblum. Roy said that we hear Ms. Hurst's concern for the public amenity and they have looked into the code language about the standards, design guidelines and recommendations from City Planning Staff is to create a vibrant public amenity node at that area. Roy said they feel strongly about the public realm that is enhanced by a greenscape that is adjacent to the building, which creates more of a front yard on that side. Roy said that they were open to alternative options to screening that public amenity space as they move forward with the design. Roy said the sign would be dealt with also. Roy said the height that they met with Ms. Hurst at her residence just to understand the height issues from her view and to the steeple would require the applicant to cut away about 1/3 of the back of the building. Brian Beazley said that the mechanical would be screened and they are exploring using a green roof for LEED Certification and that would also improve or soften some of this equipment on the roof. Roy said the spiral staircase would reduce program the building currently has. Beazley said the original stair would probably have encroached on the height and was too bulky and massive. Roy said in response to Mr. Rothblum's concerns but up until the first thing this morning he had been a proponent for the project and they have communicated with him quite a bit of detail and at the 11` hour we didn't have time to address his new perception to the project. Roy said the top of Mr. Rothblum was approximately 4 feet lower that their highest point. Roy said with the 3` floor stepping back 8 feet the upper element extends out 5 feet from the front surface, so it is almost 20 feet from the property line setback. Roy said there would be no place on the roof that the mechanical would be close to the edge. 7 City Plannine & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 20 2010 Cliff Weiss said that he was confused and looks as though both buildings are at the same setback. Roy replied no they were setback 11 feet and asked if it was a single use residential what the setback was in that zone. Drew Alexander replied that for detached single family and duplex structure would be the R -6 Zone District. Jennifer Phelan replied it was 10 foot. Weiss said he saw a carport and a garage; how many cars are being parked here. Roy replied 4 and that's what currently parked there. Bert Myrin said one of the commercial design review elements was lighting to illuminate certain parts of the building to create an interesting effect; that is under the code section 26.412C. Jennifer Phelan said they weren't required to do it. Myrin voiced concern for lighting building elements; it seems that as it transitions to the residential area people who might not to see it lit. Myrin asked for lighting plans for final. Myrin said it was suggested eliminating 1 parking space if the objective couldn't be achieved with the trash access and wasn't carried through in the resolution. Jennifer Phelan replied that staff thought it could be resolved by final. Drew Alexander said staff recommended installing a fencing system or some bollards that would separate the uses. Myrin said that if a solution isn't found for two spaces and adequate separation can't be maintained then consider eliminating a parking space and mitigating for that as cash -in -lieu. Adam Roy said that the requirement was a length of 20 feet for box storage and also 10 feet deep; they feel that a solution is there and a solution that staff needs to see. Brian Beazley added this was a worst case scenario for adding to all the recycling bins potentially there, a 2 yard dumpster and how many times a week the garbage truck will show up and the other thing to consider is that this is not facing the alley. Beazley said to make it bigger would be more impactful in the alley. Myrin suggested adding to the resolution all mechanical drawn in on the final. Alexander said that Jennifer mentioned earlier about roofscapes as a criteria for this review once we arrive at final. Phelan said that you are covered. Myrin said that staff suggested on Exhibit A.1 Section 3 page 16 the final paragraph "staff would recommend the parkway solution along spring Street" didn't carry over to the resolution. Phelan responded the attached parkway was okay on Spring to create a public amenity space; on Hopkins is where you should consider requiring a detached sidewalk. Myrin said that was already in the resolution. Myrin said that there was a parkway suggested on Spring Street. Phelan replied no that was not what was ended up in the discussion. Alexander ::3 City Planning & Zonine Meetine — Minutes — July 20, 2010 said a better reference was staff's comments in the memo "parkway along Hopkins is strongly recommended" and right above it discusses Spring Street. Cliff Weiss said there was a bit of a conflict between what public amenity space wants and I have highlighted not a secluded area with a very private feel; this is an interesting design feature along Spring but as you started adding benches and he assumed the entrance to the free market unit you started taking away from the public the very thing that you were giving. Weiss said there probably needs to be more of a transition area and he looks more towards Hopkins Avenue for public amenity space. Weiss said you are in transition to residential units. Weiss said he was not a big proponent of green roofs; in the core where you can see it from the gondola here and there it makes some sense and it leads to a lot of rooftop activity. Weiss said there have been problems with buildings that start out to be one thing and turn out to be another thing because they have rooftop decks. Mike Wampler asked a question about a hot tub on the roof and he doesn't want rooftop stuff either. Wampler said that this building was away from everything as far as food services go and he doesn't see either one of the public amenity spaces as being very popular except for the people in that building; the people that use these areas won't bother the neighbor across Spring Street. Wampler said that if you moved the Spring Street area closer to the Hopkins area to tie it and move the trees down would that pacify the Spring Street people and make it a little bigger on that corner and a little more social. Weiss asked if they were looking to vote on a resolution tonight or was this just a conceptual design review where we are asking them to return. Stan Gibbs answered we have a resolution on the conceptual review. Gibbs asked about the parking mitigation with the addition of free market; there are already 4 spaces in this building; what is the parking mitigation. Alexander replied the free market and mixed use building has no requirement; they would do a parking review closer to final design. Alexander said staff thinks they will need 4 or 5 parking spots, that is just a ball park. Gibbs said that he agreed with everyone else that Spring Street would not have very much public stopping there and it would be the people in the building eating their lunch there. Gibbs said he would not be against seeing that area reduced and how much hardscape is going to be there and would like to see more screening along that side. Gibbs said he was in favor of seeing that parkway restored on the Hopkins side so the sidewalk would come straight down there you wouldn't have E City Planning & Zonine Meeting — Minutes — July 20, 2010 to go all the way in so you could do something creative on the public amenity space and agreed with Cliff and Mike to look at the mountain rather than a condo across the street. Gibbs said that's where you should focus doing something attractive. Gibbs stated that most of the amenity space on Spring could be reduced. Gibbs said the front fagade of the 3` floor is too imposing; the design guidelines call for it to be setback but the spirit is that it just doesn't look so big; he said it looks like the end of aircraft carrier. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve Resolution #16 series 2010 with conditions conceptual commercial design review for the property located at 632 E Hopkins with the addition under Section ]a reduction of one parking space shall be considered, Section I b the applicant shall continue to work with staff on the Spring Street streetscape to better shield the amenity space from the neighbors to the east, Section le The applicant shall include all post mechanical images inclusive of railings and rooftop access shall be clearly defined at commercial final design review, add section If the applicant shall consider redesigning the Hopkins amenity space to make that space more inviting, the applicant shall work on redesigning the top floor fagade to be less imposing on the Hopkins Street side; seconded by Mike Wampler. Roll call vote: Wampler, yes; Weiss, yes; Myrin, yes; Gibbs, yes. APPROVED 4 -0. Discussion of motion prior to the vote: Bert Myrin proposed an amendment to Section 1 a to add at the end "if adequate separation cannot be maintained the applicant shall consider eliminating the parking space that would be mitigated for later in the process in cash -in- lieu ". Jennifer Phelan said can I keep it short and say "reduction of one parking space shall be considered". Myrin and Wampler agreed. Myrin said what was important was that we were not guarantee that there would be 4 spaces. Myrin Section 1 e. " The applicant shall include all post mechanical images at P &Z final review at final ". Phelan added "inclusive of railings and rooftop access shall be clearly defined at commercial final design review ". Myrin said in "Section I b the applicant shall continue to work with staff on the Spring Street streetscape to better shield the amenity space from the neighbors to the east" this addresses some of Stan's concerns regarding a parkway or to work with. Myrin said "the applicant shall work on redesigning the top floor faVade to be less imposing on the Hopkins Street side ". Myrin said "add section If the applicant shall consider redesigning the Hopkins amenity space to make that space more inviting ". Weiss said this is the South side so it's going to be sunny and we are getting hung up on parkways and we really want is the public amenity space. Phelan said that her concern is that we were talking about the shape of the 10 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 20, 2010 box and the size and the public amenity space can be brought back by the applicant's ideas. Myrin said that the commission was providing is direction and guidance so when they come back for final we have a product that people are likely to support. Weiss said that Stan was talking about the massing. Gibbs said it was the 3` floor mass that seems a bit much. Myrin said to "change 1 c to say the applicant will consider redesigning the Hopkins Streetscape to include a parkway" so that gives everyone something to consider. Myrin stated it continues the block and the thing he has with the sidewalk against the street is that's where all the snow ends up being pushed. Weiss said that he liked what Michael said about joining the 2 spaces. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to extend for 15 minutes, seconded by Bert Myrin seconded. All in favor. Gibbs asked if they can't do the public amenity space would you like to see a parkway there as an alternative to shield the building and making it more inviting; but what if they come back with the same proposal would you have preferred that they had some. Weiss said that he was willing to give up the trade off to give up the parkway. MOTION: Cliff Weiss made an amendment to eliminate 1 c, died for no second. Bert Myrin noted Nick's notch on the Annabelle Inn that was paid for by Nick so he could see the mountain. Adjourned a 7:2 pm P ie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 11