Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20110215 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 Aspen Walk — 404 and 414 Park — Final PUD 2 Code Amendment — Affordable Housing percentage above grade 13 1 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting Tuesday February 15, 2011 to order at 4:35 in Sister Cities meeting Room. P &Z members excused were Jasmine Tygre, LJ Erspamer and Jim DeFrancia. P &Z Commissioners in attendance were Bert Myrin, Cliff Weiss, Michael Wampler and Stan Gibbs. Staff in attendance Jim True, Special City Counsel; Sara Adams, Community Development ; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. MINUTES MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve the minutes of February 1st seconded by Michael Wampler. All in favor APPROVED. Declarations of Conflicts of Interest None stated. PUBLIC HEARING: Aspen Walk — 404 and 414 Park — Final PUD Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing on Aspen Walk 404 and 414 Park, Final PUD Review. Sara Adams provided the public notice. Sara Adams said the applicant requests approval of the Residential Design Standard Variances and Growth Management Review for multi - family replacement and the development of affordable housing and a recommendation to City Council of approval of Subdivision and Final PUD. The property is located at 404 and 414 Park Circle and zoned RMF PUD; 414 Park Circle contains 15,224 square feet and is owned by Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority and 404 Park Circle is owned by PFG Aspenwalk LLC and contains 17,550 square feet of lot area. The applicant is requesting to merge the 2 lots and develop a residential multi - family building containing sub -grade parking; and it is determined that 17.5 FTEs were required for this project. The buildings would be demolished and re- developed into 14 free market units at 404 Park Circle and at 414 Park Circle there will be 17 deed restricted units for a total of 31 units, which is an increase of 6 units from the existing density. Adams said the Planning and Zoning approvals were final for 1. Growth management Review for demolition or redevelopment of free market multi - family residential units. 2. Growth Management Review for the demolition of affordable housing units. 3. Growth Management Review for the development of affordable housing. 4. Residential Design Standard Variances for multi - family housing. P &Z recommendations for City Council approvals are: 1. Subdivision Review for 2 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 redevelopment of multi - family units and the vacation of a lot line and 2. Final PUD Review to establish dimensional requirements for the proposed development. Adams said that staff was concerned about height; the height limit in the RMF Zone was 32 feet. This project needed height variances for the affordable housing building and 2 height variances were requested for the free - market residential building. Staff is concerned about the quality and livability for the affordable housing units; the only outdoor communal space for the housing units is proposed above the parking ramp in the northeastern corner of the property that faces windows of a housing unit. Adams said they were meeting all the minimum requirements for unit size; multi- family free market is met. In the deed restricted that is going to be demolished the determination was 17.5 FTEs were housed so they have to replace 17.5 FTE spaces. There is a recommendation from the housing board and they find that the criteria have been met for the affordable housing for growth management. There is a criteria that 50% of the net livable space be above grade; in this case the first floor of the affordable housing units are about 2 to 3 feet below grade so it won't meet this standard. Adams said there was a code amendment on the agenda tonight that will address this; the proposed language in the code amendment will allow the Planning & Zoning Commission to permit Aspen Walk to have these partially sub - grade units. This code amendment was to allow for some flexibility to be 2 to 3 feet below grade and hopefully it will be a positive experience. Adams said that all residential development has to meet the Residential Design Standards and specific standards apply to multi - family buildings. The purpose is to preserve neighborhoods style and character and make places conducive to walking and comfortable for the neighborhood. There are 2 street facing accesses for the free market units but there aren't any for the affordable housing units. Staff thought not having street facing entrances made the building seem monolithic and somewhat unapproachable. Staff feels the building could be brought into closer compliance to be more compatible with the neighborhood. Adams said overall staff finds that the project is inconsistent with the AACP specifically the housing design quality sections of the AACP and recommend P &Z continue the hearing to allow the applicant to readdress the following: 1. Reduce the height of the free market residential building to comply with the 32 foot height limit in the RMF zone district; 2. Improve the livability and quality of the Affordable Housing Units; 3. Reallocate the parking spaces; 4. Restudy the architecture details and materials and 5. Provide more street orientated entrances 3 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 and some one story elements to bring the project into closer compliance with the Residential Design Standard Variances. Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson Associates, representing the applicant and with him is Ken O'Brian from O'Brian Architects. Clauson utilized power point to show the context of the project showing the free- market component and the affordable housing portion. Lot 5 is the Smuggler Apartments owned by APCHA and Lot 3 is the 404 Park; the property extends somewhat into the Midland Avenue/Park Avenue and a similar circle that intrudes onto lot 3 although it is not essential to this property they have offered a land exchange with the city for Park Avenue to be completely on City property. Clauson said the parking in this area is informal head in parking to the buildings partially in the right -of -way partially on private property. Clauson said reviewing what has happened in our original application in 2007; our conceptual PUD application and that had all the housing mitigation on site so that had 25 deed restricted units and 14 free - market units at that time. With concerns from the public and comments from Council, we reduced that to 18 deed restricted and 14 free market units with a concept that 100% of the additional would be provided off site. Clauson said the current amended proposal is for 14 free market units, 17 affordable housing units, 25 affordable bedrooms and over 12,000 square feet of affordable housing on site. Clauson said the unit sizes as they evolved within the housing guidelines are larger than the unit sizes currently on site. The entire site is to be developed with an underground garage with 52 parking spaces; 23 spaces for affordable housing plus 2 electric vehicles and 29 spaces for the 14 free market units and are happy to adjust the figure say 28 spaces for the market rate units and 24 spaces for the affordable housing units. Clauson said that the onsite condition is better in the summer than in the winter because of snow storage in the spaces. You enter the parking garage from a ramp from Park Circle and there is trash storage at the base, there is mechanical and water service connections sub - grade. The elevator and stair towers are placed in the most efficient position for the units; 2 meet the entrance on the street and 2 do not and it is an efficient layout of the units. Clauson said there was a considerable amount of bike storage and additional storage facilities over each parking stall. Clauson showed the landscape plan and showed the entry to the affordable housing stair and elevator tower; they believe the entry off the courtyard has a nice feel to it and doesn't detract from the property. There would be curb and gutter around the perimeter of the property, sidewalks and street trees; there would no longer be head in parking. There is a less formal walkway to the back and connecting through to 4 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 the passage through and is well screened from the adjacent buildings; there is plenty of activity to have sidewalks in this area; there were 3 plans proposed. Clauson said they have done site grading studies; there are some drainage issues that would be remedied with appropriates drainage inlets along the curb and gutter section. The Midland Park drainage will be fixed with this project and they have done a substantial amount of engineering about that. Clauson said there was only one place that they were going to seek a technical height variance because they were excavating along the side for the garage and is created by the sloping entrance to the sub -grade parking garage. The height limit is 32 feet and this site has been benched for the development that exists on the site right now. Clauson said they have to measure from the contours as they exist and they are manmade contours from the benching for the 2 units; a 5 and % inch variance can be granted by this board as part of the PUD process without any deterrent to someone standing in the street. Clauson said he didn't think anybody standing in the street could tell the difference between 32 feet and 32.575 feet; where you are seeing 34 and 35 feet there is a bench that exists as you move from the level of the 414 Park Circle Building to the 404 Park Avenue Building, that was a retaining wall that failed a couple of years ago and wasn't removed. Clauson noted there were 2 associations created and worked out with the housing board and a percentage of the affordable housing to the free market so the affordable housing would have reduced homeowners' dues. Clauson said the new affordable units were larger and better than anything that exists on that site or even in many of the adjacent buildings. No Growth Management allotments are being used; there no additional free - market units being brought in; they are within walking distance to the core; accessible to RFTA — it stops right in front of the door. This is a public /private partnership between APCHA and the developers and it is a design which reflects the neighborhood; the neighborhood is pretty eclectic. The garden unit on the affordable side contains one less unit where they have combined units to create a 3 bedroom unit in order to get the bedroom count up to code. The current code requires that 50% of the finished floor area be above grade and they puzzled over that because the code was written over basement or sub -grade units served by light wells and emergency access; there was a code amendment that eliminated that sub -grade space and we expected that would actually permit garden units. 50% of the floor area has to be above grade and if you think about that it creates a 2 level unit or some kind of walkout where the level is decreasing; it really cuts down the possible number of units that can be at this level. Clauson said the free market units on the first floor 5 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 were partially sub -grade and the affordable housing units on the first floor and again they are exactly the same; there is no difference in the livability in the free market or the affordable housing units on the first level. Clauson said the code amendment is different from the one that they originally proposed. Clauson said this is the architecture as proposed and consists of stone, timber, some flat roof elements and some pitched roof elements; it also gives you the opportunity to see curbs and gutters. Clauson showed some illustrative drawings of a change in architecture; this is the entry to the affordable housing and street side entry with the affordable units on the left and the free market on the right. Clauson said they could redesign the building in this manner and if P &Z likes this better; the APCHA board like the existing architecture. Cliff Weiss asked Stan Clauson if he represented the Aspen Walk project when it came before P &Z in 2007. Stan Clauson replied that he did. Bert Myrin asked staff about the height exception for elevator shafts, does that apply to just the free market or also the affordable. Sara Adams asked if he was referring to the condition that was in the conceptual resolution. Myrin asked if the affordable one had rooftop access. Adams said it was just the over run and did not include roof top access for the affordable housing. Ken O'Brian said that the height above the elevator was for someone servicing the elevator to have room to work on it while it was in service. Myrin said on page 5 of the staff memo it talks about the parking deficit; is that because of the PUD process or can you suggest something otherwise. Adams replied the code allows an existing redevelopment to maintain their existing deficit; through the PUD process you can establish parking requirements. Adams said the applicant is meeting the parking requirements regardless if there was a deficit or not; she said that she wanted to point out that there is an existing deficit. Myrin said if we found that there was not parking on the street would it be appropriate to suggest more parking. Adams responded that the purpose of the PUD was to allow flexibility by varying standards of the underlying zone district for community benefit and neighborhood compatibility. Jennifer Phelan said to consider with the PUD you can determine the parking standard however it does say using the underlying zoning as a guide and the other thing you should consider is if they are meeting the parking standard why would you require this person to provide more parking when someone across the street might do something by right and would not be provided this. Myrin said because it opens up as a PUD he asked why the code used just a minimum and then vary from that and notice that this area has no on street parking. Stan Clauson responded that currently there are parking spaces at 414 Park Circle with a real parking area but 6 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 the others are just head in and there are 20 spaces at best and get shaved down to about 18 when there is snow storage; so we are moving from 18 to 52 spaces, so there is a huge jump in providing parking for that neighborhood and the development. Myrin said it was a concern because it went from 27 bedrooms to 70 bedrooms and using 21 on street spaces and he asked if they could speak to that versus just the code. Jennifer Phelan said as a PUD you could determine the parking requirement; it is a site specific review that you need to look at. Sara Adams said that they have done a good job at being creative in the garage. Myrin asked if the garage goes beyond the building walls. Clauson replied that it does in the sense that the garage goes beneath this landscaped area but in general the outer perimeter of the building defines the outer perimeter of the garage. Myrin said on page 8 there were 4 reviews and he asked how those fit into the 6 reviews. Adams replied they would fit into your final PUD recommendation and the architectural elements are reiterated in the Residential Design Standard Variances. Myrin asked what was meant about the livability of the units and if it had to do with balconies, common space or is there more to it. Adams replied the rooftop space and they were concerned about the units meeting the minimum net livable size for the categories and they were right on the size and there was concern because there aren't outdoor balconies, there aren't yard spaces for people to get out of their units and what the impact will be on the neighborhood and the overall impact of just living in those stacked units. Myrin asked if there was a dollar amount for the cash in lieu for the 17 units. Jennifer Phelan responded that they were not proposing cash in lieu. Once the buildings are removed and the housing units out of our stock we would ask for cash in lieu as kind of a bond that would be subject to the City Attorney's approval. Myrin asked again the dollar amount for that. Adams replied that she hasn't calculated that. The applicant has agreed to pay the TDM fee, the transportation demand management fee, and that is the demand on infrastructure according to the traffic studies that have been included. Myrin said the council resolution on page 57 of the packet mentions 2 electric cars, is there a long term replacement plan for these cars; he said he was trying to figure out if that was a sustainable program over time. Clauson replied that there was not a replacement plan built into the project and would be presumably maintained through the HOA and if the HOA chores to allocate to this and have a fund of some kind. 7 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 Myrin said there was mention to the 2 spaces for the electric cars in the affordable spaces. O'Brian said as the applicant thought that the affordable housing unit people would be using the electric cars. Clauson said that there would be more than 1 parking space for every unit and considerable access. Adams said per code it is the lesser of 1 per bedroom or 2 per unit; when calculating your parking requirement for multi - family outside the infill area it is one per bedroom or two per unit. Myrin asked if guest or service vehicle parking were included in this or was it street parking. Adams replied it was not required in the code. Myrin asked about the trees on the Midland side of the buildings and asked the setback from the property line. Clauson said there was a mixture of Aspens and Blue Spruce to provide a fairly dense screen along the area where the excavation is down into the parking garage. Clauson said there were many smaller shrubs and Aspens to provide some screening of this patio area from the adjacent areas; the plantings are fairly close to the property line. O'Brian said the setback was 10 feet up to the transformer and then it was 5 feet. Myrin asked why the 5 3 inches couldn't be taken out of the building. Clauson said by dropping the building you are dropping the parking garage and the ramp is now at 12% and snow - melted and you don't want it to be too steep. Myrin asked the ceiling heights and if they could be dropped. O'Brian replied the heights were at 10 feet floor to floor for both the free market and the affordable so they couldn't really be dropped anymore. Michael Wampler asked about the heights and Sara said something about 46 feet from the bottom of the parking ramp and asked the net difference from where it is now and where it is going to be and what was the height of the existing building. Wampler said that he would like to know the net difference is in height. Phelan said that they were only 2 story buildings. Clauson said that 414 Park was about 24 feet. Wampler said so this will be 16 feet. Clauson said it was at 32 feet if you did not have the ramp into the parking garage you would have 32 feet. Wampler said so it would be 8 feet higher; he asked for story poles. Clauson said that they put story poles up last time. Wampler asked why there weren't balconies on the affordable housing units. Clauson replied that they discussed this with APCHA and they thought it was okay not to have balconies. Clauson showed French balconies on the one side of the affordable housing with very generous door but were not deep enough to jut out and not enough to put a chair or a barbeque on and they have a railing. O'Brian said the deck was a foot and a half. Wampler said that right now the road has a considerable hump in it where the affordable housing was. Wampler asked if the road was going to be re- graded. Clauson replied no. 8 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 Wampler said that he was offended by the 4 elevators and how far they stick up; do we really need 4 or can we get away with 2. Clauson replied they needed 4 to service the locations and the elevators meet the code requirements. Wampler asked how many more off site units are needed. Adams replied units for 17.5 FTEs. Wampler said that there were 70 bedrooms between the affordable and free market and 52 spaces down below and so where are the 18 or more additional cars going to park because there were serious issues with parking in this area. Weiss said affordable housing had 25 bedrooms that he counted and proposed were 23 parking spaces; is the 1 to 1 free market as well as affordable housing. Adams said the code said 1 space per unit with a maximum of 2 spaces per unit. Stan Gibbs asked what tandem stack was. Sara Adams replied it was a parking place long enough for 2 cars back to font; if you were in the front space you would not be able to get out and those spaces counted as 1 space. Gibbs asked Stan Clauson if they explored having the cut for the ramp to the parking garage on the other side of the building so it wouldn't be such a deep cut. Clauson replied they explored a variety of entrances and this was designed to be of the greatest value to the adjacent building. Gibbs asked if the credits were not available could they do cash in lieu. Adams replied that she put in the resolution if credits were not available they would have to come back to P &Z to change to cash in lieu. Stan Gibbs voiced concern for the code amendment and why they didn't work on that first so we knew what we were dealing with; it feels like we are doing this just for this project. Gibbs said he would have felt more comfortable with the code amendment on its own merits. Gibbs asked how many people would like to speak on this project. Only 3 people raised their hands. Public Comments: 1. Marcia Goshorn said she was on the APCHA Board; addressing the code amendment it really wasn't just for this project and APCHA go with the code amendment because people were coming in with dungeon space and windows that were egress but didn't get a whole lot of light. Goshorn said these were livable units with light. The affordable housing rooftop was taken out at the request of the neighbors and the patio space was actually better and the balconies end up as storage space and have to be shoveled in 9 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 the winter. Goshorn said that the architecture if you walk toward Park Circle and Highway 82 there were newer things in that neighborhood. Goshorn likes the idea that the building might last for a long time and the people that have lived there for years have the first option for buying in. Goshorn said that there were assessments for the capital improvement funds to be based on replacement of the car share vehicles but the bus was right there. 2. Cindy Houben said that she lived at Midland Park and was on the HOA Board and they have not reviewed this phase of the project as a group and meet tomorrow night and hope to review this at that time. Height was a concern in terms of the relationship to the Midland Park area; they thought the height limit was 32 feet and she asked what will the new roof elevations look like with the elevator and stairwell shafts. Also the outdoor space for the residents is in an area that will be shaded and not get a lot of sun and the spillover effect in the neighborhood. Houben said they do not allow dogs in their neighborhood because of the tightness and even though our street is private it is used to access Smuggler. Houben said that she didn't know if this project in the free market or affordable housing units were going to allow dogs and asked where those dogs would go. Architecture wise it does seem to be more internalized than streetscape which is different from the surrounding buildings. They have an incredible night sky so they were concerned about lighting for this project and the construction management plan because it was a tight site. Houben said snow shedding off the roofs onto the Midland Park property because of the new park they have and in the winter they have snow sledding. Curb and gutter in that neighborhood would seem pretty suburban and other features that could be considered rather than an actual gutter maybe a green swell. Houben said that the housing categories were 2 and 4. 3. Jay Maytin said that he asked the height at one point and the setback from the ground. Clauson replied that the height from the flat grade would be 32 feet. O'Brian said there was a 10 foot utility easement. Maytin said that he lived at the Tailings and he saw the story poles and the view will change for the Tailings. Parking is a concern for this commission and have talked about the PUD could set the amount of parking required for this project. Maytin said the driveway safety with a 12% grade of the ramp with the sidewalk there has to be some kind of safety mechanism there because you cannot see coming up a ramp especially kids. Is it possible to have some sound absorption in that parking ramp because at 12% grade a car coming up there is going to be loud for everybody that lives in the area. Maytin said that he would like to see a lighting plan as part of the final because this needs to be 10 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 addressed. The street corner could handle the rooftop equipment better because of the natural grad of this land. Maytin said the mass and scale of this building is not acceptable. 4. Tom McCabe said that mass and scale was brought up years ago and he had all the square footages from the area and he can bring that back and the aerials of the buildings. Commissioner Comments: Bert Myrin said that he would like to see this continued for architectural elements; the parking allocation could be appropriate for cars; parking pushed beyond and it was not appropriate to grant height variances. Myrin said that Council had 6 sessions and they came up with the limitation of 32 feet height limit. Myrin agreed with the street facing entrances to make the building feel welcome. Myrin wanted to know more about the elevators and if they could be done from the lower level instead of the roof. The lighting was of concern and the code might not be enough and the noise from the HVAC in the garage. Cliff Weiss said when this came before P &Z in 2008 he supported it and went to Council and spoke on the project's behalf because there were a lot of things that P &Z suggested and the applicant at the time complied. Weiss said a lot of the compromises that were made are gone so this will never get his support now. Let's start with the elevators; those things only make the building look taller, bigger and uglier move them to the back and remove the stone. Weiss said that all the work that they did the first time around is gone; the height that you gave for the north side is questionable and the diagram said 39 to 41 feet and that was compromised the first time. There was an interesting design the first time and it's gone. Weiss said the categories 1 and 2 was what the applicant sold him on and that was why he went to bat for them at Council and now you are category 2 and 4. McCabe said that Smuggler was category 1. Weiss said it was their selling point the last time. Weiss said there are no buildings in that neighborhood that are 12,000 square foot or 31,000 square foot. Weiss said he called that architecture National Park; it is very heavy for that neighborhood; these are huge buildings but yes there are starter castles but they are not 12,000 or 31,000 square foot. Weiss said that he didn't understand if he owned a free market unit and he flew into town why he needed 2 parking places. Weiss said he has always felt those who live here permanently need more parking places. Weiss voiced concern for the exit ramp because buses come down that street and when it is icy that is a nasty street; he was concerned about actually being able to see; do you have line of sight to be able to see those buses. Weiss said that it seemed like in the original proposal they were replacing 11 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 25 units with 25 units are they exchanging bigger units for less. Weiss said he could not vote this as it is. Mike Wampler concurred with what Cliff and Bert said. Wampler said that he was struggling with the height and mass. This was out of character and it was just too tall and he can't go with this parking. Wampler said he was okay with cat 2 and 4 and it was still employee housing. Wampler said he hated the elevators. Stan Gibbs said he will not repeat the comments with which he agrees and will focus on the height variance was pretty explicit from Council at 32 feet; this seems just unnecessary. Gibbs said he was in line with what staff has said on the Design Standard Variances and he cannot see where you would go in; especially to be in character with that neighborhood to have an obvious entrance. The building is overly heavy it feels like it should be in the commercial core as lodging; it doesn't look like a residential motif; he would explore the pictures of the alternatives. Right now the building doesn't feel like it fits in that neighborhood; there is way too much wood, way too much stone and too imposing. The features have to much more petite in that neighborhood. Gibbs was also concerned about parking; the argument about bedrooms is more important for parking demand than the number of units, especially for families. Gibbs said that he would like to see a full 25 units for affordable housing. He understood the transportation was excellent in this neighborhood but going from 71 bedrooms is going to be a burden on parking; you have to assure that there won't be any on street parking with HOA agreements. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to continue to March 15`", Bert Myrin second. All in favor, APPROVED. Stan Clauson pointed out that this was a public private partnership that has been long in the development; there are some things that we can do and some that we can't. Clauson said that they can't expand parking; they can reallocate it; it is a full plate of parking plus bicycle storage plus other things that need to go into the basement level. Clauson said so there isn't any way to expand those 52 spaces beyond 52 spaces; with respect to the elevators they are required to have that head height many there is a design that makes them look more diminutive. If they put them at the back of the building then the entrance is at the back of the building if you put them at the front of the building then the entrance is at the front of the building. Clauson said with respect to the height, this is exactly the same building that we presented before the only difference is that staff has asked us to measure it based on existing top, the benched condition rather than a diagonal line that flows along the street so that has changed some of the height measurements, but basically 12 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — February 15, 2011 this is a 32 foot building in every respect. Clauson said they will look at the way in which the building is designed and try to come up with something that is more appropriate. There is a lighting plan and certainly there is no intention to light up the building. Clauson said there was some concern that the building would block views from the Tailings; this was clearly worked out with Council to provide the Tailings with the same views that they have now. Clauson said the square footage meets the code it is exactly the density that the code describes at 1.5 FAR. Clauson said that he hoped that you will consider the project as a whole in terms of the benefits and the work that has been put into it. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to continue for 15 minutes; Michael Wampler second. All in favor. Cliff Weiss said an inviting entrance didn't mean you had to move the elevators to the front; an inviting entrance means that you can get from the sidewalk to the entrance and it looks like an entrance. Public Hearing: Code Amendment for Affordable Housing percentage of livable area above grade Stan Gibbs opened the Public Hearing. MOTION: Michael Wampler moved to continue the Code Amendment to March I seconded by Cliff Weiss. All in favor. Adjourned at 7:15 pm. /ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 13