HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20110308 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 08, 2011
Comments 2
Minutes 2
Conflicts of Interest 2
131 Midland Ave — Residential Design Standard Variance 2
625 E Main St — (Stage 3) PUD 6
1
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 08, 2011
Stan Gibbs called the special Planning & Zoning meeting March 08, 2011 to order
in 4:35 in Council Chambers meeting Room. P &Z Commissioners in attendance
were Jim DeFrancia, LJ Erspamer, Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin, and Stan Gibbs. P &Z
members not in attendance were Jasmine Tygre and Michael Wampler. Staff in
attendance Jim True, Special City Counsel; Claude Salter, Jessica Garrow,
Community Development; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development
Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Bert Myrin said thank you we have scheduled the 29 and his goal was to look at
the goal and figure out what matches with the communities values. Jim DeFrancia
said it would be in the Sister Cities Meeting Room. Cliff Weiss said that when we
started this Bert started keeping track of some of these and asked Bert to send out a
list of what is going to be up for discussion.
Minutes
Tabled to the next meeting. Stan Gibbs said it was helpful to get the portion on the
Midland Avenue March 1 hearing.
Declarations of Conflicts of Interest
Erspamer recused himself on Stage 3 because he has a listing agreement with the
property across the alley.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
131 Midland Ave. — Residential Design Standards
Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing on 131 Midland Ave, residential
design standard variance. Claude Salter said she will review some of the things
from last time and said sitting next to her were Scott Lindenau and Joseph Spears
from Studio B Architects representing the owners who would like to demolish a
single family residence and rebuild it.
Claude Salter said that they were requesting 2 residential design standard variances
that are the parking garage and carport standard; that standard requires that a
garage be setback from the house 10 feet. Salter stated the other standard was a
variance from the first story element, which requires a residence to have a single
story element without living space above it. The standards were created to
preserve and establish neighborhood scale and character in general and ensure that
Aspen streetscapes are conducive to walking. And to require that each home have
a characteristic which contribute to the streetscape and more specifically the
parking garage standard is a lifeless part of the streetscape and the first story
2
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 08, 2011
element is to provide a human scale to the facade of the house to create a
welcoming environment between the street and the house.
Salter reviewed the criteria by which a variance is granted (a) provide an
appropriate design or pattern of development considering the neighborhood,
considering the development with adjacent structures and the neighborhood to
determine if an exemption is warranted; (b) a variance is clearly necessary for
reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints.
Salter said the Commission requested staff find out the dates of 18 residences used
as examples to use as neighborhood context and when the residential design
standards came into effect. Ordinance #30 series of 1995 was the first story
element and garage setback were adopted; all residential buildings must have a 1
story street facing element the width which comprises at least 20% of the length of
the width. The other one is all portions of a garage, carport or storage area shall be
parallel to the street shall be recessed from the front facade a minimum of 10 feet.
Salter said that of the 18 examples provided 9 were built prior to the adoption of
the standards, 1 was built after the adoption but received a residential design
variance and 7 were built after the adoption of the residential design standards and
some of them actually do have the 1 story element.
Salter said that the applicant has amended the design of their project with a
redesigned garage entry setback 2 feet from the front facade and 3 feet from the
second story level. The redesigned entry has a 1st story element which is a canopy
extending 4 feet from the upper level and 18 inches into the setback as allowed by
code. Staff recommends the parking garage variance be approved because the
applicant has attempted to meet the setback standard. Staff finds the 1 story
element does not meet the intent or the requirements of the standard and also the
project is new construction on a lot which does not have site specific constraints
and staff recommends that Planning & Zoning deny the 1 St story variance request.
LJ Erspamer asked what would staff approve on the first story element. Jennifer
Phelan replied what met the standard with no living space above it and the
minimum; they made an attempt.
Cliff Weiss said going back to the 18 homes and 7 were built after the adoption in
1995 and you say several met the first story elements so the others that did not, did
they get variances away from 1' story. Phelan said that the building files show
there were 1 story elements but it has not been verified that it is the right size.
Weiss said there was an attempt to comply with the code. Weiss asked why in one
3
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 08, 2011
area their attempt to meet the code you recommend approval and the other their
attempt to find compromise with the code does not meet staff approval. Phelan
replied that the entire staff recognized that it is a bit of an oddly shaped lot and yes
you don't need to have a garage; they could also place the garage in a different
location which would potentially affect the level of the design of the building and
we felt that some extent of it there could be a front entry and it is a brand new
house and a porch is a pretty typical feature of a building. Weiss said the distance
of what you are looking for and what they have done is 2 feet, pretty minimal.
Phelan said to get some recess from the facade.
Jim DeFrancia said from the examples that one was built after the adoption of the
residential design standards and got a variance; what was the variance. Phelan
replied it was for building orientation; so she guessed the street might have been
curvilinear. Salter said that they may have met it at the time and the code has
changed since the 1995 adoption but it doesn't mean that they meet the code by
today's standards.
Joseph Spears stated that they did their own research from 5 or so years and the
majority of these are doing what we wish to do and a couple within a half a block
from this property and were built within the last 2 to 3 years before any changes
were made. Spears said that HPC offers variances for the same standards or they
could have been a lot split which they were not made to do the design standards.
Scott Lindenau said that they have moved the garage as far back as they could
without compromising an average size car. Lindenau showed a drawing with the
trees and the porch is proposed at 10 feet wide and 5 feet deep and is much larger
than the majority of those. Lindenau said the model shows the entryway. Spears
said they pushed the garage back as far as they could to make the site functional.
LJ Erspamer said that last time they were talking about the slope in the back of the
garage and didn't want to encroach in the back because you didn't have any way to
support that garage to the rear. Lindenau said that was to push the garage on the
other side. The hand out was Exhibit C with photographs.
DeFrancia asked staff if they were approving the garage setback at a minimum of 3
feet maintained from the upper level facade of the house. Phelan replied the front
facade projects further towards the front property line; so as long as the garage is 3
feet from the second level which project further than the first level so it projects 2
feet from the first level.
4
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 08, 2011
Bert Myrin asked if the back of the garage moved back or did the garage get
smaller. Spears replied the back of the garage moved back as well; the garage is
smaller than standard by 6 inches.
Weiss asked if this was presented to staff. Spears replied that it was just put
together yesterday and today.
No public comment.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #006 -11 approving 2
variance requests for the residential design standards to construct a single family
residence at 131 Midland Avenue. Cliff Weiss seconded. Roll call vote: Myrin, no;
Erspamer, no; Weiss, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Gibbs, yes. APPROVED 3 -2.
Commission Comments prior to the roll call of the motion:
DeFrancia reaffirmed that the intent is met with the setback as opposed to the
protrusion of the porch; this is an unusual shaped lot and it is commensurate with
the neighborhood it doesn't seem out of context. Weiss commented that this say
ever since 1994 and before that there has been a hodgepodge, we are not breaking
a precedent here and we are not setting one either. Weiss said that they were
showing intent and trying and if they could have put another 2 feet on that canopy
they would have done it but another code got in their way. Weiss said it wasn't a
tremendous variance from anything that has been done. Erspamer asked Jennifer if
this met the depth except they didn't do the other 2 feet. Phelan responded yes
essentially it has the width requirement; this could be designed differently. Weiss
said they were the designers and we were not. Myrin asked why we were taking
space from the front where you could achieve a building inset door or inset space
and giving it to the back of the house basically rather than shifting what could be
the house back into the space that is there.
Bert Myrin recommended an amendment to the motion to meet the code on the
front door setback building element; LJ Erspamer seconded. Jim DeFrancia did
not accept that amendment; there was a motion on the table and if that motion fails
then Bert's motion could be considered.
Gibbs said he was very much against variances unless there was good reason for it
and certainly all the pictures don't influence his judgment in this because it is a
case by case basis; we don't want to perpetuate that it has been done a lot. Gibbs
said that he thought the site is constrained and the design we have seen, people
should be able to design what they like Victorian or modern. Gibbs said in his
5
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 08, 2011
sense the code was overly biased against modern design; it doesn't mean that you
can't do a modern design and meet the code; there were other statements made that
there were site specific constraints. Gibbs said we have heard enough given this
design; we could make them change it but what we see here and the effort they
have made to comply; is this were sitting with a bunch of Victorians that would be
different than the eclectic neighborhood. Gibbs said he would approve both
variances. Myrin said it is too much building for the site that is here; if the
building was half the size or without a garage a lot could be accomplished. Myrin
said there was nothing that talks about the building must fill the entire site or max
out the FAR or must have a garage; it would be appropriate on a larger lot. Myrin
said from what the code said he didn't see what staff recommended was the denial
on the front door.
PUBLIC HEARING:
625 E Main St — (Stage 3) PUD
Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing for 625 East Main Street, Planned Unit
Development.
Jessica Garrow said the building was commonly known as the Stage 3 Building
and Jeff Cardot, the new owner and Adam Roy with David Johnston Architects
were present. There are 6 reviews in front Planning & Zoning Commission and
they are to amend the Growth Management new review for the Free - market,
Affordable Housing and Mixed Use Development; recommendations to City
Council on the Amendment of Subdivision, Planned Unit Development and
Rezoning. Garrow said this project was approved in 2007 and is vested and being
reviewed under the 2006 code. The proposal is to amend the internal make up of
the building and decreased in size by about 19% and rooftop deck and green roof
have been eliminated. Garrow said by eliminating the rooftop deck the full height
access stairs and elevator can be removed from the roof. The garage will have 13
parking spots in the basement and 3 on the outside of the building; the storage
space in the basement is being converted to the Commercial Use of 2,118 square
feet. There changes on the first floor have slightly more space; the second floor
has a slight increase of office space. Instead of having 5 free - market units there
are 3 two bedroom units; the density of the project is increasing. Staff is
recommending approval of the Growth Management requests for the net increase
in commercial square footage and the amendment for the Growth Management in
order to decrease the density of the project and the use mix proposed.
Garrow said the applicant has requested a PUD in order to enable the net livable
space in those free - market units. So in 2006 there was an emergency ordinance
6
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 08, 2011
passed that limited all commercial zone districts to 2,000 square feet net livable for
each free - market unit; that was passed for 2 reasons. Garrow said the first was
density and lights on community in the downtown and the second reason was to
encourage multiple ownership of buildings and maximize multiple uses in the
building; there was a concern at the time that someone would be able to just buy a
building and convert it to one very large residence. There is still a 2,000 square
foot cap but now you can exceed that and go up to 2500 square feet with the
landing of a TDR; that was done partially to bolster the TDR program and to help
incentivize the use of TDRs.
Garrow said the applicant is requesting the 3 free - market units and the unit sizes
they are requesting are 2,527, 2,658 and 2,837 net livable square feet; they all
exceed the 2500 that is allowed under today's code. Staff is recommending
approval of the project with units capped at 2,000 square feet with the ability to
reach 2500 with a TDR. The projects in the vicinity of this all have around 2,000
square feet of net leasable space.
Garrow said there is this commercial to free- market ratio that was in the code in
2006 but at the Council table a lot of changes were happening so there is a
discrepancy between net leasable and commercial. Garrow said the new proposal
has 153 square feet more net livable than there is in commercial space and staff
recommends that be memorialized in the PUD. There were 4 motions on page 10
and 11 of the memo and the final motion is what the applicant was requesting,
which is the approval to build the 3 free - market units totaling 8,022 square feet
without the use of TDRs and they are requesting to do that through the PUD
process.
Garrow entered into the record some letters that all were in favor of the project
from Junee Kirk, Philip Rothblum and Jurine Biers.
Bert Myrin said that this was opening a PUD process. Jessica Garrow said there
are PUD criteria in the packet page 18.
Cliff Weiss asked about cash -in -lieu for the public amenity space was for 1,000.00
square foot and they have completely eliminated all of the public amenity space.
Garrow replied that the public amenity space has changed so they are required to
pay the fee.
Stan Gibbs asked where the current application was exceeding the original
approval in a negative sense relative to the code. Jessica Garrow replied the size of
7
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 08, 2011
the overall building has gone down; the only difference is the size of the free -
market units. Gibbs said that was all internal. Garrow stated the overall project
went from accumulative floor area 2.54:1 and it is now 2.36:1. Gibbs asked what
the original free- market space was; he came up with 8,369 from the table on page
5. Garrow said the original approved free- market space was 8,369 square feet and
today the net livable space has decreased.
Weiss asked where did the decrease come from. Garrow replied the applicant
would address that.
Adam Roy introduced Jeff Cardot, the owner of the project. Roy thanked Jessica
and Community Development for getting the project back but the new project is
definitely an improvement and better solution that the original one approved.
Roy displayed a vicinity map which is on Main Street across from the Concept 600
building. Roy explained the former project which was a concierge type and
qualities for second homeowners with valet parking and a high density, high
impact use but not fractional ownership but that style of ownership. There was
also a contentious roof top party deck for the free - market owners. Roy showed a
drawing showing it was a zero lot line project; all cars were loaded through an auto
elevator in the back of the building; 10 of the parking stalls were parked via
hydrolytic lift; there would be cars stacked up in the alley and the second floor had
smaller units; the third floor had small decks.
Roy said the site plan will remain the same and they are currently working with
Engineering and Parks to reconfigure this planning strip out front at their request
and those adjustments will be figured out prior to any hearing in front of Council.
The garage has 13 parking spots and all of the hydrolytic lifts and the previous
storage area be converted into commercial use space. Roy said on the second level
the primary goal was to clean up the floor plan and reduce the density; they also
included some decks off the back and to answer the question of how we reduced
density was through decks and circulation space in the core of the building. They
have converted the affordable housing units into 2 very generous three bedrooms,
three bath units accessed by elevator and stairs and have a rear access through a
mud /laundry room. These affordable housing units are 1,425 and 1,350 square feet
of net livable square feet, which exceeds the mitigation purposes. The third level
has been set into the building with a net decrease of 1,619 square feet. The
elevator bulkheads will be eliminated from the rooftop and the overrun will be well
within the 42 foot height restriction; the mechanical will be recessed in the middle
of the building.
8
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 08, 2011
Roy showed the height reduction of the building showing the top of Stewart Title
and the majority of the Little Nell Ski run, which is shown from the Concept 600
building third floor. Roy said they feel this is an improvement to the building as a
whole as it relates to the general public at large, the public well being and protect
public welfare. Roy said the building height was reduced by 5 feet or more, the
building setbacks off the alley are about 20 feet, this reduces the mass and scale of
the building, the total FAR will be reduced by approximately 2200 square feet, the
density is dropping from 10 total units to 5, reducing onsite parking from 26 to 16,
eliminating the hydrolytic parking in the underground garage. The total free -
market net livable area is decreasing by nearly 350 square feet.
Jeff Cardot discussed his process buying the project in an auction format in
September 2010 and really wasn't sure what he was going to do with the property.
Cardot said to try and utilize the current entitlements; it doesn't make any sense to
make a concierge type of building because it would have no vitality. Cardot
reached out to the neighbors that fought it the most and said this is what I am
thinking about doing; working on the height, scale and density. Cardot said he
wanted to make this a better project for the community and neighbors. Cardot said
he hoped that the TDRs and the 2,000 square foot cap wasn't as important as
building a better building for Aspen.
Jim DeFrancia asked with the reduction of spaces in the garage will it be a drive in
and park yourself. Cardot replied that due to the fact that the foundation was done
and 18 feet deep and to do a conventional ramp would basically take the whole
thing up so they are using the auto elevator. There was reduced storage and it will
be replaced with Commercial and the storage will go above the parked cars.
DeFrancia asked if the cars required an attendant. Cardot replied it would be
individually operated.
Weiss asked what categories were the affordable housing units. Garrow replied
category 4.
Stan Gibbs asked why 16 parking spaces. Roy responded that it was specific to the
commercial space; the more we can provide commercial space for the commercial
tenants. Gibbs asked what kind of commercial do you do in a basement. Roy said
there were a variety of options from a conference center, presentation room or a
space that was commercial but not retail. Cadot said or simply cheaper
commercial space.
9
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 08, 2011
Weiss asked Jeffrey what he meant by the TDRs not making sense; financial sense
or development sense. Cadot replied financial sense.
DeFrancia asked if the TDRs could be waived. Garrow replied yes that was one of
the alternative motions that you have.
Public Comments:
1. Paul Taddune said he represents the Hunter Square Building immediately
adjacent on the east and it is not typical for a client to come and support a
project so this is a little unique. Taddune said that his client was Jurine
Biers and read the letter that she submitted in favor of the project.
2. Pat Alhouse said she lived in Concept 407 and was in favor of the project; it
minimizes the hugeness of a badly designed building. #2 the fact that
Aspen's core has lost population for the prices of huge homes and also the
employee housing is usually very small and not designed with families in
mind. This man wants to bring up his family in our city; this makes vitality
in the community. #3 when has a person come to P &Z to decrease in size a
project, especially a project that everyone was originally dissatisfied with;
we have a great opportunity to correct a huge problem. #4 I have personally
met Jeff and my first statement to him was if you do what you are going to
do I will support you. He has come back with various meetings. #5 please
approve this new project so it can go to City Council.
3. Dick Copet 407 Concept 600 said this was a huge opportunity to correct
something that really misfired a few years back. He really appreciated that
this meeting was moved up to accommodate them.
4. Bob Borchers said he was Unit 208 Concept 600 and most of the pictures
you saw were from the fourth floor; from the second floor it looks a little
different. Any help in the reduction we welcome and he said this was a
great addition for the town of Aspen and be able to get through this project
as soon as possible will be a great enhancement for the city.
5. Lindsey Smith said that Jeff Cardot was a breath of fresh air not only for the
600 block of East Main Street but just for the community for what he is
trying to do. He has gone out of his way to bring this building into what the
neighborhood wanted and that was never the case before. He has met with
us every time we have asked him; he brings the drawings and she did not
want P &Z to miss this opportunity to get a neighborhood approved building
and looked forward to approval tonight.
6. Patsy Hicks said that she lived in Honolulu and she would love to have more
developments like this that favor family; we are really in favor of all that
Jeff is doing and hope that you will move it through very quickly.
10
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 08, 2011
7. Jim Smith said that he lived in Concept 600 as well and the entire city is
impacted by this building; the original building that was approved was bad
for the neighborhood and bad for the city as well. Smith said when Jeff
bought the building he realized as he has told you he could build a better
building and Jeff talked to the neighbors and looked for the input and asked
for changes that we would support. Like we have said this building adds
true vitality to the city giving families an opportunity to live in town. Smith
said that asking Jeff to pay more money by asking for TDRs to make a much
better building and he suggested that P &Z send this project forward to
Council. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good and we
ought to go forth with this project.
Stan Gibbs closed the public comment section of the meeting.
Commissioner Comments:
Jim DeFrancia stated that they have done a great job; it is clear from listening to
the neighbors that you have addressed their concerns and the building seems
appropriate for the neighborhood. DeFrancia said the quicker we can move the
better and asked Jeff if his intent was to start building as soon as you get through
City Council. Jeff Cadot replied absolutely. DeFrancia said for the improvements
that have been made and the reduction in the character of the building and other
adjustments; it was appropriate for P &Z to waive the TDRs.
Bert Myrin asked if the final approval will eliminate the prior approvals. Jessica
Garrow replied when there is final Council action that will vacate the prior
approvals; the vested rights are until June. Myrin asked about the memo
mentioning the owners select the first affordable housing residents, is that typical.
Garrow replied that happens sometimes; in the Aspen Club project the applicant
requested that as well at that time; the condition that the housing board requested
was that if it was purchased by a second person then it goes through the regular
options. Myrin asked the height of the building as was presented tonight of the
actual structure and mechanical. Garrow replied that it was varying in height along
Main Street 36 'h to 37 '/2 feet with the plans that we have. Myrin asked if it was
38 feet. Roy replied that or lower. Myrin asked if a 5 foot limit above 38 feet for
mechanical make sense; it seems like the same for the rules and the only thing that
has changed is your starting point because it is the rooftop. Roy said he just didn't
know. Garrow said that part was a dimensional requirement and they were varied
through the PUD process; that can be included in a recommendation. Myrin asked
about parking spaces for the affordable housing units. Roy replied that they were
11
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 08, 2011
giving indoor parking spots to the two affordable housing units as well as the
storage unit above.
Cliff Weiss said that TDRs are for the whole community from his perspective; to
move development from out of the back country and into urban areas. Weiss said
they were not designed to make your project more profitable. Weiss said that
fixing this project which was an eyesore from the get go affects the whole
community and how you have leaned over backwards to appease your neighbors
and the fact that you are going to live there is good. Weiss asked how many kids
did he have. Cadot replied 2 right now. Susan from Hunter Square showed photos
of Jeff's children to the commission. Weiss said that Jeff gave him the thing that
he hated most, Jeff took away those elevators. Weiss said that he could support
this with the fact that you are going to be part of the community.
Stan Gibbs said the reason that the rooftop mechanical is something of an issue
with most of the commissioners is because they had another experience with
another building in town; by the time the project got built there was this lump of
development right at the edge of the building on the roof and is very ugly. Gibbs
said there was no other place to put the mechanical for that project so you can
understand the sensitivity the commissioners have to such a situation. Gibbs said
as part of the resolution to Council is that they take a very hard look at the
mechanicals on the roof, if there is not a significant attempt to the height and
location at least it will be somewhat reduced to the neighbors. Gibbs said he
would be in favor of seeing something in a resolution that addresses that particular
point; it was a negative thing to have to go through before and that we don't get a
chance to look at before. The free- market units slightly larger without TDRs are
interior to the building.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to continue 5 minutes, Stan Gibbs seconded.
All in favor, APPROVED.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #7, series 2011,
approving with conditions the amendment of growth management development
order, commercial and affordable housing growth management review that the
City Council approve with conditions the amendment to a Subdivision
Development order, a PUD to allow 3 free- market units greater than 2500 square
feet without the use of TDRs for the property located at 625 East Main Street; with
the additional conditions of one assigned indoor parking space for each affordable
housing unit, rooftop mechanical is at a maximum of 5 feet above the presentation
tonight and as located as close to the interior of the building as possible. Bert
12
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 08, 2011
Myrin seconded. Roll call vote: Weiss, yes; Myrin, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Gibbs,
yes; APPROVED 4 -0.
Discussion prior to the vote: Bert Myrin amended the motion to include one
assigned parking space for each affordable housing unit; Jim DeFrancia accepted
that amendment. Myrin said the second amendment was the rooftop mechanical is
at a maximum of 5 feet regarding the presentation that we have seen tonight. Stan
Gibbs said and located as close to the interior of the building as possible.
DeFrancia accepted those amendments.
Adjourned at 7:15 pm.
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
13