Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20110405 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 05, 2011 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 404 Park 414 Park Circle, Final Planned Unit Development 2 1 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 05, 2011 LJ Erspamer called the regular meeting, Tuesday, April 05, 2011 to order at 4:30 in Sister Cities meeting Room. P &Z member excused were Stan Gibbs and Jasmine Tygre. P &Z Commissioners in attendance were Michael Wampler, Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin, LJ Erspamer and Jim DeFrancia. Staff in attendance Sara Adams, Community Development; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Bert Myrin thanked staff for the work session last Tuesday and he will continue to work on it. Cliff Weiss said the Code for parking requirements for Affordable housing keeps coming up. Jenifer Phelan said they were requesting the Lift One Lodge be continued to June 7th so that would cancel the agenda for the 19 keeping that open. Jennifer Phelan asked the commission if they wanted to hold a meeting on Election night May S and asked if it should be cancelled. Bert Myrin wanted to meet, Cliff Weiss, Michael Wampler and LJ Erspamer did not want to meet on May 3` Jennifer asked if the commissioners would consider a Special Meeting for Lift One Lodge on June 14 The commissioners agreed to June 14 Cliff Weiss asked what they were going to do with the 19 of April. Jennifer Phelan said that it was too late to notice for anything. Chris Bendon said that Lift One did not need to be continued because they would re- notice. MINUTES MOTION: Michael Wampler moved to approve the minutes of March 8th seconded by Bert Myrin. All in favor, APPROVED. LJ Erspamer asked about page 5 of the March 15 minutes. Jackie Lothian replied that she thought it was a little strange also but listened to what Ms. Foster said and that was exactly what she said. MOTION: Michael Wampler moved to approve the minutes of March 15 seconded by Bert Myrin. All in favor APPROVED. Declarations of Conflicts of Interest None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Aspen Walk 404 Park/414 Park Circle Final PUD 2 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 05, 2011 LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing on the Aspen Walk application. Sara Adams stated that notice had been provided in February at the first public hearing; this was the third public hearing. Sara Adams said since the last hearing on March 15 the applicant has revised and clarified some aspects of the proposal and Stan Clauson will go into. Sara Adams stated the APCHA approved category 3 and 4 on site, which was categories 2 and 4 and did they did reduce the net livable size of the units of 9 of the 17 proposed affordable housing units. Adams said the unit size for category 2 is smaller than what is required for category 3 and 4 so the unit sizes did not change from the February and March hearings. Housing is a co- applicant for this project however it is still within their authority to reduce the affordable housing unit sizes up to 20 %. There was a table for which units would be reduced and the percentages. Sara Adams said the Planning & Zoning has final review authority over demolition of the two building on site for the development of Affordable Housing finding that the APCHA guidelines are met and for Free - Market Growth Management for the development of some Residential Design Standard Variances. Sara Adams said P &Z is asked to make a recommendation to City Council on Subdivision, final PUD Review. Adams said the applicant added two more street facing entrances to the affordable housing building so there is a total of 7 entrances and walkways coming off the street, which greatly increases the street presence. It adds to the residential nature of the project and the pedestrian experience so those are great additions along with a walkway and side entrance to one of the affordable housing units. Adams said the project does not technically meet the residential design standards however the recent proposal gets closer to meeting the design standards and the PUD criteria that architecturally reflects its intended use. Staff thinks that the applicant is going in the right direction by adding walkways and door elements facing the street. Adams said that P &Z and the neighbors have raised a lot of concern about the mass and scale in comparison to the neighborhood context; the project is under the allowable FAR for the RMF Zone district and it meets the conditions in the Council PUD Resolution. There are some architectural strategies to reduce the perceived mass and scale of the building. One strategy is to add one story elements, front porches with no usable space above, again you get that little more 3 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 05, 2011 human element; so staff recommends that those be added. Staff believes that the project could comply with the intent of the design standards by adding some of the one story elements to the facade. Adams said the applicant has removed 2 or the 3 elevators providing rooftop access, now there is one elevator providing rooftop access with a stairway corridor. The applicant wanted to be considered under the new FAR calculations and measurements. Adams said that basically the new FAR calculations permit elevators and stair enclosures; they are setback 15 feet from the edge of the building and you can have an elevator shaft or stairwell up to 10 feet above the top of the building. Adams said that they measure height from the most restrictive grade level up to the top of the affordable housing building under 10 feet over the height limit so there may be some building issues with ADA, that could be a condition of approval. Planning staff remains concerned about the substandard unit sizes and limited outdoor space; they recommend the applicant look at some changes for the livability without significantly changing the floor plan; some of the sub -grade units have a retaining wall and the balconies have beautiful big doors but there is a railing going across and to remove the railing for the sub -grade units so they could get out and utilize that space that is created by the retaining wall. Staff also recommends that balconies are provided to the affordable housing units similar to the free - market building to increase this private outdoor space and compensated for the substandard unit sizes. Adams said that she included information about garage ventilation and lighting and essentially we said the project meet the code requirements. Adams said overall the staff recommends that the hearing be continued to come into compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan and applicable review by improving the livability of the affordable housing units by adding balconies, and the addition to one story elements to both the affordable housing building and the free- market building to reduce the perceived mass and meet the intent of the design standards; this is the same type of recommendation that we have had for the last 2 hearings. Cliff Weiss asked to talk about the condition with the retaining wall or is there a place on these diagrams. Sara Adams said that it was in A6.0 which showed the retaining wall with the French balcony to hold the soil back from the facade. Stan Clauson replied that you can. Weiss asked the distance between that retaining wall and glass. O'Brian replied 3 to 3 '/z feet. Weiss asked if there was an overhang. Clauson replied there was no overhang. Ken Robinson said it would be snow melted or heat taped. 4 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 05, 2011 Myrin asked if the elevator shafts meet the new current code. Sara Adams replied that they meet the new FAR calculations and measurements, which allow elevators that are setback 15 feet from a street facing facade, may exceed the height limit by 10 feet. Bert asked about the garage vent and that it would open 18 inches and asked where the trash service was. Adams replied that it was in the garage and said it was best if the applicant answered those questions. Myrin asked about the lighting plan doesn't meet the current code. Adams responded that staff was recommending that the project meet the lighting code. Clauson said that there was an illustrative lighting drawing in which light spills over onto City sidewalks. Adams stated the Planning & Zoning Commission was final review for the Growth Management Review for the development of Affordable Housing; one of those criteria has to do with meeting the APCHA guidelines, meeting the AACP and other specific details and gets very technical. Adams said that P &Z doesn't get to reduce the unit size but gets to review the development of affordable housing as a whole and whether it meets those guiding documents. Myrin noticed a hot water heater in the affordable units but did not notice one in the free market unit and how does that affect the FAR. Jennifer Phelan replied that is was all wall to wall. Myrin said that takes up some of the square footage of the affordable units and is that calculated. Jennifer Phelan said there was a definition for net livable area and it does. Clauson read from the code that net livable was for habitation, human activity measured from interior wall to interior wall including partitions and inclusive of but not limited to basements, interior storage areas, closets and laundry area but excluding mechanical areas, stairwells, garages, patios, decks and porches. LJ Erspamer asked if full time equivalents were parts of the GMQS that they were discussing. Adams answered it is, you are discussing the demolition of affordable housing and for the demolition of free - market multiple family housing. Adams said part of the review for the deed restricted housing is that you have to replace the number of FTEs which they are doing with affordable housing credits 17 FTEs. Erspamer asked what about the other full time credits they have to find a replacement; do they have to find the replacement property now upon approval or are they going to buy it in the future. Adams replied they wanted to buy affordable housing credits for 17.5 FTEs so they will need to purchase those from someone who has developed affordable housing and has received credit for that housing. Erspamer said you don't get the credits until you have a CO. Adams replied correct and in the draft resolution there be a bond or letter of credit for the affordable housing credits. Stan Clauson said that with him was Ken Robinson, Ken O'Brian and Tom Salmon, representing the ownership. Clauson utilized power point to show the 5 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 05, 2011 building and the size went from 1.28 to 1.21 and the building was split into 2 structures so there was an overall relief given to the overall massing of the building and everyone of the City Council conceptual approval have been met in this current application. Clauson said they met with Midland Park HOA and we see this falling into the general areas; the neighborhood context. Clauson said 404 Park was definitely 3 stories existing with parking all around it partially on city property and partially on private parking. Clauson said more of the neighborhood context was the Midland Park open space and then the Tailings at a 30 degree angle and Smuggler's Cove which is also three story and Smuggler Mountain Apartments which are 2 stories although they are somewhat elevated the way the land mass and the Jacobie Condos are also 3 stories. Clauson said the neighborhood has a significant number of three story buildings and none of them have entrances on the street. Clauson said the dumpster was at the base of the driveway to the garage and completely sealed, bicycle storage, affordable housing parking, free market parking and provision of accessible parking spaces. Clauson said within that we have the garage exhaust vented on the far southern tip of the building and the Midland Park open space, no buildings and the entire machinery for ventilation for within the building itself. Clauson said they believe it will have little sound impact by virtue of this plan and meet all the code requirements and outlets for electric vehicles. Clauson said with respect to the rooftop decks there would only be one elevator and was sure it was compliant with all codes and on the Park Circle side. Clauson said he did not have the roof patio but it was set far into the Park Circle. Clauson said they were happy to put a fence on the Midland Park property line and the fence could be open or opaque or a stone wall which would be expensive and they would be happy to provide some landscaping on their site to provide some additional screening. Clauson said the livability of the units and the units that were partially sub -grade were exactly the same as the affordable and free market units; the glazing was 7 feet high by 10 feet wide, 5 feet high by 6 feet wide. Clauson said these were substantial pieces of glass. Clauson said the 3 bedroom garden level unit had two 5 feet by 5 feet windows and 7 feet by 10 feet walk out windows with a small terrace and a corner window with a sill height of 5 by 5 wrapping around. Clauson said the units were very open and livable. 6 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 05, 2011 Clauson said the outside area was screened from Midland Park and the Tailings. There was communal open space in the middle and in lieu of balconies; APCHA had problems with balconies. Clauson said the French Balconies add tremendous light and ventilation for the affordable housing units and there was a railing 4 to 5 feet in. Clauson said there were 8 street facing entrances with one additional access to the affordable housing and have done a lot to enhance; this building has a much better relationship with the street than many of the other buildings in that area. Clauson said the one story element is that the requirement that there is no habitation above it and that severely constrains what you can do on the site and request that occur at the Council level. Clauson said the stone cutting could be done below in the garage, which would be constructed first and would look to be good neighbors. Tom Salmon said the City Council conceptual approval granted there were a number of conditions that had to be met at various points in time; they have financing in place to continue with the PUD process. Salmon said that they have taken the FAR down. Salmon said he hopes they can deliver a project that everyone wants. Clauson said the private /public partnership was called for and look forward to working with you on making this happen. Weiss asked about pull over space, where did this idea come from; did he dicusss this with staff. Stan Clauson replied it came up Wednesday with the Midland Park Homeowners. Weiss asked if Midland Park wanted the fence. Clauson replied that his understanding was that Midland Park put up a fence to present encroachment on their property by residents of 404 and was an issue and understand that they want to continue to have their property separated so there is no misunderstanding and that fence has deteriorated and they would be happy to replace it. Weiss said it was hard to determine the scale of the common patio; could you give dimensions or square footage. Clauson replied the patio was 28 by 38 feet. Weiss asked about bike storage because he said that he would store his bike on the patio. Clauson replied there is bike storage in the garage and storage for every unit above their parking space. Weiss asked about the outdoor space for the sub -grade units. Jennifer Phelan said that the outdoor space looked like it was for those sub - grade units. Clauson said that there were 5 level one units with exterior areas and the balance was on level 2 and 3. 7 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 05, 2011 Jim DeFrancia asked if adding balconies to all the units was feasible. Clauson replied it was feasible but not recommended by APCHA. Mike Wampler asked if people would still be let up on the rooftop with one elevator. Phelan replied the free market is only for the free market component. Clauson said the rooftop was for the free market. Wampler asked if Midland Park objected to that. Clauson said the Midland Park people were concerned about the roof deck because of lights but it is inset and there should be no light spill and no noise spill. Wampler asked how long do you expect this project to take to get built; 1 year 2 years from start to finish. Ken O'Brian replied 14, 15 months somewhere in there. Bert Myrin said there were a number of conditions that needed to be met stairwell glazing, Midland Park lights would be opaque, patio is for the exclusive use of the affordable housing and free market are not allowed and vice versa with the roof, the landscaping on the Midland Park side would be conifers. Clauson said that they felt conifers and people were always concerned about light but away from the building there could be some conifers place and further provide screening and we have offered to do that. Myrin said that the staff recommendation to study the one story element and you suggested that was a recommendation to Council; if that was a P &Z hang up. Phelan said there were a number of things that you could make recommendations to Council for their consideration. Myrin asked if the garage exhaust goes all the way to the top. Ken O'Brian said there was a grate at grade level about somewhere midway in the garage wall and then there was a diffusing area before discharge. Myrin asked if there was a way to bring that to the roof. O'Brian said with all that piping you would end up with larger fans and from what he was told by the engineer that there would be less noise with the fans in the garage. Myrin asked about the roof top being heated and a glass railing setback from Midland except for a stairwell. Myrin asked about the size of the units being substandard and the below grade units. Adams responded those were two different things and APCHA had the purview of making the units smaller; staff and P &Z requested more light for the partially below grade units. LJ Erspamer asked if there were any rooftop decks in the neighborhood. Adams and Phelan replied that they did not know. Erspamer asked if they have an estimate of the building to the lot size; is the building 60 %. Clauson replied he did not have an answer to that since it wasn't required in the code. Erspamer asked what triggers a traffic study. Adams said one was submitted in the bound application. Erspamer asked if there was a drawing for those outside parking spaces for what is public and what private property space is. Clauson replied that 8 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 05, 2011 it was best expressed on the landscape plan with a sidewalk, small grassy area and curb and gutter. Erspamer asked if they had a safety concept for the garage coming out onto the street. Clauson answered there were very clear Engineering standards require at the top a flat area after a 6% grade. Erspamer said there was no on street parking, where would a guest park. Erspamer opened the public portion of the public hearing. Public Comment: 1. Marcia Goshorn, APCHA Board Member, said the units that are off site are going off site because of the direction of Council. Goshorn said that those affordable units will be done before this project is done and this is in the APCHA contract with the developer. Goshorn said they are getting 11 units replaced at no cost to us plus $750,000.00. Goshorn said one of the reasons APCHA felt the balcony idea was not good because you see so many balconies with a buildup of snow and APCHA was looking at the long term for the owners. Goshorn said units with parking garages tend to have much higher long term maintenance and a category 3 or 4 income is better equipped to better afford the reserve amounts for the long term maintenance. Goshorn said the size of the unit in the housing guidelines allows for a 20% reduction in size of the unit if there are other things that make it more livable; one of the things the housing board looks at is storage and the fact that everyone of the units has storage in the garage was something that we have appreciated. 2. Judy Kolberg read her statement (included in the packet) and she was an original Midland Park Homeowner. Kolberg said the Aspen Walk Project was out of character with the neighborhood and the new development should be compatible and in harmony with the neighborhood. 3. Cindy Houben said the commission did receive a Midland Park Homeowners Association letter. Houben voiced concern about the family space and require living in town and are low income. Houben said they appreciated Stan Clauson coming to their HOA Meeting and specifically requested the rooftop patio be eliminated; that would eliminate the height of the elevator as well as the Midland Park concerns about light and noise. Houben stated that she wanted the fence and preferably stone to the maximum height allowed. 4. Todd Welden said that he grew in Aspen and raised his family here; the compelling impact in the magnitude of this building in our neighborhood is the least addressed. Welden said he thought there should definitely be evergreens on the Aspen Walk Property and Midland Park property was the buffer for these two properties. 9 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 05, 2011 5. Jim McPhee stated the landscaping and lighting was a waste of time because the building was way too big; there was nothing in the neighborhood that approaches that. 6. Pam Cunningham said that she lived at Midland Park since 198. Cunningham complemented City and County P &Z because so many things that you bring up here sit in the new draft of the AACP and one of them is the environmental bill of rights with the ambient light and the right to have night skies. Cunningham said Jim says it all the mass and scale is a monument and the Historic Preservation Task Force brought up mass and scale. 7. Tom McCabe said the particular family that Cindy Houben speaks of has been invited to leave because they are in violation on health and safety. McCabe said the units that they would be taking out of the existing building are 11 category 1 units and are not proposing to replace them with category 1 units however the board does have the latitude to come down on some units. McCabe said that when we started this process we had 11 units with people who qualified and now we have 7; these are going from rental units to for sale units and category 1 to for sale units. McCabe said there were a lot of units with mass and scale in the neighborhood. McCabe said for 404 there are a lot of illegally parked cars off into the right -of -way and outside of the City property there were encroachments because there wasn't any offsite parking. 8. Jeff Bestic said he has been at Midland Park for 20 years and agrees with the neighbors that mass and scale is way out of control for the neighborhood. Bestic said to see a 3 -D model would give more of an indication of how much bigger it is than anything in the neighborhood and he said he has a real problem with the rooftop deck because it doesn't fit in the neighborhood because we get to look up and see stars. 9. Mary Ellen Sheridan said she was a homeowner at Hunter Creek; she said for guest parking was the reason that we have the buses. 10. David Webster said he was at Midland Park before ground breaking and said it was too big and would like to see from Midland Park. 11. Tom Griffiths lived in Midland Park and his unit was at the far eastern part of the subdivision so he is probably the least impacted but the mass and size of this building is overwhelming. Griffith said that it was monolithic and the park created by Midland we call Jimmy McPhee Park and he got the park to happen. Griffith said they gave up the right to dogs in our subdivision and they are very concerned about dogs in the new buildings and would like to see that issue addressed. Griffith said they are also concerned about ambient light because Midland Park likes to see stars. 10 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 05, 2011 12. Laura Calk agreed with Jeff that a real model would give a better sense and might really show just how big it would really be next some of our smaller buildings. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to continue the meeting to 7:30 pm seconded by Cliff Weiss. All in favor. Stan Clauson said that he was Planning Director when Snyder Park came about and change is difficult but I think that this project like Snyder Park will quickly become integrated into the neighborhood and really be a benefit to the community. Clauson said the residential multi - family zone district permits greater parcel density than we have; it permits a floor area ratio of 1.5 to 1 and we are at 1.25 to 1. Clauson said they have worked not to make the buildings monolithic looking and provide neighborhood amenities as part of it and to be in every way consistent with the zoning and with our prior approvals which established our bulk and mass for this project. Clauson said it relates to the street in many ways and understands that staff has concerns about the number of street facing elements and looking at the buildings in the neighborhood. Clauson stated it is not lot line to lot line and meets all the setback requirements. Clauson said it has amenities for the building residents and also relieve any sense of monolithic buildings around it. Clauson said they were eager to work in cooperation with Midland Park and the Tailings to provide what will make them feel good about this project, we can't entirely take away the pain of change but we will do everything we can to mitigate their issues; if the fan has to be moved someplace that is a detail that we will do. Clauson said with respect to the balconies they are between a rock and a hard place because the APCI IA Board has strongly objected to not have balconies and the staff has recommended having balconies; we will do what is appropriate to recommend to City Council what you decide. Bert Myrin said he saw two paths that we move this forward to Council with our recommendations or deny it and does it still move forward to Council. Phelan replied that P &Z would be approving the growth management components of the final approval and making recommendations on the PUD and Subdivision. Erspamer asked what it would take to have a vote tonight or only make a recommendation. Weiss said we have come a long way where you going to go next and you have compromised and changed and eliminated a lot of my objections. Weiss said this one wasn't dealt with at all; where do service vehicles park. Weiss said the whole 11 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 05, 2011 parking plan makes no sense to him; a free market unit only needs one parking place; even if you want to give them more then you rented them; it is a source of income to the HOA and you can do the same. Weiss said that you need spaces for guests. Weiss asked if the neighbors would object less if it were broken into 3 buildings. Weiss said that staff wanted to put one story elements on the buildings to make the building look physically smaller, you still have a very big building so he reiterated perhaps breaking it into 3 buildings. Weiss said he did not see the point of having any rooftop access that is a downtown thing. Weiss said that moving the ventilation. Cindy Houben said the ventilation was now on the Midland Park side of the building. Weiss asked why it can't be somewhere down. Houben replied that was where the intake was located. Weiss said his biggest issues were parking, breaking the free market into two buildings, no rooftop and moving ventilation. Weiss said that there should be 14 free - market parking spaces and you could sell the other spaces or use those spaces for guests. Mike Wampler said he was for eliminating the rooftop access and if you want a second spot in the parking garage rent it. Wampler said the building was probably too big but that's where we are at now and we are trying to get people to live in town. Wampler said the applicant has bent over backwards and they will have to go through the City Council meeting. Myrin reiterated what P &Z was actually responsible for the growth management for multi - family replacement, growth management for AH, and residential design standards for height variances and the height is only that corner which is caused by the development itself. Myrin said also design standard is neighborhood character. Adams replied that was part of the PUD criteria. Myrin said the scale and character is being created through windows and lighting. Myrin said the land use code is creating too big of a box, there is no room to put trees on your own property and there was something wrong with that. Myrin said that he would like to see the neighbors on both sides treated the same and the code needs to be clearer; the current one states make Aspen better without making it bigger. Erspamer said that mass and scale was already approved at conceptual. Adams replied that it was included in a conceptual resolution. Erspamer asked if it was a moot point. Adams replied that it was not a moot point; essentially a conceptual PUD approval from Council allows the applicant to apply for a final PUD ** 12 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — April 05, 2011 MOTION: LJErspamer moved to continue the public hearing on Aspen Walk to April 5 Michael Wampler seconded. All in favor. Adjourned at 7:40 pm. l t /t/ti Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 13