Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20120124 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 24, 2012 Comments Minuets 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 South Aspen Street 2 2 1 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 24, 2012 LJ Erspamer opened the special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Cliff Weiss, Stan Gibbs, Bert Myrin, Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode and LJ Erspamer. Jim DeFrancia was excused. Staff in attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel; Jenifer Phelan, Deputy Director City Community Development; and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Cliff Weiss and Jasmine Tygre thanked the applicants for being flexible and changing meeting dates. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest None stated. Minutes MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes from January 4 and January 10, 2012 seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor, APPROVED. Continued Public Hearing: South Aspen Street PUD LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing on South Aspen Street PUD. Jennifer Phelan said this was a continued public hearing so we have public notice. Jennifer said the local representatives for the developer were David Parker, Mitch Haas, and Stephen Holley. The applicant is requesting to amend the existing approvals that were granted in 2003; the PUD approved 14 onsite free - market units and 17 on site affordable housing units for a total of 31 units. The current request is to reduce on site housing to 24 units instead of 3 lunits; this proposal will have 14 free market units and 10 affordable Housing units on site and in addition there will be 8 off site units in the ABC with a cash -in -lieu payment proposed. Another component of this project is that SkiCo has a requirement for 30 parking spaces as part of this agreement and those are located on parcel 1. The property is zoned Lodge with a PUD overlay and the project was granted entitlements under the 2000 code. Staff is concerned with the removal of density from the site to the ABC as it does encourage infill development; the additional curb cuts and delivery access do not follow the traditional grid and increase the pedestrian/car conflicts. Staff also noted that the triplexes follow a more suburban development pattern, which does not follow the traditional grid and does not prevail or related to the urban context 2 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 24, 2012 of the town. Jennifer said the onsite affordable housing units are sized to category 1 and 2 units although the applicant said they would be category 3 average. Jennifer said there were approvals in place and the applicant would like to amend the site plan and staff supports amending the site plan and staff feels the applicant should add more density to the site, affordable housing. And amend the site plan so that it relates better with the traditional urban community; staff supports the idea of changing the architecture, manipulating and moving things around but at this point staff would like to see additional density on site and changes to the site plan. Bert Myrin said part of the employee housing was being provided voluntarily in the original plan. Jennifer replied that was provided in the packet. Bert said on today's memo page 1 was to reduce the affordable Housing units from 17 to 10 on site. Bert said that was the focus of this new site plan and extending the vested rights. Jennifer answered that would be approved by City Council. Cliff Weiss said it wasn't clear to him why if it is a new PUD they are able to use 2000 Land Use Code. Jennifer said the project is vested under the rules and regulations of 2000 and because it is still vested to 2013; the applicant has the right to amend the approvals granted under the rules that they were granted. Jasmine Tygre said when the original project was approved it was submitted under the 2000 plan but they did not get any of the additional allowance that a Lodge would have. Jennifer said when she went through the project minutes from the last time it did seem like project met the underlying zoning. Mitch Haas stated that it was under the lodge tourist residential zoning. LJ Erspamer said the traditional urban grid was not met by the townhomes up on South Mill Street and on the West side so why do you require them to meet the urban grid when it is a block away. Jennifer replied with new development as we develop over time there is a pattern of the way development happened in this town; the relationship to the grid is important to keep. LJ said these townhomes were built under the 2000 Code a block away. Jennifer said the Top of Mill face the street and they are pretty consistent. David Parker, a partner with Bald Mountain, which is the local representative for this partnership and would like to go over highlights from our last presentation which was on January 4th and remind everybody what we were not asking for as part of this amendment; we would like to do a quick response to some of the commissioners questions and address the staff concerns. 3 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 24, 2012 Stephen Holley, Poss Architecture and Planning, said that we are picking up where we left off; we not asking for an increase in height, no increase in floor area, no reduction in setbacks, and no reduction in AHU mitigation. Stephen said the height and floor area are with no exemptions; the above grade floor area has not changed for the free market townhomes that has allowed them to break up the mass and adds more views through the project and a better relationship to the mountain. Stephen utilized power point to show that they have reduced the mass and the height throughout the project with a height limit of 28 feet. Stephen said the setbacks were of concern and it was a 5 foot setback and they are increasing the setbacks. They pulled back the setbacks because it incorporates the history of the town and how the town evolved; the mountain base becomes less urban in character. Stephen said that life safety with the lay back against the toe of the slope and the one way drive allows fire trucks off of South Aspen Street and into their property. Ed Van vetted this plan for Fire Truck access. Stephen said the retaining was on a sloped site and there will be retaining through buildings or actual walls. The approved had retainage all around the street and the proposed pulls that away finding a better pedestrian experience. Stephen said they were providing 3 times the required housing; they are exceeding 35% of affordable housing on site and have updated this to meet current APCHA Guidelines. Stephen said there is a difference between rental and for sale housing the approval in 2003 was for rental housing and now APCHA wants for sale units. These units are for long term not transient occupancy; they want to provide high livability. Jasmine asked where the square footage went that was going to be used for the onsite employee housing. Stephen replied that square footage is not being used. Jasmine said but the FAR is the same. Stephen replied that is where there is a minimum distance, this is a cap, they just not have asked for the cap to be changed; they could calculate a smaller amount. Mitch said that they would be limited to the PUD plans as approved and we said that we would calculate garages under today's code so that counts as more floor area but the actual floor area of the free market units did not increase. Stan said the primary cost of that was that was why the affordable housing had to go off site in order to have the open space, curving driveway and density. 4 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 24, 2012 Cliff said you are going from 17 affordable housing units onsite to 10; what is the community gaining from this. Mitch replied the existing neighbors are getting a better plan for their neighborhood; less density, less impacts and putting back a total of 18 units instead of 17. David said there was a better Juan Street experience because instead of having a drop -off on the downhill side and a retaining wall on the other side it is now at grade. Stephen said it was an enhancement for all. LJ asked what APCHA said about this. Stephen replied unanimous approval. Bert asked if the growth rates changed. Mitch said there was more below grade. Cliff asked when the 1 parking space per affordable unit code went into effect. Jennifer replied it was part of the infill and was in the code in 2005. Mitch said they had 12 spaces for affordable housing on site. LJ opened the hearing to public comments. Public Comments: 1. Mack Bowlens representing the Lift One Condominiums said they appreciate efforts with the second plan giving them more site lines and sunshine as possible. 2. Derek Custer was on the board of the Timberridge Condominiums said he agreed with the extra pushback and sunlight being one and the entrance to the parking lot below was a concern and will increase traffic. 3. Bob Daniel represents the Lift One Lodge said you go back to the plans for this project. Bob said one of the big issues was the Juan Street Affordable Housing and proximity to them and this site plan is responsive to them. Bob said in terms of the history of this neighborhood that has been talked about is the grid. They were supportive of this site plan from a grading perspective, from a life health perspective, he agreed with this project. Bob encouraged the commission to approve this plan and it is better for the neighborhood. LJ closed the public comments section of the public hearing. LJ said remember we are reviewing this as a multi - family replacement, growth management review, subdivision, Planned Unit Development; these are the 4 things that we are looking at. Bert Myrin stated his biggest concern was the affordable housing moving off site; the 17 units in the original proposal were categories 1, 2, and 3 as rental units. The 5 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 24, 2012 other thing is that this zone is zoned for a fairly dense development at the base of the mountain and it is not an area that we are looking for the open space that has been presented in this. Bert thought that it was an appropriate space for density with the affordable housing. Bert said he went to look at the employee housing at the ABC and there were no sidewalks, no way to get across highway 82 safely, it is a business center and the last business center in town was Obermeyer which we turned into a free market and employee housing; we can't continue to displace mitigation to our business zone. Bert said the retaining walls was a serious concern to raise to those levels of retaining walls and shared the concern with staff on it and might pass this onto Council that those concerns are worked on. Jennifer said there was some retainage that was very hard to read on the documents that they have to really understand the retainage and be part of the natural topography as possible. Jasmine Tygre said that she agreed with Bert about the employee housing but wanted to discuss one of the things the applicant is trying to do is to reduce the density on this site. Jasmine said that was the opposite of what we want in our zoning the underlying zoning says Lodge is high density, infill type of density. Jasmine said reducing density on this site is not a plus and she understands that neighbors like to have something further away but if you are going to redesign your site plan you can probably redesign your site plan with some additional setbacks without going to the suburban plan that you have. Because it is not just right for this particular location and townhomes are more likely to be rented rather that triplexes; triplexes are not appropriate in this neighborhood and the squiggly streets are offense to her. Jasmine said that you are surrounded by other buildings except for the toe of the slope in an urban setting and you could do something responsive to the other buildings that are in your neighborhood than the plan that you have now, it doesn't belong to anything in there. Keith Goode said that his first concern was for the employee housing and P &Z has asked people to talk to their neighbors and in this case you seem to have the support. Keith said that he liked the plan. Cliff Weiss said that he gave Bob Daniel such a hard time; from the 2 `h years that he has been dealing with this area and was always concerned it would be a private enclave. Cliff said what we are going to get is not anything he is going to want so how do I make this palatable to him. Cliff said that he would like to see a better design for the units on site and he would like to see more of them; the community got a good deal; otherwise build a hotel please. 6 d. Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 24, 2012 Stan Gibbs said what bothers him the most was that the code's problem; 18 units used to be the Mine Dumps and we are getting replacement units in this case; they don't have to replace all of those units and he thinks that is something we want to looks at a staff perspective on. Stan said that the applicant giving so many affordable units is a plus and they have to be given credit for that. Stan said what they have done for the Juan Street neighbors is important and a community benefit. Stan said you can see the first 3 buildings and the north end is rectilinear and the open space towards Aspen Street and people in Willoughby Park are going to have a better view of the mountain. Stan said he didn't like where the garage entry was but understands that it can't be anywhere else. Stan said extensions of vested rights should include acceptance by any applicant and they should be willing to accept the code as it stands. Stan said that he thought that he could support the project and he agreed with Cliff on it should be a hotel; that is what really belongs here. LJ asked Jennifer if there were any written comments by the public. Jennifer replied no. LJ stated that he would like to have that traffic study done before Council approves it. Jennifer said there were things that had to be submitted prior to Council. LJ said it wasn't the best but it was acceptable to have some of the employee housing at the ABC. MOTION: Bert Myrin made a motion to approve Resolution 2, 2012 recommending City Council approve a new development and other amendments associated with South Aspen Street Subdivision PUD and the amendment to prior to Council Review the applicant will look into staff's concerns about the retaining walls; Keith Goode seconded. Roll call vote Cliff Weiss, yes; Keith Goode, yes; Jasmine Tygre, no; Bert Myrin, no; LJErspamer, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes. APPROVED 4 -2. Discussion prior to the vote: Cliff said this comment was for Steve that he would like this project to blend into the high priced units around this project. Cliff said the roofline bothers him. Bert proposed amending prior to Council's review the applicant will address staff's serious concerns with the extent and number of retaining walls. Stan asked how are the applicant's going to address or are you asking Council to be the focus on this issue. Cliff asked Bert's intent; would the right design reduce the walls. Jennifer said that they could get some better profiles of the retaining areas so it would be a lot clearer to where they are and how high they were. Bert reworded the amendment to prior to Council Review the applicant will look into staff's concerns about the retaining walls. Stephen said the language was better than address. 7 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes January 24, 2012 Bert Myrin proposed the number and type of employee housing on site as an amendment. Motion dies for lack of second. Cliff said he still wants a hotel. Jasmine said that she wanted to make it clear that her rejection was based upon the amended project does not conform to the underlying lodge zoning in terms of reduction of density that s contrary to public policy and the amended plan does not adhere to the criteria for PUD; those criteria being specifically b and d. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to adjourn at 6pm seconded by Stan Gibbs. Adjourned at 6:00 pm. ,tr4 p , L{tl.� ckie Lothiapn//, Deputy City Clerk 8