Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20190326 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2019 Chairperson McKnight called the meeting to order at 4:31 pm. Commissioners in attendance: Scott Marcoux, Spencer McKnight, Teraissa McGovern, Ruth Carver Absent: Jimmy Marcus, Rally Dupps, Ryan Walterscheid Staff present: Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Garrett Larimer, Permit Coordinator Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Phelan asked the commissioners if they would like to have the planned follow-up discussion from the P&Z work session when only four commissioners are present. Mr. McKnight responded that he would prefer to have a larger group present for that discussion. Ms. Phelan stated that she would put them item on each agenda and have the discussion when there are more commissioners present. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. McGovern voted to approve the minutes from February 19th, 2019. Ms. Carver seconded. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Ms. Carver stated that she would need to recuse herself from the hearing on 230 E Hopkins as she lives near the property. PUBLIC HEARING 1011 E. Hopkins (ADU), Special Review (continued from 2/5) Mr. Bendon asked for a continuation on the hearing as neither of the owners could attend. Ms. McGovern motioned to continue the hearing to April 23rd, 2019. Mr. Marcoux seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING 230 E Hopkins (Mountain Forge), GMQS Amendment Ms. Carver left the meeting at 4:37 pm. Mr. Larimer introduced himself as a Planner with the City of Aspen. He introduced the hearing for Mountain Forge at 230 E Hopkins. He stated that it’s located in the mixed-use zone district, stating that the applicant is requesting a growth management approval amendment. He stated that, in 2016, the applicant applied for conceptual commercial design, growth management approval to redevelop the current building. They were granted an allotment for a free market residential unit as part of this approval. They got credit for existing commercial spaces with the net leasable for the existing commercial spaces, and then for an onsite affordable housing unit. When they came back in for final commercial design approval, they had some changes to the unit sizes that were approved as part of Resolution 1, series of 2018, and then they submitted a building permit with these approvals and the net leasable and floor area numbers that came in as part of the building permit were different than what was included in the approval, so the applicant is back again requesting to make minor amendments to some of the floor area numbers and net livable net leasable numbers that were included in the previous approvals. The current request is to allow for a free market unit not to exceed 2,500 square feet. The applicant purchased a TDR. They were originally approved for a free market unit. The language of the approval said up to approximately 2,313 square feet. The TDR allows them, based on the zone district maximum unit size, a unit up to 2500 square feet. The applicant is interested in using more of the square footage provided by the TDR and provided for in the code in this zone district. Also, there’s a minor change to the affordable housing unit. They’re currently showing the affordable housing unit at 961 square feet, so amending the language of the affordable housing unit approval to include that no less than 961 square feet, and then they have commercial net leasable spaces that are shown to be below the credit that was granted for the existing commercial in the original building. As of right now, no additional affordable housing mitigation is required for those and there is no significant change as part of this request to the commercial net leasable approval. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request to amend Resolution 5, series of 2016 and Resolution number 1 series of 2018 to include the language for the free market unit not to exceed 2500 square feet, for the affordable housing unit to measure no less than 961 square feet, and the commercial to continue to comply with underlying zoning as required by the code. Mr. McKnight asked why the amended language has the limits “no less than” or “no more than.” Ms. Phelan stated that the reason staff is saying not to exceed 2500 square feet for the free market is because a TDR is worth 500 square feet worth of square footage. They can go from 2,000 up to 2,500, however, they have limitations of floor area. So 2500 square feet is interior wall to interior wall. Floor area will have a top range, and that will also include some circulation. Staff is not sure if they’ll be able to achieve that 2,500 square feet. However, they bought a TDR. Those are not inexpensive. It gives them the flexibility to potentially maximize it or get up as high as they can, considering the other factors of floor area. Ms. McGovern asked if the area of the affordable housing unit is being increased below grade by about 4 percent. Mr. Larimer stated that that was correct. Ms. Phelan stated that the housing is maintaining the minimum that was shown above grade. Overall the unit is getting bigger and a little bit more below grade. Ms. McGovern asked if APCHA has approved that. Ms. Phelan responded that they had. Mr. Marcoux asked if there are guidelines for affordable housing units. Ms. Phelan responded that there are. Mr. Marcoux asked if this plan met those. Mr. Larimer replied that they received special review approval as part of the original two approvals to have 50% or more of the floor area of that affordable unit below grade. APCHA recommended in favor of it to have that below-grade ratio. They are improving the size of the unit and maintaining a more than 50% below grade radio. Patrick Rawley introduced himself as being with Stan Claussen Associates and introduced Dana Ellis from Rowland and Broughton. He stated that they were always going for a 2,500 square foot unit. The affordable housing unit is being expanded and it’s largely in line with the original approvals that were granted. Ms. Ellis thanked staff for trying to find a way to make this flexible. She stated that this is a remodel addition. She stated that, when the building permit documents came together, the numbers were a little bit different. She stated that, where they’re coming in right now for net livable for their building permit is at 2,395 square feet, so they are not hitting that 2,500, but they want the leeway to have the flexibility during construction. There’s a chance that, when we get into demolition, there may be a shift in commercial net leasable. She stated that they would keep in touch with staff and stay under all of those numbers. They are not even close to hitting any maximums on this. The swings aren’t going to be more than 50 square feet here and there to keep under the allowable by underlying zone districts but allowing that the resolution affords that flexibility since it’s a site-specific project. Mr. Marcoux asked if there is a client already set up for the commercial space. Ms. Ellis stated that there is. There is not yet an affordable housing tenant. PUBLIC COMMENT None. Mr. McKnight stated that the proposal seems cut and dry. Ms. McGovern stated that she does not have any concerns. Ms. McGovern motioned to approve Resolution 5 for 2019. Mr. Marcoux seconded. Commissioners voted, and Resolution 5 was approved unanimously. ADJOURN Mr. McKnight motioned to adjourn the meeting. Ms. McGovern seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 4:48 pm. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager