Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20120925 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes September 25, 2012 Comments 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 South Aspen Street Lodge— PUD Review 2 1 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes September 25, 2012 David went back to the old site plan with the heights and it was the same heights and the number of keys. David said that if you wanted to slide the building 20 feet from Southpoint they could do that. Bert asked if this were not a PUD next to the Lift One what would their height expectations be; does this exceed that. Chris responded the setback is 5 feet and depending on the density of the lodge rooms; low density would be 28 feet and high density would be 36 to 40. Bert asked what it was actually in this proposal. David replied 53. Andy said that you were referring to the lower site and we were more than 5 feet today. David said it was closer to 10 feet. Bert asked the benefit from setting back and going up. Andy stated that the intention of the argument that he made was if the height was 36 feet at that location as opposed to a 2 story mass; the site lines are improved because you don't have this vertical wall surface that is so close to you. Andy said the intention of this design is to push the portion of the mass to the South and get them on the upper portion of the north portion. Andy said that you need to see a sectional relationship between seeing a 36 foot mass to something lower on that side. Jasmine asked what was the grade change moving the building back to Juan Street. David replied depending on how high you slide it over; if we slid it 20 feet it would get a little better sun. Chris stated the site line won't improve in Lift One Condos especially if you are in the lower levels; it does go up. Jasmine asked for a way to show what that would be or ask us if that would be a good idea and it would be helpful to know what that grade is. Chris said you would want to say you would support moving the project away improving the site lines and solar access. Bert asked what the extra box on page 17 was. David responded it was a chimney box. Stan asked how wide Aspen Street is. Chris replied the right of way is 75. Stan asked to just talk where the Lodge building is going and the Lift One on the other side, so what is that width is it going to be. Chris said the right of way is 75, the Lift One vacates a portion of that to the midpoint so it would be 37 and a half feet wide; the street would be 22 or 24 feet wide from curb to curb with no parking on either side of the street. Stan asked how much pavement will we see on Aspen relative to Garmisch. Stan said he would like to see what it would look like. Bert spoke about to the east was the high density lodge zone and Garmisch to the west seems like it changes to R-15 and lower density. Bert said he saw an advantage to pushing the traffic into this zone rather pushing it off to the end of the zone. Public Comment: Paul Taddune asked if the expectation was 36 feet or 40 feet. Chris said the height is 36.240 and you discover where you land in that range through a commercial design process. Paul asked how tall was the townhome project. Andy replied those stayed in the 28 foot height restriction range at the midpoint. Mack Boelen asked the height of the elevator box. Andy replied in the 54 to 55 Foot range. 4 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes September 25, 2012 Bert asked for the next meeting to bring an overlay on one page of the vested rights townhomes, box done by the right, in 2 places where it is proposed currently and where it might be slid, where staff would like it to slide and the site lines for each of those. Jasmine asked for places that might be impacted from site lines and looking for guidance as to where the site lines might be. David said you wouldn't see it from Wagner Park because there are bigger buildings in the way. Andy said mostly the view for this particular project will be from an oblique angle up Aspen Street because most of the buildings below that will block. David said the parking is required by the City Engineer and under this plan there is more parking than in the previous vested plan. Ryan said in that area of the site plan shows how tall it is it shows by the pool that is just one level and previously it was the ramp down to the parking; what is going there now. Todd responded that would be hotel rooms and mechanical space. Ryan asked if there was a walkout to the pool. Todd said there was a deed restricted height. Bert inquired about keeping the same number of parking spaces by the Timberridge whether at an angle so that we aren't concerned about something that someone is concerned about. Andy said he could only speak for the applicant and his answer was that he didn't think so because the City Engineer has made up her mind. Todd said that was the Dean Street easement that belongs to the city and Timberridge uses it today. Chris said that you want to have some direction for City Council to direct the City Engineering to examine this with how you would orient the priorities; on street parking is behind the street tree plan. Chris said the applicant has been at the mercy of whatever the city says and there are absolute Engineering Constraints and Policy. U said that they should do something about parking. David said the next comment was a concern about affordable housing; under the current code and we were doing all of the affordable housing on site we would be required to provide 39 FTEs. David said they were proposing today was 43 FTEs with some on site and some off site. David asked the commission if 39 units are acceptable under the code in one scenario is 43 acceptable to get a lodge. Stan asked in comparison the townhome vested project has 13 FTEs. Todd said the current townhome plan houses on site 46 FTEs. Ryan said some was dormitory, some studio; were there requirements in the code that dictate a certain number of FTEs. Chris replied there were unit requirement stated in FTEs and you can achieve that number with housing and get a credit for certain types of units. Bert 5 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes September 25, 2012 said under the current code there would be 39 required. David replied there would be 39 as mitigation for the 21 housing units, 28 for the lodging units, 13.8 for the commercial restaurant, 13.75 for the Mine Dumps which totals 89 but under the code when the mitigation is satisfied on site only the highest of those various requirements those attributed to the lodge need to be provided or met. Keith asked if the employee units on site had some part of it above ground and some below. Andy answered that it was spread throughout the unit; there is a portion through the mid-portion of the site and some retaining required outside of the unit because it is on the uphill side of the slope. Andy said the other section was in the hotel and above grade. Stan asked if the housing in the hotel was purchase or rental. Bert said the affordable housing was 60% of the generation. Jasmine said that you are going to need a certain number of employees for this project and the services for the residential units. Ryan asked how many FTEs were actually housed on site. David replied 19. Stan asked do you have a number that you are going to use; a number the operators say they actually going to need. David answered they did not. Bert asked if buying off site credits worked and how does it work. Chris replied that it essentially worked like buying cash-in-lieu or an offsite unit. LJ said that he didn't think that 60% was enough. Chris summarized from this meeting and the last meeting under the critique category the proposal only accommodates half of the standard affordable housing mitigation that was otherwise required while it provides more affordable housing than the townhomes project and generates more employees and P&Z believes is the under mitigation shifts too much to the public and the commission questions such a significant trade-off. Chris stated the applicant is encouraged to explore additional affordable housing, more options than to decrease the housing burden of this project. Chris said another suggestion was to show a cross section of the affordable within the middle building to see the livability. Bert did not agree with reducing the total number of employees; this was not the way to get to the number. Jim asked for some metrics on the number of employees that they are really going to have. Jasmine said there are some general guidelines that are available in magazines. LJ said in the UGB what would you be willing to have in the city limits. Ryan said personally he would rather have all 39 on site and make the building bigger. Keith agreed and would rather see a bigger project and more employee housing on site. LJ asked who disagreed with Ryan and Keith. Bert said they overpaid for the property. LJ asked what you are going to do about sound from where the pool is located, it is an amphitheater and the neighbors may be affected by the sound. LJ said traffic 6 Regular City Planning & Zonin! Meetintz — Minutes September 25, 2012 flow, it would be nice with both of these projects if you could enter on one side of the street and exit on the other side of the street; link the parking under the street and no one would be crossing the street. Public Comments: 1. Jaleh White said that she lived right across the street from this project so she would be looking at this project. Jaleh didn't think we needed a lodge and at the Pines they are always empty except for her because she lives there. Jaleh said if it was pretty and good quality that was all she cared about. 2. Paul Taddune said he sits at these meetings and you talk about the code and he participated in this project. Paul said that you want to have a lodge, employee housing and the code; PUD is something that should be imaginative and think out of the box. Paul said maybe it's more height but in a different place which might be better; it is frustrating to be at these meetings because you don't have anyone to interrupt the code. U asked if you moved it up on somebody else's property. David said that he has heard this from some other people and nobody wants to propose it. Paul said this could be a lost opportunity to build something iconic and would solve the problems for everyone with more efficiency inside but instead we a spreading it out in the neighborhood. 3. Denis Murray said when you make your decision you should look at the work the community put in with the COWOP and tried to get employee housing, get it reduced and always said it was the townhome. Denis said he didn't see any difference with the townhomes and this with being lights off, you are building a townhome project with a hotel; if it doesn't work and it doesn't seem feasible from the last 10 years to work. Denis said to respect what the COWOP did. Commission Comments: Jasmine said Paul's ideas were interesting and good but we have to follow the code as P&Z members; she asked for the PUD criteria in the next packet. Jasmine said iconic buildings should not be every building in town. Jasmine had a concern about the hotel operation although the financials are not the purview of P&Z her fear is if the hotel is unprofitable to build what happens down the raod when somebody else takes it over; Council and P&Z would like to see a hotel on this site but a couple of years down the road we may have a building that really didn't work as a hotel and then what do we have. Jasmine asked how can we be assured that we can get a sustainable hotel operation. Jim stated he didn't think you can; none of us can control the future. Jasmine said that we have a responsibility to the community that if we are going to give up certain things in order to get a hotel we 7 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes September 25, 2012 have to try and make sure to the best of our ability that the hotel that is going to be there is going to be a viable operation. Chris stated that his intent is to return to P&Z next week with a resolution that you can consider for adoption that states your position on this project and he has broken these out in terms of criticism of the project and suggestions for the project. Chris captured today that it provides Council with more depth to your review. Jim asked if these points set out were the present position of the commission. Bert asked for the next review by subject, he said that he liked that much better. Chris said the draft points for the resolution were the following with changes of within the free market component of the project needs to be compared to the vested townhomes project. Stan said on the 2nd criticism the Townhomes project certainly provide a private enclave; there is no provision for public access except for the affordable housing. Jim asked if we were leaving the "chilling effect" in the reso. Bert opposed it because the person who raised that isn't here. Jim proposed to remove the chilling effect. The Commission wanted to wait until Cliff was present to remove it. Chris said the bullet points about free market housing should be decreased. - P&Z does not support the South Aspen Lodge proposal as submitted for the following reasons: • The project is predominantly a free-market residential project. There are more units and more square footage devoted to free-market residential use in this plan than in the entirety of the vested townhomes plan. • The upper two parcels have a "private enclave"feel to them and-the Go m-.ni udon As-ccor*cer..ne-d-about-this-having-a-chLt4ng-e#eotw The-arde- • The proposal accommodates only half of the standard affordable housing mitigation as otherwise required. While it provides more AH than the townhomes plan,the project generates more employees and P&Z believes this under-mitigation shifts too much housing burden to the public. The Commission questions the validity of such a significant trade-off. • The Juan to Garmisch traffic pattern with the hotel parking entrance on Garmisch presents too much traffic impact on the western side. P&Z recommends the application be revised as follows: • The hotel parking garage entrance be moved to S.As n St. • Thd Commission wouldprefer more lodging units and fewer free-market residential units. • The free-market portion of the project function as and be operated to assist the hotel and short-term stays. This could be achieved through fractional interests or other mechanisms. In any regard,this needs to be assured through appropriate land use and legal mechanisms that sustain. • Massing concerns along the north edge of the hotel could be alleviated by vacating or partially vacating Juan Street. The Commission suggests the applicant explore this option. The Commission also encourages the applicant to explore a tunnel rather than a bridge to connect the buildings. • The applicant is encouraged to explore additional affordable housingsw►_ options that may decrease the employee housing burden of this project. • The applicant is encouraged to present 3-D renderings of the project so that reviewers can fully understand the scale/massing impacts. 8 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes September 25, 2012 Ryan said the City Council has requested how to get a hotel here and in order to do that there are going to be trade-offs so if we need to increase a portion of residential he is in favor of that; he would propose striking the second comment. Bert said the goal is something that not always gets by P&Z and City Council but resonates through the community because if we approve something that doesn't work with the community so the shaping of it happens through everyone. Jasmine said that it says we prefer more lodging units and fewer free market that doesn't mean that we are going to necessarily deny the application. Jim said it was disingenuous to do that because it is not realistically achievable and it suggests a direction or opinion. Jasmine said there may be another way that we haven't considered and the applicant may-have-considered and it has to-do with- - - private/public partnerships or ways like Aspen Square condominium hotels; there may be ways to get more short term accommodations on that site and still make money for the applicant. Stan said the preference can certainly be stated that we would like more lodging units but his question in general was if you were to build only a hotel would that be viable, if the whole site was a hotel. David replied no. U said a compromise would be to take out the whole first sentence. The Commission agreed. Jim asked to take out the word "vastly". Chris said the affordable housing topic included that the project contains more affordable housing than the townhome project but P&Z believes that project generates more employees than planned and the under mitigation shifts too much housing burden to the public. Chris said the Commission questions the validity and trade off. Chris said there was a request to see the affordable housing through the middle building, ideally that will be presented at the next meeting and to refine the actual number of employees expected to work at the hotel. Ask the applicant to explore a larger project with more on site housing and ask the applicant to explore opportunities for partnership with the city parcels. Stan asked is the statement whether it provides more affordable housing than the townhomes claim correct. Chris said that he thought in the application it was 46 or 43 employees. U asked if we could strike it. Stan said we could start with we feel that the project generates more employees and to get rid of"or" in the second to the last of the recommendations. Bert asked if there was any support for reducing or going below the number 39 on site when that is already 60% of the full amount and half of that. Jim asked what he was proposing. Bert said 19 on site. Stan said to him it would depend on how much off-site housing; he said that he could support 100 FTEs off-site within the UGB, he could support something like that. U asked if Chris could create 9 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes September 25, 2012 something like that we would consider more mitigation off-site; yes we would be more receptive to mitigation off site if they had more. Bert said that was how the code works you have to double when you get off site. LJ asked the applicant if they would accept the code. Chris said there were site plan issues: the Juan to Garmisch traffic pattern with the hotel parking on Garmisch presents too much traffic impact on the western side; we appreciate the applicant's responsiveness to changing the hotel's entrance which is an improvement. Encourage the applicant to explore vacating or partial vacation of Juan Street. Chris said a partial vacation was making it skinnier. Keith asked if the project were to slide 20 feet would that reduce Juan Street. Chris replied it would. David said the right of way is 50 feet right now. Chris said the commission supports improvements to the view angles and sun access to the Lift One Condos but we need to see, show the depiction of site lines, a cross section along Lift One Condos, both the current and the slid versions, show the 36 to 40 foot worst case scenario from the Lift One Condos 5 feet setback; show the view angles of the townhomes approval and show view impacts across South Aspen Street. Chris said on parking to encourage the City Engineer to prioritize on street public parking within the western neighborhood, being the Garmisch to Juan area. MOTION.- Jim DeFrancia moved to continue the public hearing on South Aspen Street until October 2nd seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor APPROVED. Adjourned at 6:50 pm. Oackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 10