Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20121218 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes December 18,_2012 Comments 2 Minutes (12/04/12} 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 Jewish Community Center, 435 W Main St— Growth Management 2 Aspen Club Living, 1450 Crystal Lake Rd — Commercial Design Amendment 6 1 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes December 18, 2012 LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for December 18th, 2012 in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Keith Goode, Bert Myrin, Jim DeFrancia, Jasmine Tygre, Stan Gibbs and LJ Erspamer. Commissioner not present was Ryan Walterscheid and Cliff Weiss. Staff in attendance were Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Phelan, Deputy City Community Development Director, Sara Adams, Jessica Garrow, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Bert Myrin asked for staff to follow-up with regards to the APCHA Board recommendation from the last meeting that LJ voted against because he was concerned about the sequence of Board approval. Bert said the question was what did the APCHA Board decide to do. Jennifer Phelan replied that APCHA approved the certificate of affordable housing credits. Bert asked about the request to City Council and we can change things and LJ said that he would take it to Council to present it. Jennifer said that this would be more appropriate at the end of the meeting. LJ Erspamer said that he talked to Debbie about where it should go. Debbie said that if it is more than a comment it should be official business and probably other business. Jasmine Tygre corrected the spelling of our from out in Section F and the only thing was to include a summary on the first page but the second paragraph should be in bold and that is the request. MOTION.- Jasmine Tygre moved to make the questions in bold and spelling correction to move for LJ to take to City Council seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor, APPROVED. Minutes MOTION.- Jim DeFrancia moved to approve the minutes from December 04`h with a change to page 11 for the spelling of Graeme Means name seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor, APPROVED. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest None stated. Public Hearing: Jewish Community Center — 435 W Main St— Growth Mannement Review LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing on the Jewish Community Center, 435 West Main Street for Growth Management Review. Sara Adams presented the proof of public notice and the public outreach was completed before HPC. Debbie Quinn said the notice was appropriate. 2 Regular C b Planning & Z®� l eet�n — Minutes I�ecernl�er I�g 2012 Sara said the there was an amendment to the Jewish Community Center located at 435 West Main Street for recommendation of Growth Management for an Essential Public Facility to City Council. Sara said in 2007 a development order was granted for the entire Jewish Center Community Parcel. Sara said it was one whole block including a sanctuary, a pre-school, administrative building, 6 cabins along the alley and a social hall. Sara said the proposal tonight was to amend the approved social hall and to replace it with a parsonage. The social hall was a little over 4500 square feet and the proposed parsonage is about 4000 square feet; the parsonage would house the Rabbi and his family, receive the congregation, guest speakers and host special events. Community Development determined that the parsonage was part of the arts, cultural and civic use and have instructed the applicant to process this as an Essential Public Facility. HPC reviewed it for conceptual review and now it is going to P&Z for Growth Management for recommendation to City Council for Growth Management Final and Subdivision and then goes back to UPC for final review. Sara said the Planning & Zoning Commission determines the number of employees generated by the project or in this case the amendment and then you make a recommendation to City Council and City Council decides how many of those employees are mitigated for; what percentage needs to be mitigated for. In 2007 P&Z determined that 9.63 were generated by the whole project which was about 19,655 square feet in floor area. City Council decided of those 9.63 FTEs 44% needed to be mitigated for on site. Sara stated the applicant has deed restricted 3 of the 6 cabins as deed restricted cabins and will be the affordable housing. They are required to do an audit 2 years after they receive a Certificate of Occupancy just to make sure the 9.63 is what actually was generated. Sara said the proposal today with the reduced size of a couple of the buildings and the parsonage is now 16,525 square feet. The housing board recommendation was attached as Exhibit B and agrees that fewer FTEs are generated by this change and are supportive of the audit still being in place. Sara said since subdivision was only under City Council's purview and staff was concerned of a possible change in use for the parsonage becoming a single family home. Jasmine Tygre asked if that was why the parsonage was being turned into a single family residence and was not in their resolution. Sara replied yes. Jennifer replied it was outside of the scope of the Planning & Zoning Commission to be making recommendations outside of how many employees were generated. Jennifer suggested that P&Z supports not having a change in use for the parsonage. Alan Richman said that the applicant made the representation in the memo on the parsonage not being replaced. Sara noted in Section 4 of the Resolution says 3 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting —Minutes December 18,_2012 representations made by the applicant or in the application are basically approved by the resolution. Debbie Quinn said the fact that the applicant has committed to it we have representation already and if they wanted to subdivide and selloff that parcel they would have to go through a new approval process. Debbie said you are protected in a lot of different ways. Bert and U had the same question. Bert said the Corn Dev Director determines it is an Essential Facility so P&Z doesn't do any of that. Sara said it was in the Community Development Department's decision. Bert asked if the FTE mitigation could go down. Sara restated that they have deed restricted 3 of the cabins for affordable housing on site. Sara said it was up to City Council to decide on the percent of mitigation. Alan Richman said that he was representing the Jewish Resource Community Center and introduced Rabbi Mintz and they were pleased with the staff direction and recommendation. Rabbi Mintz stated that they feel they have gotten to a place where the long term health of the organization and the health of the project is the right approach and the right thing to do. Alan said much of what he was going to point out was pointed out by staff and as Sara said that P&Z found that there were 9.63 employees generated, the project is smaller today from when you made that review of 9.63. The square footage has gone down but the program is really where the employee generation is established; it is really the same program that we represented in 2006- 007. Alan said the only thing that has changed is that the Rabbi and his family will be housed on the property and the Rabbi will not own the parsonage but will be owned as part of the overall Jewish Community Center and will have housing for all rabbis in this community over time. Alan said it was a real plus to have the Rabbi on site at all times. Alan said that the Rabbi has lived in affordable housing for many years so bringing the Rabbi onto the site is going to free up an existing deed restricted unit. U asked how this was going to be divided inside or is it just going to be an open home. Alan replied it is a private home but the kitchen and living room area, the downstairs area has been sized so congregation events can occur there; Friday night dinners after. Alan said that would be for a dozen or dozen and half people. Alan said this was not a major social facility; it is a small congregation. Public Comments: 1. Cheryl Goldenberg stated that she was a neighbor and having the parsonage there was really nice and the family will be a nice addition and they were already in the neighborhood. Cheryl was surprised that there 4 Regular City Planning & ZoniH II eeting — Minutes December- 183, 2012 was only a one car garage and for all of the projects in the neighborhood she has always wanted garages. 2. Steve Goldenberg said there was a map on the WEB but it was not in the handout and it doesn't look like you can get out of that garage because there is another unrelated parking space blocking it. 3. Sara Adams presented a letter from Meta Barton who was opposed to the conversion from the social hall to the parsonage. Alan stated the main reason they were showing a one car garage was to keep as much open space as they can; to the west of the parsonage is the playground space for the preschool. The yard to the east of the parsonage is for the Rabbi's family as their only yard. Alan said that HPC has encouraged them to keep the space open so that the public can view those cabins. Sara said the Historic Preservation Commission did perform the special review for parking on the historical property when they did conceptual. Commissioner Comments: LJ said the P&Z review was Growth Management basic. Jim DeFrancia said that he agreed with retaining the open space. Jim said that he strongly supported this application with the freeing up of an affordable unit. Stan asked the applicant from the letter that we received the concern seems to be the frequency and duration of events. Stan asked if they saw a difference between the social hall and the parsonage implementations; do you see a reduction or increase in frequency and duration of events. Rabbi Mintz said instead of having 100 to 300 people 25 times a year there will be 1 to 20 people a couple times a month; certainly a reduction. Alan said that they will make contact with the neighbor and give her the sense that it is a better situation. Bert asked on page 7 of the packet Section 2 talks about employee mitigation is valid at 44% and asked if P&Z was reinforcing that on the previous approval. Sara said that was to mitigate the for the 9.63 employees which is 4.25 FTEs and not change the additional employees generated it would just say 0 employees. Bert said we were just determining the 9.63 and Council was deciding. Sara stated that P&Z was recommending to Council the 44%. Stan said that second section should not be there because it was not P&Z's function to do that 44%; so we should determine that it is valid. Everyone agreed to that change. MOTION.- Jim DeFrancia moved approval of Resolution 23, series of 2012 approving growth management for an Essential Public Facility with the determination that no additional employees are generated by the replacement of 5 Regular City Planning & Zonine Meeting—Minutes December 18, 2012 the social hall with the parsonage and recommending that City Council grant Growth Management approval for the mitigation of 0 employees and took the last sentence of the recommended motion out. Seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll call vote: Keith Goode, yes; Bert Myrin, yes; Jim DeFrancia, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; LJErspamer, yes. All in favor, APPROVED 6-0. Discussion prior to the vote: Bert wanted to discuss the concern Jasmine, LJ and he raised earlier about the parsonage ever changing use to a single family home is very important to him as not part of our review but is in the memo and wanted Council to be aware that was a concern. Public Hearing: Aspen Club Living — 1450 Crystal Lake Rd — Commercial Design Amendment LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for Aspen Club Living— Commercial. Design Amendment. Jessica Garrow stated that public notice was given to the Assistant City Attorney. Debbie Quinn approved it. Jessica said this was a public hearing for an amendment for the Aspen Club project. The applicant is Aspen Club and Spa LLC represented by Michael Fox, Sunny Vann and Chris Ridings from Poss and Associates. Jessica said the project was at the end of Ute Avenue between the Benedict Office Building and the Silver Lining Ranch property; the project amendments are to the Club, townhome time share unit as well as the affordable housing portion. Page 4 of the memo showed the previous approved North and West Elevations and the proposed Elevations. There is an updated Club entrance and some time share units that are located in this building that will be added first floor decks as well as changes to windows and fenestration. Staff is supportive of these changes in particular the material pallet is something that we approved with the elimination of stucco and as well as support from the shingle to a vertical wood siding. Jessica said the most significant change is the decrease in mass for the pool enclosure and the bottom image shows the half pool enclosure and the architecture and materials blend much more cohesively into the architecture of the Club. Jessica said the second major change was related to the roof deck which was much larger and a trellis element that was added. Staff feels that trellis adds to the livability of the roof but staff was concerned about the possible desire to enclose that area and it was not what staff supported. There was a condition in the resolution that this area cannot be enclosed in the future. Jessica said the roof material on the townhomes has been changed from shake shingle to standing seam and staff prefers the shake shingle but will agree to the 6 Regular Cif Planning iii Zoning Meeting — Minutes December 18,2012 standing seam as long as it is not reflective. Jessica said balconies are larger on the corner units on the time share units. Jessica noted on the affordable housing units there were some changes on roof forms from a butterfly to a flipper and getting rid of the stucco but have a concern related to balconies. The original approval included some balconies and the applicant is proposing to change the affordable housing balconies to Juliette balconies for all the units so that staff thinks that the balconies are important for the livability of those units. The applicant looked at a way to make more usable space in the courtyard area which is just south of the affordable housing units. Jessica said that it is not in the Resolution and staff is supportive of the affordable housing units balconies and the trellis on the roof not be enclosed and limit the shingle on the roof to not be reflective. Bert asked how the notice process works for an amendment like this; is there a mailing to all the neighbors. Jessica replied there was a mailing and a posting. Bert asked about page 3 of the memo from stucco to wood change for affordable housing; is there any concern about the cost of maintenance over the years. Jessica replied no and that wasn't one of the review criteria; what we focus on is durability and make sure it is a high quality material. Bert said with the elimination of balconies was not included it in the resolution. Jessica said staff felt strongly about it but we feel that P&Z should look at it and could be added as a condition and staff would support that. Sunny Vann commented that this project was moving forward in the design development stage and when we submit for approval it is basically conceptual architecture. The architect has been working with Bill Poss's office and the proposed operator of the project of the fractional component, which is the Abjure Group. Sunny said the conditions of approval are okay with us; there were some decisions behind the idea of eliminating or replacing the balconies with the Juliette balconies and Chris Ridings from Poss felt that there was an upside to doing these. Chris added clarification on the balconies that with the PUD submittal of the 12 units there were only 6 that had balconies; of those 6 two of them had extensions over setbacks so we struggling how far we could extend them out. Chris said we would have wanted to have balconies but because of property lines being an issue we made a decision to provide all the units with a Juliette balcony. Chris said the sliding doors with the Juliette balcony and railing would be a benefit to all the units. Chris handed out a graphic of the courtyard area (Applicant Exhibit #1). 7 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes December 18, 2 012 Sunny said these are rental units that will be owned and rented by the Aspen Club and maintained by the Club. Jasmine asked how deep was the Juliette balcony. Chris replied there was no depth to the Juliette balcony, about 9 inches off the wall would be the railing. Jasmine asked why do you have to have a sliding glass door. Chris answered the sliding door provides a larger opening rather than a window with a sill and the sliding door gives you more of an opening to the outdoors. Sunny said an example would be at Centennial (the bluish-gray ones) all have a living area and a double slider and what amounts to a Juliette balcony; the homeowners have amended their covenants to allow the addition of a deck on some of those units have in fact added an outdoor deck. Bert asked if there is a page to point this out. Chris replied that was on the drawings 1, 2, 3 and 4. Bert asked what the square was. Sunny replied it was temporary parking and affordable housing was provided in the garage. Sunny said there were 5 temporary spaces for mail, deliveries and the like but it wasn't permanent parking. Stan asked if moving the balconies actually allow you to move the buildings; is that something that you did as part of that. Chris replied that they haven't moved the buildings. Michael Fox stated that 2 of the balconies were in the setback area. Stan said it appears to him that the Main Club building is either shorter in the new or the buildings around it have gone up. Jessica said what she understands from the applicant was that there was an incorrect measurement in the original application and that what was shown there was actually taller than what is there now so the updated proposal is the correct height. Stan said that didn't answer his question. Jessica said the main building hasn't gone down in terms of the allowed height it was just in the drawing. Jim asked about the staff's concern about the recommendation about the trellis on the deck and your concern is that it becomes enclosed. Jim said that seems restrictive; could they cover it. Jessica replied no and that is staff's point; they see a lot of these things come in where people will be wanting to use their roofs and second floor deck and years go by and say wouldn't it be great if it were a year round space and bring space heaters in and cover it with a tarp and we think that doesn't fit in with the mass and scale that was approved. It is something that they want to very explicitly say is not allowed and if the Club wants to come in they would have to come back through and do another Commercial Design Review. Jim asked if the applicant has any problem with that. Sunny replied that was the 8 Regular Q Meeting — Minutes December 18, 2012 IPlannina--& Zoning reason it was acceptable but anything can be asked to be changed and if we have a specific proposal we would come in and pitch it and see if it fly's. LJ said that we talked about balconies before but these are rentals and these balconies are open to the outside courtyard. Sunny responded the original ones or the new Juliette. Chris replied the balconies were on the perimeter of the affordable housing units; the entrance doors are on the inside. Stan asked if the units on the ground floor have sliding doors already and just egress that way; did they have that capability. Stan asked if the ground floor units were to get a Juliette balcony at grade. Chris replied that they all have access on grade; they are not balconies. Michael said the site slopes a little bit and so they will still have views kind of back over the Club over the swimming pool area. Stan asked if the units on the center of the building had balconies currently. Michael replied they do not. Chris said that was what they were adding. Michael said there current configuration there were 4 balconies and it was originally 6 with 2 in the setbacks so there was really only 4 that we could put in and with Poss they are giving everyone these Juliette balconies at 12 versus 4 of the larger balconies. No public comments. Commissioner Comments: Jim said he was supportive of it and appreciate the trellis and the applicant accepted it; the balconies are fine with changing what they are proposing. Jasmine said she didn't like the Juliette balconies but she didn't like the big balconies either especially since there are only 4 of them. Jasmine thought that there was a fairness issue; some people get balconies and some don't and she didn't think it promotes good neighborliness. Jasmine said the patios will tend not to be used and would rather see the sliding doors replaced with regular windows. Jasmine said she would rather see the employee units treated the same even if it means Juliette balconies rather than 4 people having big balconies. Jim asked if they were rental units. Sunny replied yes. Jim appreciated Jasmine's logic and comments but they can address it economically by making the units with balconies rents for more. Sunny said they have rates based upon the income level and the size of the unit, the balcony doesn't count. Jasmine said there was a benefit to having them all consistent. Keith said you would have a lot of those issues with the pool and the hot tub and asked if the common area had a little grill. 9 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting —Minutes December 18 2012 Bert supported the staff recommendation to have the private space that the balconies provide for some of the units; he would retain the 4 balconies that were there and Juliette balconies for the rest and the common area as proposed makes sense. LJ said that he was with Bert and it wasn't a deal breaker; he said that he liked balconies. Jim asked if the 2 points from staff will they be in the motion and resolution. Jessica replied they were in the resolution. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #24, series of 2012 approving the Commercial Design Amendment for the Aspen Club project with the original approvals if they can change the 2 balconies by the building department; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll call.- Sian Gibbs, no; Keith Goode no; Bert Myrin, yes; Jim DeFrancia, no; Jasmine Tygre, no; LJErspamer, yes. DENIED 4- 2. Discussion prior to the first vote: Bert proposed an amendment under Section 1 #3. Jessica said it would be the balconies as approved under the Commercial Design Review approval incorporated into it. Michael said if they were forced to keep the balconies he wasn't sure that they could add the Juliettes to every other unit; the money we are saving on the external balconies we are redistributing to every unit in putting in Juliettes. Debbie asked if he was asking for an amendment. Jim agreed to the amendment. Stan asked if it was the proposal to do the Juliettes as well as the other balconies. Jasmine did not agree; she said you either do the balconies or you do the Juliettes but she did not see the combination. Bert said he would then request a motion as the original one that Jessica said with either 4 balconies and no Juliette balconies. Jasmine said she would like to see this move along and that the applicant revisit the whole balconies issue and Juliettes with windows and see if they can come up with a better design. Chris said as a point of clarity there are some areas of the building because of setbacks that they would be limited to Juliette balconies and wouldn't be able to do anything that came off of the building very far. Sunny said they have an approval for 6 balconies and have a problem with 2 balconies and whether it could be resolved at the building department he didn't know. Sunny said they have an approval to build 4; there was a decision made that the money be re-allocated and provide Juliette balconies for everyone. Sunny said if there is not a majority that would favor that proposal then I think that we would simply remove our proposal and ask that you eliminate the 4 then we are back where we were to start with and it is done. Bert said that 10 egula fit� ���n�sin ®wing Meeting — Minutes December 189 2012 would be said the language is that the balconies they should go with what staff originally proposed. Jessica said the language is the balconies approved in the final commercial design approval are required to remain. Jim said he was fine with that and the applicant was fine with that. Jasmine said okay. Sunny said with the understanding that we might have to lose 2 because of building code requirements. Jasmine said you can do 4. Bert said that he liked the common area as opposed to just grass. LJ said that he would like to leave that up to the applicant. Jim agreed. Michael said that they think everybody having a Juliette balcony was a better solution and the courtyard, which is why they proposed it. Michael said that he thought Jasmine was more democratic for everyone to have a balcony. Sunny said the current motion as amended is that the original 6 balconies remain, the courtyard is not there and the Juliette balconies are not there. Bert said if down the road they want to do this then they can without coming back to us. Stan said the applicant's proposal makes sense and he didn't understand why we were having so much trouble with these balconies and as Jasmine said balconies for just a few units are any advantage and the courtyard was an advantage and the sliding doors give a little more open space feel that they have the outside coming in makes sense. Stan said that we should stop nit-picking at this either we go with what the applicant would like to do or just say no. Jim said what the applicant wants to do is all Juliette balconies and the courtyard. Jim withdrew the motion for the amendment and Jasmine withdrew he second. LJ wanted the motion voted on. So they voted on it. Second MOTION: Jim DeFrancia move to approve Resolution 24, series of 2012 approving a Commercial Design Amendment for the Aspen Club project adding the Juliette balcony for each unit and the courtyard as proposed by the applicant. Jasmine Tygre second. Roll Call: Pert Myrin, no; Keith Goode, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Jim DeFrancia, yes; LJErspamer, yes. APPROVED 5-1. Bert said the reason he voted no was that he supported the staff recommendation. Adjourned at 5:55 pm. )"ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 11