Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20131015 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 15,2013 U Erspamer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Tygre, Walterscheid, Myrin, Gibbs, and Goode present. Also present from City staff, Debbie Quinn,Jennifer Phelan and Sara Adams. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms.Tygre asked if P&Z is actively recruiting new members. Mr. Erspamer said he thinks they have three people per Kathy Strickland. They will be interviewed in a month or so. Mr. Myrin stated that February will mark two years since Council signed off on the AACP. He is pushing to make some code modifications to address those things they see in P&Z over time. He has asked Mr. Erspamer to talk to Council and move forward. Mr. Erspamer said he has emailed and called Mr. Skadron and would like to talk to him in person. Mr. Myrin thinks it is important or P&Z should change their name to the Applicant Review Board. Mr. Erspamer said they need an audience and the other way to do it is to go in front of their three minute talk. Mr. Erspamer and Mr. Myrin agreed to go Monday. Per Mr. Myrin, it is important if they want to move forward and solve problems. Ms.Tygre said she would think about attending as well. Mr. Erspamer said the board should say a good thing about Helen. Mr. Erspamer said she was a good person, pleasant and easy to approach. Ms.Tygre said it would be better if the board expressed their opinion as individuals instead of as a board. Mr. Erspamer would like to personally thank Helen for helping him. Mr. Erspamer asked Debbie Quinn,Assistant City Attorney,the process for giving notice. Both Ms. Quinn and Ms. Phelan, Community Development Department, agreed it is given 300 feet from the property line. Mr. Erspamer asked if the applicant is the Gant is the process the same. Ms. Quinn stated if they are individually owned, the owners would be notified. Mr. Erspamer asked about the home owners association and there may be a problem when it comes to notifying individual owners and weather there is anything specific in the code. Ms.Quinn said she thinks it depends on the application and who is applying for what. Mr. Erspamer asked Stan Clauson. Based on his experience, if a condominium property is included, he notifies the entire condo and all the property owners,who may or may not be the residents.. Ms. Quinn will get back to the commission on this. There were minutes in the last meeting that were approved but Mr. Erspamer did not look at them closely. It says in the minutes Mr. Erspamer voted against something because of the code and Mr.Gibbs corrected him. Mr. Erspamer went back and listened to Mr. Gibbs and in the tape he went back and apologized to the applicant. The minutes did not reflect that. Mr. Gibbs asked if they could unapproved those minutes have them changed and reapproved. Ms. Quinn noted that they could but his comment would probably serve the same purpose. They board would like to make a movement to modify the minutes to include what he said. Those minutes will be modified and approved as modified at next meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan stated November 5th is the election and the County needs to use the Sister Cities room so there will not be a meeting on November 5th. The Commission is fine with this. PUBLIC COMMENTS: No public comment. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment. 1 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission October 15,2013 MINUTES - September 17, 2013 The commission did not receive these minutes and will review them on the next regular agenda. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Erspamer stated that his wife works for Stewart Title and will be working there for 2 more weeks. This applicant had Stewart Title review the title work but it does not affect his decision at all. 110 West Main, Hotel Aspen-Consolidated PUD Ms. Quinn asked Mr. Clauson if the notice that was posed was posted every day throughout the posted period up to the day of this hearing. Mr. Clauson responded that to the best of his knowledge it was. Ms. Quinn reviewed the public notice affidavits and they are appropriate. Sara Adams, Community Development Planner, reported the project is a redevelopment of the Hotel Aspen. P&Z is asked to make recommendations to Council on a consolidated PUD, subdivision review and rezoning. The hearing scheduled tonight is for the applicant to present the project and do an introduction. She provided staff findings in the packet but will go over those at the next meeting on November 191h. Ms.Adams is not asking P&Z to take action tonight. Ms. Adams turned the meeting over to Stan Clauson for his presentation. Mr. Myrin requested a copy of the minutes from the meeting where HPC went back and forth regarding the heights on Bleeker Street. Ms. Adams noted that there were many pages so she would email the minutes to the board and bring one copy to the November 191h meeting for the record. Mr. Erspamer asked about the packet where it states the Parking and Engineering departments recommended it is safer to have parallel parking rather than head in parking. He would like an explanation from them as to what criteria they are using to come to this conclusion. Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson Associates, representing the applicants, stated that this is a preliminary presentation. The subject site is 27,000 square feet. It is currently a split zoned property with a Lodge Preservation overlay and both R6 and mixed use. The mixed used portion is most adjacent to Main Street and the R6 portion is most adjacent to Bleeker Street. The LP overlay is complex and determines the permitted uses even though there is underlying zoning.The Lodge Preservation district key purpose is the protection of existing small lodge uses and the ability of the small lodge uses to reasonably expand. They also provide for multi-family free market housing. The Lodge Zone district gives the free market development parameters based on how many lodge units per 500 square feet of lot area are being proposed. Mr. Clauson stated that in this case there are one or more for 500 square feet of lot area which establishes the overall floor area for the property. It then asks what will the average size of the lodge rooms be. For this project they are less than 300 square feet. This permits 60% residential development. The floor area of the lodge rooms is then calculated and a 60%factor is put in for the net livable of the residential development. The free market multi-family housing makes possible the redevelopment of the lodge. The Lodge Preservation zone says it will be developed as a PUD. The PUD designation encourages flexibility and innovations, promotes the AACP and works towards a more desirable development pattern. Mr. Clauson pointed out the five variances that are being requested; cumulative floor area, maximum floor area for free market, maximum unit size for free market, side yard setback and minor front yard setback. 2 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission October 15,2013 The cumulative floor area is proposed at 36,500 square feet, allowable 33,750. This is an 8% increase over the allowable and is permissible under the PUD for approval. The maximum floor area for free market is 11,000 square feet. If you took 60%of the total lodge net livable and affordable housing, that would provide for 10,500 square feet allowable which is a 5% increase or 500 square feet being requested. The maximum unit size for two of the requested units are 3,750 square feet and two units at 3,400 square feet. The LP designation anticipates that this would be multi-family development with 2,000 to 2,500 square foot units. Mr. Clauson did not feel that this density could be accommodated on this site. This is why they are requesting the increase in unit size for the four town house units. Along Garmisch Street there is a zero lot line. That allows for the spacing of the two duplex free market units. Garmisch Street has the widest right of way. A very minor front yard setback of 9%is being requested, 9 feet 9 inches. The Historic Preservation Commission approved this project on the 24th of April, 2013. HPC Resolution No. 14. They considered height and setback. They were concerned with the residential structures on Bleeker Street. The proposed project is 36,500 square feet with 23,500 lodging, 11,000 residential and 1,800 square feet affordable housing. The proposed height on the residential side (Bleeker St) is 32 feet and 28 feet on the hotel side (Main St). The existing lodge units would be reconfigured to an average of 292 square feet and are currently at 360 square feet. The lodge count would be increased from 45 to 54 units. There are four townhomes organized as duplexes and three onsite affordable housing units as well as some public amenity spaces. To put the height in context on Garmisch Street,the Semaru project is at 31 feet on the front, 36.29 at mid-block where applicant has proposed 32 feet. More flat roofed buildings are found on the Main Street side with the dentist building at 29.97 feet. The applicant is also proposing an enhanced pedestrian area with some open space and tables. There is also a proposed change in parking based on the engineering recommendation that there be parallel parking. The initial plan presented to HPC had all head in parking, the same as there is today. Engineering stated they would prefer parallel parking. The applicant proposes a split lot with both parallel and head in parking. There is subgrade parking proposed with the remodel. All of the new units will have subgrade parking. The height of the front most portion of the building will be 23 feet and 29.5 located 24 feet back. 28 feet on the middle section and 32 on the flat roof rear free market residential. For the free market residential units, HPC went back and forth before finally deciding on the flat roof option. Mr. Clauson pointed out that the maximum height of the project of 32 feet is not obtained at the facade level but is stepped back at 10.5 feet along Garmisch and 3.5 feet along Bleeker. HPC and staff did recommend a greater separation between the buildings with a proposed 12 feet. Mr. Clauson pointed out a statement from the small lodge character area section of the commercial design guidelines about building height adjacent to a residential zone district which establishes the 45 degree angle line. The computation is having a maximum wall height of 25 feet at the required side yard setback line and continuing at a 45 degree angle from this wall plate height until it reaches the maximum permitted building height of 32 feet. It is 25 feet at the required side yard setback line. This project is in accordance with the recommend guideline. Mr. Clauson then went into a discussion about affordable housing mitigation. Based on the average size of the lodge units, under 300 square feet, mitigation is required at a rate of 10 percent for additional " employees generated. There is some existing affordable housing units that will need to be replaced. This was set by ordinance at 520 square feet or"two pillows". 3 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission October 15,2013 There are 9 new lodge units along with expansion of new net livable requiring a total of 3.56 FTE's or 2 one bedroom units which are being provided. Mr. Clauson stated he believes the affordable housing provided on site will meet these requirement with a .06 FTE left over which will be a cash in lieu payment. Mr. Clauson then moved on to discuss the public amenity space. This space includes a large lawn area on the Bleeker Street side. The area along Main Street set back from the fence would be enhanced by a triangular open space that leads into the lodge area/breakfast room. The current space is about 18 percent of the parcel and the development of the townhomes would reduce this to 15 percent of the parcel. There would also be sidewalk improvements along Garmisch and Main Streets. The applicant is open to modifications to the parking and is working with Engineering to figure it out. Mr. Clauson did state that he thinks Engineering has a bias against head in parking. Mr. Clauson then turned the presentation over to Kim Weil, Poss Architecture,to discuss what they have been working on. Mr.Weil stated that the main building with the lobby and the building that faces the existing pool are remodeled buildings. Currently these buildings do not have fire sprinkler systems or alarms and it is time to bring it up to date. The other buildings in the project will all be new buildings. The lobby will stay where it is. Rooms will be added along Garmisch. The current admin area will be changed to the bar/restaurant. The second level will have a two story lobby space. The current breakfast room will be converted to hotel rooms. The third affordable housing unit will enter through the hotel. Level three is all new hotel rooms. In the basement there are 15 parking spaces as well as laundry and mechanical. There is also access to the lower level of the residences. The utility and trash will be on the alley as well as a delivery area. Exhaust will be through the roof. The plan has been approved by Environmental Health. Mr.Weil said the materials used will be a mixture of wood and stone siding. Some of the stairways will be enclosed in a perforated metal panel. New windows will be installed and the existing fireplace and chimney will remain. Mr.Weil said they are looking at a natural colored stain pallet. The entry will have a canopy to provide some coverage. At 5:17 Mr. Erspamer opened the meeting to questions for staff or the applicant. Mr. Goode asked if the mechanical will be located in the basement or on the roof. Mr.Weil responded that it will be a combination. The boilers will be in the basement and the air handling on the roof. Mr. Myrin asked about page 40 of the staff packet attachment three. The variation requested for front yard setback required 10 feet and is proposed at 9.9 feet. Mr. Myrin asked if there is something the applicant can do to the front yard setback so that the board does not need to review it since it is such a small increment. Mr. Weil responded that the set back is due to a window well and is not sure if this is something they can change. Mr. Myrin asked why they are losing 800 feet in open space. Mr. Cluson stated the largest loss in open space is from the lawn on the Bleeker Street side which is needed for the residential development. The only alternative to create more open space is to cut into the pool area but the pool is not slated for redevelopment. Mr. Clauson also stated that the code does provide a cash in lieu payment or other public amenities if the applicant is short on open space. They are trying to provide this with additional landscaping. Mr. Myrin asked if this is similar to the Semaru building could they gain the 3 inches and the 2,000 square foot unit size. Mr. Clauson responded that the Semaru building was not constructed with 2,000 4 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission October 15, 2013 square foot units since it is an AH PUD. He said the unit size requirement comes through the Lodge Preservation part of the code. The R6 zone does not have a unit size requirement just a floor size one. Mr. Myrin commented that this project is more consistent with the buildings to the west than to the east like the Semaru building. He also said that from the outside it will look like a multi-family building consistent to what is found on Garmisch Street. Mr.Weil responded that HPC was looking more to the west not the Semaru building. Mr. Myrin also asked about the AACP and how P&Z uses that as a tool to grant the variances. Ms. Adams stated that the review criteria used to establish the PUD have to do with neighborhood context and adjacent historic landmarks. She stated that the AACP is more of a guide. Mr. Myrin stated he thought they were to follow more of the code than the AACP. Mr. Myrin asked if the code requires parking spaces for hotels in this area. Ms.Adams responded that it does and allows a deficit, but are required to mitigate for any new development on the parcel. She believes they are required to have 11.5 and they have 15. She will go into the parking calculation at the November meeting. Ms.Adams said the applicant is meeting the parking requirement as the code is written. Mr. Gibbs asked Ms.Adams if she could be more expansive on the R6 with a Lodge Overlay and if any development happens on this property would it need a PUD. He also asked if there was some way to move forward without a PUD. Ms.Adams stated that the front half is mixed use and the back is R6 with an LP overlay over the entire parcel. The LP overlay requires that a PUD be adopted. She confirmed Mr. Gibbs statement that if no changes were made the PUD would not be needed. Ms.Tygre stated she would like to see street elevations for Main Street and Bleeker Street and how they compare to the project property. Mr. Erspamer asked if HPC has already addressed elevations and heights. Ms. Adams stated that HPC has addressed these during their commercial design review but it is part of the PUD review also. Mr. Walterscheid asked what the existing height requirements are for the underlying zones R6 and mixed use. Ms.Adams responded that R6 is 25 feet for residential. She said it gets complicated since multi family is not allowed in R6 but is allowed in the LP overlay. Ms.Adams replied the underlying zoning is 25 feet and the mixed use is 28 to 32 feet. She also said that part of this proposal is to rezone the entire parcel to mixed use so there is no confusion with the varying zone districts. Ms.Adams said she would schedule a site visit before the November meeting. Mr. Erspamer asked if peaked and flat roofs have different requirements. Ms.Adams replied that they do. A Gabled roof is measured, depending on the slope, either to the half point or the third point of the ridge for the max height. A flat roof is measuring all the way to the top. Mr. Erspamer asked if there would be hours for the deck and Mr. Weil replied there will be no roof top deck. Mr. Erspamer asked Ms.Adams on page 2 the picture of the old Aspen Orthopedic building shows head in parking but he thought that somewhere in the document it said there is no head in parking in the neighborhood. Mr.Weil replied that there is head in parking on both sides. Mr. Erspamer said he would like engineering to tell him why they want the head in parking changed when it is all over the place. Ms. Adams said she would ask engineering for more detail. 5 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission October 15,2013 Mr. Erspamer asked if there would be a TDM. Ms.Adams replied the applicant is requesting a waiver which is an issue for Council to decide. Mr. Erspamer noted that the townhomes will be free market and not part of the lodge project but it will be zoned Lodge instead of R6. Mr. Clauson clarified that the project is currently zoned Lodge Overlay. Ms.Adams said they are proposing that instead of having two underlying zones that there be only one. At 5:43 Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing. Steve Garcia, secretary,treasurer and VP of Semaru building, stated he likes the lodge and would like to see it redeveloped. He has 7 units in two buildings. He stated their concerns for the record are the impact to the neighborhood during construction and where the construction zone is going to be. They are concerned with the noise associated with the sub level work. He stated that currently it is D zone parking and they only have 4 garages so everyone else parks on the street. The parking is usually already full so that is a concern. They are not concerned with the size of the lodge since it will not obstruct any of their views. They are unsure if the addition of 4 free market units will congest the area. They are more concerned with the design itself. The area is mostly Victorian with the exception of this project. Mr. Garcia stated they are excited that the free market units will drive up the value of their free market units. His last concern is the 100-200 year old pine tree that will need to be removed for the town homes. At 5:47 Mr. Erspamer closed the public Hearing. Mr. Erspamer asked Ms. Quinn if the board should just express their concerns and not form an opinion. Ms. Quinn replied that since staff has not done their presentation they could express areas where they may have concern. Mr. Myrin said he has a concern about using free market residential to subsidize redevelopment. He asked if the board is doing a dis-service to the next generation when the property will need renovated again. He stated that the process does not allow for the next re-development. Mr. Myrin stated the reason there is a PUD is to tackle the free market. He said that if the free market was not there they would not need to grant the additional FAR. Mr. Myrin stated he does think the PUD's are meant to juggle things around and is not concerned with the 3 inches as much as the cumulative floor area. Mr. Erspamer commented about the FAR on the free market and they are trying to find 800 square feet of public amenity space and is wondering if the large building really impacts the public amenity space. He stated that for the next meeting he would like to focus on the requested variances on page 13. Mr. Walterscheid said that the only numbers that stand out are the size of the units and the cumulative floor area. He stated that the setbacks and heights are minimal to the rest of the property. Mr. Walterscheid stated he would like to see a decision maker from the engineering department to give a presentation as to why they would like parallel parking and not head in parking. Mr. Erspamer and Ms. Tygre expressed the same. Mr. Goode questioned how HPC did the design review since he did not think it is a historic building. Ms. Adams replied that the building is in a historic district and they decided HPC would do the design review for the whole parcel including commercial design review and major development review for a historic district. Mr. Gibbs questioned the 2 units proposed to be 3,750 square feet and 2 units at 3,400 square feet for a total of 14,300 square feet. He is confused how we got to 11,000 proposed. Ms.Adams replied that net 6 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission October 15, 2013 livable counts the space in the basement but floor area does not count basement space. Mr. Gibbs commented that there needs to be more creativity and the units seem way oversized compared to what the code allows. Mr. Gibbs noted that he lives in the area and has seen way too much denigration of the Victorian characteristic of the neighborhood. He said that this building belongs downtown not in a historic district. Mr.Gibbs said he does not have any particular comments on the hotel side but the free market side is imposing. He reiterated his concern of the size of the units and how they are driving development on Bleeker Street. Mr. Erspamer noted that he strongly disagrees with HPCs thought of using modern contemporary in a historic district instead of having Victorians next to historic ones. Ms.Adams noted that the HPC guidelines recommend against any type of fake architecture/faux Victorian. They want a regular person to know what is truly old and what is not. Mr. Goode said that this building does not look cohesive to this neighborhood. Mr. Clauson stated that the historic preservation guidelines suggest a building should be of its own time. He also pointed out that the R6 zone district is not a historic district. Ms.Tygre commented that she is concerned with the size of the units. She also stated she is having a philosophical problem with the two underlying zone districts. She noted half of the property should have a residential zone district. Ms.Tygre stated there are two different underlying zone districts and they should be used. This way the residential part of the project could be evaluated based on residential criteria. She stated she is having a hard time applying lodge criteria to a residential building. Mr. Gibbs noted that P&Z doesn't have the criteria to make those decisions but they do have the criteria to change the underlying zone. He agrees with Ms.Tygre. Mr. Walterscheid also commented that R6 permits duplexes and detached duplexes and he is curious, based on the lot size, as to what size of house could be built if it were two duplexes. Mr. Myrin wanted to know for next time a little more about how the HPC and P&Z decisions get resolved if they are conflicting. At 6:10 Ms.Tygre made a motion to continue the public hearing for 110 W. Main St, Hotel Aspen on November 19th. seconded by Mr. Myrin. All in favor, motion carried. At 6:12 Mr. Myrin made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Erspamer. All in favor, motion carried. r tv&k Linda Manning 7