Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20190122Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 22, 2019 1 Staff Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Commission Comments ................................................................................................................................ 2 Minutes ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Public Comment not on the Agenda ............................................................................................................. 2 222 S Cleveland St - Special Review – Replacement of an ADU ................................................................... 2 331-338 Midland Ave – Aspen Hills – Growth Management and Associated Reviews ................................ 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 22, 2019 2 At 4:30 p.m.; Spencer McKnight called the regular meeting to order with Commissioners Skippy Mesirow, Rally Dupps, Teraissa McGovern and Scott Marcaux present. Ruth Carver arrived a few minutes later. Also present were Andrea Bryan and Linda Manning. Staff Comments Ms. Bryan noted that she is here for now but will need to be in the council work session. She will step out but if an issue arises and you need an attorney Jim is across the hall and will come in. Jennifer Phelan, community development, said for 222 Cleveland there is a request to continue. Chris Bendon, representing the applicant, stated the principal had a knee procedure yesterday and asked to reschedule. Mr. Mesirow said he will need to recuse himself for that meeting and will not be voting to continue. Commission Comments None. Minutes Ms. McGovern moved to approve the minutes from January 15, 2019; seconded by Mr. Dupps. All in favor, motion carried. Public Comment not on the Agenda None. 222 S Cleveland St - Special Review – Replacement of an ADU Mr. Dupps moved to continue to March 19, 2019; seconded by Ms. McGovern. All in favor, motion carried. 331-338 Midland Ave – Aspen Hills – Growth Management and Associated Reviews Mr. McKnight recused himself. Ms. McGovern opened the public hearing. Garrett Larimar, community development, told the Commission the property is located in the RMF zone district and located outside the infill area. There was an approval in 2017 that was granted for a certificate of affordable housing credit program. There were renovations to the existing 8 unit free market residential building that were going to bring the units up to APCHA standards. Some of that work is carried forward to the 8 unit existing structure. If this request is approved, the 2017 resolution will be nullified. Ms. Carver entered the meeting. The current redevelopment proposal includes a 14 unit mix of free market and residential units. There are 8 affordable housing units and 6 free market units. The extent of the renovation triggered demolition requiring additional reviews. Since the last meeting, the applicant has considered the comments regarding special review and has revised the proposal. They bumped out the exterior walls so the upper level has larger net livable and additional storage above the carports. They also added light tubes to address natural light. They eliminated the compact parking spaces. The lower level has access to Midland Avenue. There are 8 parking spaces for the affordable housing units in the covered carport, trash and a shared garage for the free market and 3 additional parking spots. He explained the interior circulation between the existing affordable housing and the free market. Units 2 through 6 continue two levels above grade. Working up to the third level above grade Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 22, 2019 3 then the roof decks for the free market. He showed the elevation views. The applicant, when submitted, requested interpolated grade request. We reviewed the survey and accepted the interpolated grade. The land use reviews required include growth management review, affordable housing multi family demolition and replacement. There is a special review for replacement of non conforming structures and below grade condition of the affordable housing units. There is a dimensional variance for the south setback. RDS review and approval is required. Parking and transportation is included as one of the reviews. Referral agencies include building, zoning, transportation and engineering and the APCHA board. APCHA saw this on September 19 and considered it with the below grade condition of affordable housing and reduced size of the two bedroom units. They recommended in favor of the project with the condition of a provision of additional storage. The applicant has included overhead storage in the carport in response to APCHAs request. Growth management review. The criteria for general review has two items that are not met. Below grade condition of the affordable housing units. 50% or more of each unit net livable as measured by finished grade must be above grade. Development conformance does not comply. They are requesting to replace a non conforming structure in the setback. Affordable housing deals with for sale or for rent. APCHA recommendation is to provide a mix. The application complies with the standard. Multi family demolition and replacement. There are three options to comply. They have chosen 100 percent replacement. They took 8 free market units and demolished them. They need to replace with 8 affordable housing units. The application complies with this. He showed an image of the existing 8 unit structure. The existing structure is within the setback and over the property line. They are requesting to replace the existing structure and maintain the non conformities. Replacement of non conforming structure review criteria has five main elements 1 – dimensional requirements of the zone district is met. Because of the location of the existing structure in the setback staff finds this to not be met. 2 – address whether there are unique or special characteristic that differentiates the site from others in the zone district –staff finds this to not be met. 3 - are there dimensional variations increased. Because they are not increasing the amount of non conforming structure in the setback staff finds this met. 4 – is the minimum variance allowed that will make possible reasonable use of the property – staff believes the variance is not necessary to allow for reasonable use and the criteria is not met. 5 – literal enforcement of the dimensional requirements would cause unnecessary hardship by prohibiting reasonable use of the property – staff finds this is not met. All need to be met to satisfy the review criteria. Staff finds this is not met. The next special review item is the below grade affordable housing condition. 50% or more of the finished floor needs to be above natural grade. Natural grade is above both the lower level and the upper level so for units A7 and A8, as measured by the code, they are 100% below grade and require special review. Originally when the application was considered at the first hearing all 8 units were subject to special review. The applicant has revised the floor plan to increase the net livable of the upper level. On the perimeter of the existing structure the applicant has bumped out the wall to increase that above grade ratio. The walls were not moved within the setback. The special review criteria that address the 50% below grade condition state the units need to be above the minimum net livable as required by APCHA guidelines. They are not, and staff finds that to be not met. The amount of each unit below grade is an appropriate response to natural or finished grade. Staff found that this is met. Lastly the proposed units exceed APCHA guidelines to promote livability by providing significant storage, above average natural light, unit sizes must exceed the minimum in the guidelines and unit amenities are provided such as outdoor living spaces, patios and lighting. The revisions the applicant has made addressing natural light with the proposed sky lights and light tubes addresses natural light and significant additional storage has been provided. Staff remains concerned at the usability and functionality of that storage. The last two have not been met. Unit sizes for the two bedrooms are below the unit size and unit amenities have not been provided. All three of the conditions have to be met to satisfy the affordable housing unit standard review criteria and they are not. Staff found special review to be not met. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 22, 2019 4 Moving to the dimensional variance for the development in the setback. This is the garage level and lower level plan. The code states that parking is not allowed in the setback unless there is vehicular access off an alley, the alley abuts the property or has otherwise been approved by the city. There is no alley that abuts the property. Vehicular access has been approved off the street, so a dimensional variance is required to allow the 4 parking spaces to remain in the setback. Ms. Phelan stated the board can do this through a site specific approval. Right now, the parking spaces go to the property line and sit within the 5 foot setback that is required. Mr. Larimer stated staff is concerned that there is significant retainage that is required because of this. The approximate level of grade for the parking floor is 79.55. There is roughly 5 feet of retainage required in the setback. The review criteria contains three pieces. All three circumstances must exist. The variance needs to be consistent with the purposes, goals and objectives of the code. Staff has found that is not met. The minimal variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel. Staff feels that a variance is not required to make reasonable use and is therefore not met. Literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of rights other property owners enjoy causing unnecessary hardship distinguished from mere inconveniences. Staff has found that literal interpretation of the requirements would not deprive the applicant of rights others in the zone district are required to comply with and is not met. The board shall consider are there special conditions unique to the parcel that do not result from the actions of the applicant and would granting a variance not provide special privilege to the applicant that is denied to other property owners. Staff believes item 3 is not met. Parking and transportation will be reviewed administratively, and the application complies with the number of parking spaces and size of spaces. They have shown multiple options for meeting the TIA requirements. RDS complies with all the requirements and is being included in a combined review for efficiency. Staff feels the proposal should comply with the requirements of the land use code and request additional changes to comply with code. Mr. Mesirow asked were we always expecting to see the free market come back. Ms. Phelan said the first project is a stand alone project. That is what is approved. This application combines both. Mr. Mesirow said saving the 8 free market as affordable and allowing the additional development to occur. Ms. Phelan said the ability to do the free market is by doing the affordable housing and rehabbing the existing building. Mr. Mesirow said other than allowing for that, the dimensions have not changed. Ms. Carver asked would they find another source of affordable housing elsewhere. Ms. Phelan said the actual requirements of the multi family replacement program emphases the majority of the affordable housing should be onsite. P&Z could determine there are too many units on site and some could be provided off site. Mr. Marcoux asked are there a lot of properties in the set back. Ms. Phelan replied you do see projects depending on age that may have variations. They do exist but can’t be expanded. This is a bit different. They trigger our demo requirement and are expected to bring everything in to conformance. Mr. Mesirow asked the foundation will remain. Mr. Bendon replied yes. Applicant Chris Bendon, representing Aspen Hills Investors and architect Michael Edinger. Mr. Bendon said it is a strange property line where the property was subdivided prior to the county subdivision standards being adopted. The project was approved with a phase 2 in mind. Phase 1 is the existing 8 units. Phase 2 is 6 multi family free market units. Our requirement is to replace with RO. We have offered to provide 5 at a category 5 level. Changes from the last conversation. On parking, the last application had 3 compact spaces. We moved them to 8 full size spaces. We are interested in exploring single car elevators for the free market parking stalls. If we pursue these we would like them to count as parking for the units. The next is the issue of above grade below grade square footage on the net livable. The units are traditional stacked style. We could make some small bump outs to the two bedroom units Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 22, 2019 5 and the two one bedroom units that are oversized would be decreased and we would meet the ratios. Instead of doing that we took the upper floor and pushed all the walls out. There are additional structural costs and complications, but we feel confident we can do it. The second item is unit 7 and 8, because of where they exist on the property, the grade makes the units below grade. We are asking for special review approval on that. Mr. Edinger stated had the existing grade been used for measurement as opposed to natural then all the units would comply. It is a historic line that doesn’t exist. It is more conceptual than anything else. Mr. Bendon said the next item is replacement of the building within the setbacks. The existing deck is within the setback. At the last meeting you asked us to do a little better with the amenities. He showed images of the units. The additional amenities are the light tubes to bring more natural light into the building. Secondly, is the additional storage as requested by the housing board. One area where there is room is above the car parking. Regarding the wall being above the 30 inch requirement, we have proposed an amendment to that. He showed the trash area and the area behind it as no man’s land. They pulled the wall away from the trash and lowered it. It will be at or lower than the 30 inch rule. They feel confident that it meets the 30 inch. The prohibition on parking within the setback. Parking may occur in the required setback if it is within an established driveway or parking area and the curb cut or vehicular access if from an alleyway, if an alleyway abuts the property or has been otherwise approved by the city. It can happen it if is in an established area. The second precedent is the curb cut or access is in an alley way or approved by the city. Staff reads it differently than I do. I have never seen this come up that you can’t park in your setback. Staff reads the otherwise approved by the city means a variance. Secondly, I looked at recent affordable housing projects. There are three the city just did, 7th and Main. There is no parking on the site, it is on Main St, competing with street parking. It complies with the standard that there is no parking in the setback but there is no parking what so ever. The second is the Park Circle project. There is parking in the setback but there is no mention of this standard. You could say it is the otherwise approved thing because it was approved. The next is the 488 Castle Creek property. All the parking is in the setback. It is a similar argument. It was never talked about in the application. It is in the setback, there is no variance. It is kind of a jay walking clause. If it is an issue there are tools to address it. I don’t think it has ever come up. I think there are equity arguments as to how it has been applied to other properties in the past. We do better on the unit sizes then the 488 project. We look at the parking language and if you think we need a variance give us one. We are the first applicant where this has come up. If you feel it could fall in to the otherwise approved we are happy to hear that. We think we have a very good project that complies with the parking, heights and density and repurposes a building that otherwise serves as second homes. We are not moving the building. We are doing substantial rehab to the building. We don’t have the ability to pick up the building and move it out of the setback. The above grade below grade is basically an existing condition. The top level is above and bottom below. We think we have a good project and would like to move forward. Mr. Dupps said the parking is an issue. I participated in 2 of the 3 projects Chris mentioned and don’t remember any variances. Ms. Phelan stated they are PD’s and site specific approvals. The Main project has a requirement has an 18 foot requirement if any future development were to happen it is to remain empty. The 488 is also a PD and site specific. It is a road with a buffer and will eventually have a trail. There is some buffering, the purpose of a setback and the project. Mr. Dupps asked is this a new policy decision. Ms. Phelan said we’ve certainly talked about parking. Mr. Bendon said I’ve never seen it in the record. Ms. Phelan said we’ve talked about it in the west end. Mr. Marcoux asked did you discuss with engineering if you can shift the 8 units over the foundation so you won’t have to demo it. Mr. Edinger replied we have a signed letter that says it’s feasible. Mr. Marcoux asked can you still use the foundation. Mr. Edinger said the existing roof will remain as it but be modified. The entire foundation will remain but be modified. I’m just going to frame out new exterior walls and attach them to the existing foundation. Mr. Larimer replied the renovations to the roof will Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 22, 2019 6 trigger demolition. Mr. Edinger said we have great interest in keeping the existing building and rehabbing it. Mr. Mesirow asked what is the total number of parking required. Mr. Bendon replied 26. Mr. Mesirow said you are not suggesting moving them over to the elevator. Ms. Phelan said the code says you can do a special review if multi family residential does not share a common parking area. Mr. Bendon said ultimately we think it is good for the neighborhood if we can get the discount. Mr. Edinger said it certainly helps the overall parking in the neighborhood. Mr. Bendon said mitigation is $38,000 per space. Mr. Mesirow asked how did you get to the category 5 opposed to other categories. Mr. Bendon said it is a subsidy on our half to give then to APCHA versus RO. Mr. Mesirow asked what happens to the other 3 when they sell. Mr. Bendon said there is a provision in the APCHA approval where if the 5 are rental and the hospital owns them and rents them. When the 3 owners decide to sell, AVH would have first right to migrate them to their units. Mr. Mesirow said the finished project would still have the floor above actual grade. Mr. Bendon replied correct. Ms. McGovern opened the public comment. 1. Judy Kolberg stated she lives in midland park and no matter what happens I will be affected by this. There is more wrong than right with this project. Two areas of concern, affordable housing and the RMF zone. I live in affordable housing and I’m grateful for the program. 26.710.090 – RMF and 26.710.110 AH PD are of concern. I’m concerned with the setback, height and minimum distance between buildings. 9 parking spaces are unaccounted for. 2. Sara Garten also a resident at midland park. The review for non conforming structure number 5 states unnecessary hardship by prohibiting unreasonable use of the property. I agree that the applicant is asking for unreasonable use. I support staff. The applicant wants to cram too much into a small box. 3. Cindy Houben, midland park resident said there are only 16 parking spaces along the street. 3 in the winter are not plowed to park. At 5:30 in the morning 9 spaces were available. With this project and 404 Park there are 54 bedrooms there and 30 some here and a lack of parking by 50 spaces. That is a lot for this neighborhood. We have one per bedroom. The applicant has a great idea with the lift. Until the parking is resolved it is premature. It is not in compliance with the AACP that talks about compatibility and parking. 4. Pam Cunningham lives at midland park and agrees with her fellow commenters. Ms. McGovern closed the public comment. Ms. Phelan said she wants to be clear on the two projects. The original was for category 3 affordable housing credits. They are different projects. This is multi family replacement and allows for RO units. They are slightly different projects. Mr. Bendon said we hear a lot from the neighborhood about parking concerns. We support a better way to manage parking on the street. This is not a PD. Judy was siting some things from the PD section of the code. It does not apply. We either meet the code or you don’t. We meet the code. We agree with the neighborhood sentiment. We have a good project and a good offer to make them category 5. It is unique. We feel we meet the standards. Commissioner comment. Ms. McGovern said we asked for a study of the parking. Originally it showed compact spaces and we asked for full size. On the 50% below grade we asked for work on that. On the amenity they added the storage and solar tubes. They are considered a full demo. Ms. Carver said I think the applicants worked very hard to make this work. I think we worked hard to make this work. I’ve been thinking what Kelly pointed out. This is a demolition not just a remodel. My Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 22, 2019 7 major setback is we are trying to save a building that should not be saved because of the setbacks. It is over 50 years old. The setbacks are the big negative and you can’t change that. Mr. Mesirow said we talk a lot about hardship. There is tremendous value about finding ways to save these free market affordable units. Ms. McGovern said to do the development they are required to replace the existing. Mr. Dupps said one of the things I love to see it to take a structure and work with is instead of knock it down. The setbacks have been there for 50 plus years and everyone has been fine with it. I see no reason to change it now. Mr. Mesirow said on the setbacks, parking and wall I can get there. The amenity and knowing you have asked for more. All the free market have rooftop areas. Could some of that make its way to the affordable housing side. Ms. McGovern said to me light tubes are lovely but a snub in your nose. The storage is not significant and unusable. I don’t think it provides any outdoor amenity. Mr. Mesirow said I think all storage has value. Ms. McGovern said I don’t think it is sufficient amenity. Mr. Dupps said I disagree. The units are already pretty nice. The additional light and storage meet the standard. Ms. McGovern said my bigger issue is the affordable housing guidelines say you have to meet all. Ms. Carver said if you go over there cars are parked right up against the fence. Mr. Dupps said I’m not sure who to go with on the parking in the setback. I’m happy to grant a variance if one is needed. Ms. McGovern said she would like to see more amenity. Ms. Carver said she changed her mind to a no vote. Mr. Dupps said I’m there. Mr. Marcoux said he would like to see more amenity. Mr. Bendon said there are a few things we explored. There is an area in the back where we can provide storage units for the 8 units. There is value in hearing that APCHA was happy with this. The reason we are hesitant on the car lifts is it is not necessarily an engineering question it is more of a cost question. We just haven’t got to that level. We could explore it on the affordable housing units. I’m a little concerned on their exposure. For the parking in the setbacks I’m not hearing huge pushbacks. I understand Ruth’s position that this is a demo, but we have a building we are trying to save. We are searching for amenities we are trying to provide. If the storage moves the needle that would be great. Mr. Edinger said most people in the affordable housing system in the multiple bedroom scenario would have multiple cars and the elevator might be a desirable element. We also failed to mention that the light well got expanded for each of the units downstairs. That will feel more like a garden level open space. Mr. Mesirow asked can you speak to the potential of using the green roof to the affordable housing units. Mr. Edinger said we haven’t done a study to the access. It might be a challenge as to how you get up there. Mr. Bendon said we are trying to preserve the outdoor balconies. Mr. Dupps said APCHA has given their blessing. Ms. McGovern said we have a different code than what APCHA reviews to. Mr. Dupps said I was on APCHA before P&Z. That was one of our purviews. They approved it. I don’t think it is my position to undo what they have said. Ms. McGovern said staff has also brought up if granting the variance for parking in the setback would be an undue privilege. Mr. Mesirow said I can get to yes. The outdoor amenity is where it could be improved but I could get to yes. Mr. Dupps said if you want to have them look at a green roof option they would need to continue this. I don’t think we should redesign their project. They would have shown it if they wanted it. Ms. McGovern said I’m not a yes today. We have 3 no’s and 2 yes’s. Mr. Bendon said for the parking in the setback, we have a plan where we could relocate the parking and drop 2 spaces. If that gets you to a yes, we can show it to you. Ultimately, we need as much parking as we can put on the property. Our desire is what you see in front of you even if it is in the setback. Ms. McGovern said my biggest thing is the affordable housing units don’t exceed the guidelines. I don’t think the storage is sufficient. They don’t exceed the minimum sizes for the two bedrooms. Moving the walls out make the existing balconies smaller. Mr. Edinger said from my standpoint what would be important to me, has been focused on what meets code. If we were to add in 2 elevators to the affordable housing units closest to the structure and the rear storage that would be reasonable. Ms. McGovern said I would like to see the rear storage. A landscaped area. Mr. Bendon said I think we hear the commission pretty clearly. There are strong positions that we are clear on. We can’t guarantee we will come back with a rooftop deck. It is worth us looking at. We will have to look at getting rid of the building in the setbacks. We would like to continue this meeting. We have a desire to get to resolution quickly. Mr. Mesirow said Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 22, 2019 8 I would love to see this project get to yes. The next time this project comes here my yes vote will not be here. Mr. Marcoux said I just want to see consistent across the board with neighborhoods. He asked about underground storage for each unit. Mr. Marcoux moved to continue the hearing for 331-338 Midland Avenue to February 5, 2019; seconded by Mr. Mesirow. All in favor, motion carried. At 6:30 p.m.; Mr. Dupps moved to adjourn; seconded by Ms. Carver. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk