Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20150519 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING May 19, 2015 4:30 PM Sister Cities Room 130 S Galena St, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. March 17, 2015 Minutes B. April 7, 2015 Minutes V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 200 S. Aspen St, Hotel Lenado, Planned Development (Continued from April 7, 2015) VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Code Amendment - Elevators in Commercial / Mixed-Use Buildings B. Code Amendment - Certificates of Affordable Housing C. Code Amendment - Timeshare D. Code Amendment - CC / C-1 Clarifications E. Code Amendment - Land Use Code Applicability VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 9 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of ap plicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015 1 Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members, Jasmine Tygre, Stan Gibbs, Keith Goode, Skippy Mesirow, and Kelly McNicholas. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn and Jennifer Phelan. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan stated the City election is scheduled for May 5th. Staff is asking to reschedule on May 12 th in Council Chambers or May 26 th in Sister Cities. After discussion, it was decided to reschedule on May 26 th . Ms. Phelan then informed P&Z the runoff election (if necessary) will be held on June 2 nd . She asked to reschedule them meeting to June 23 rd or June 30 th . After discussion, it was decided to reschedule the meeting until June 30 th . PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES – February 17, 2015: Ms. Tygre moved to approve the February 17 th minutes as provided, seconded by Mr. Goode. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. Public Hearing – 200 S Aspen St (Hotel Lenado) – Planned Development Mr. Walterscheid opened the public hearing for 200 S Aspen St (Hotel Lenado) – Planned Development. Ms. Quinn stated she has an affidavit of public notice indicating notice was published, posted and mailed within the necessary timeframe. However, the notice did not include a reference to the special review for the design of affordable housing units and a variation on height. The applicant will be supplementing the public notice and will be approved at the April 7 th meeting. It is sufficient to start, but she stated additional public comment may be received at the April 7 th meeting and P&Z will not be able to make a decision at tonight’s meeting to allow for public comment on the supplemented notice. Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, stated the Hotel Lenado is a planned development review application submitted by DCBD2 LLC. The applicant is requesting to demolish and reconstruct the hotel which requires a number of approvals and recommendations provided by the board. P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015 2 The existing hotel is a 100% lodge project made up of 17 lodge units and 19 keys. It was approved as a redevelopment and an expansion of the Edelweiss Lodge in the early 1980’s. The hotel also has two affordable housing units associated with it and six parking spaces. The current proposal is to develop a mixed use development containing three free market residential units, eight lodge units for a total of nine keys, two affordable housing units and two parking spaces. The proposal also increases the size of the building. To develop the project, the applicant is requesting a number of land use reviews. The applicant needs a conceptual commercial design review for the development of the building so there are design standards related to commercial lodging and mixed use buildings in town. They are requesting a number of special reviews including one to memorialize the parking ratio for the lodge component and another to allow for an increase in the floor area of the lodge component. A third special review is needed for variations from the affordable housing design standards. They are also requesting multiple growth management reviews for the development of the lodge, the new free market units and the affordable housing units. P&Z will be the final review on all reviews mentioned so far. The planned development review will be a recommendation from P&Z to city council. This will include the conceptual design for the project including the massing, scale and how the project is located on the lot. City Council will then review the project based on the recommendation from P&Z. If approval is granted for the conceptual design, the final design including materials, glazing and other details will be reviewed by P&Z. The property is located on 9,000 sf lot on the corner of S Aspen St and Hopkins Ave. The property is located in a mixed use zoned district with a lodge preservation overlay. In reviewing what will be included on each floor of the project, there is a fully subgrade basement that will contain essentially free market with some mechanical and storage. The entry is garden level due to the site topography. This level contains two affordable housing units, a portion of the free market units, a parking garage, mud room and a front desk. The second story which is above grade, contains six lodge units and amenity space associated with the lodge. According to the application, this area is available to all lodge users. The third story contains two lodge units with a total of three keys and amenity space. There is also access to the rooftop which has a deck and amenities. The growth management review will allocate allotments to ensure the appropriate amount of the affordable housing mitigation. This project proposes to replace the current number of lodge units with fewer lodge units. The applicant does not need additional allotment because they are decreasing the number of units. Staff calculated the required allotments for the new project and the requirement is 1.62 employees. For the free market component, the requirement is 5.49 employees. The total mitigation requirement is 7.11 employees. The existing lodge has two affordable housing units on site. When a multi-family building containing affordable housing units is demolished, the code requires the affordable units to be replaced onsite. Currently onsite there is a one bedroom unit and a two bedroom unit. The applicant is proposing to replace the two units with the same configuration to meet the replacement requirement. These units will house four employees. The balance of 3.11 employees is requested to be provided as offsite affordable housing or in the form of certificates of affordable housing credit. P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015 3 Based on the land use code, the income level of the units can be at a category four unless the applicant decides to go to a lower income category. The Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) has recommended lower income categories which is slightly different from the land use code. This recommendation is optional for the applicant. APCHA is also recommending these be rental units. Staff is recommending the one bedroom unit be a rental unit, but the two bedroom unit be a for sale unit. APCHA recommends approval of the affordable housing units. Staff has concerns the size of the units do not meet the minimal size requirements for category four. Staff would prefer the applicant review the size of the units to consider making them larger. The conceptual commercial design review would lock in the size and height of the building as well as the placement of the building on the lot. This property is considered in the design standards to be in a small lodge character area. With this type of area, there are some key objectives with the development: 1. Be compatible with the neighborhood 2. Create a distinct lodge experience with being in the neighborhood 3. Enhance the street edge 4. Minimize the impact of cars The neighborhood context is one that is becoming more residential. There is a row of Victorians along Hopkins Ave including some landmark properties. A park exists on the eastern border of the property. Across the street to the west there is Paepcke Park as well as the beginning of a residential neighborhood including single family homes. Across the alley is the Park Central West Condominiums which is a mix of multi-family residential and includes a commercial component towards the end of the block. Across the street towards E Hyman Ave is the Hearthstone House Lodge which is a designated landmark. Some of the key reviews for conceptual design are related to the street and alley system, the public amenity space, building height, building placement, and mass and scale. In reviewing the guidelines for the project, staff feels the project needs to address the surrounding character through more height modulation, breaking up of the building into separate modules and forms. The project is proposing a flat roof structure where a lot of the neighboring rooflines have some form of a gable roof. Adding a gable roof may be one method of breaking up the mass. With regards to the street and alley system, there is no closing of any of the right of ways so the project meets the criteria. One of the criteria states parking should be underground, but if it is at street level, it should be toward the rear of the property and screened. Staff feels some additional thought should be considered for the parking. Staff feels the parking should be set back further on the lot and screened more. With regard to public amenity space, staff feels there should more consideration of the design to reflect the transition of the character of the neighborhood and attempt to retain more front yards especially in reference to the properties across the street on Hopkins Ave. The design should also be looked at to encourage more outdoor use. In regards to the building, staff feels the design should be reconsidered to address the flat roof. It does not relate well to the neighborhood and the lacks significant modulation of the form. P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015 4 From a neighborhood context, staff feels the massing of the building is a bit large. The request is to have an allowance of 32 ft in height. This could be approved in the commercial design which has a baseline of 28 ft. In regards to staff’s concern regarding how this design fits with the neighborhood, staff does not support an increase in height from 28 to 32 ft. Other requests from the project which are associated mostly with planned development include the following. Request for reduction in off street parking . APCHA has requested two off street parking spaces with the parking requirements associated with the lodge. Today with the nine keys provided for the site, the parking requirement would be 4.5 spaces. The two affordable housing and three free market require one space per unit for a total of 9.5 spaces. The code allows for the applicant to pay cash in lieu for all the residential requirement of 5 spaces and any fractional of a unit (.5). The applicant is proposing to pay cash in lieu for 5.5 off street spaces. The requirement would be the remainder of 4 spaces. Special review looks at whether the neighborhood can absorb the additional parking and if how the on street parking is utilized. Staff feel all 4 spaces should be required on site. Request for setbacks in two areas . As a corner lot, the city requires the longest block face to be the front yard according to the land use code which is Hopkins Ave in this case. The setback requirements is to allow for 10 ft from the property line. The existing building is approximately seven ft from the property line. The rear yard setback is five ft. The side yard which is both Aspen St and the Francis Whitaker Park. The applicant is requesting setback allowances on Hopkins Ave to allow for the projection of window wells, balconies and the building wall. On the alley, they are requesting a zero setback for the trash enclosure. On Aspen St the applicant is requesting to allow the window well to be in the setback. Staff does not support the requested variances and is concerned about protecting the trees along Hopkins Ave during excavation. Staff recommends the hearing to be continued to allow for substantial restudy and changes to occur. Staff does not believe the current mass, scale and height are complimentary to the neighborhood context and recommend reductions in height, floor area and create a more modulated building to the required setbacks with the off street parking requirements and restudy the onsite affordable housing units. Staff would also like to see story poles installed on the site to better understand the height and how the proposed development relates to the existing structure. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions for Staff. Mr. Gibbs asked for clarification on the fourth bullet item on p 17. It appears staff is recommending the height to be increased from 28 to 32 ft. Ms. Phelan stated the item should include a “not”. Staff does not support the increase in height. Ms. McNicholas asked why Community Development is recommending something different from APCHA’s recommendation. Ms. Phelan replied P&Z is the decision making body and the land use code discusses units being for sale or for rent. Staff does not feel the design of the unit meets the intent of the APCHA guidelines which includes size requirements. Ms. McNicholas asked about the categorization P4 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015 5 of the units. Ms. Phelan replied the categorization is a voluntary option for the applicant. APCHA cannot require the applicant to go down to a category one or two. The code requires category four unless the applicant offers to lower the category. Ms. Tygre asked if the values provided in the chart define what is allowed based on the mixed use district. Ms. Phelan responded yes to her question and added with the lodge preservation overlay, typically if a use is permitted, the underlying zone is used. If the property is a lodge, the applicant may ask for variations from the underlying zone requirement. Mr. Mesirow asked if there was anything in the code that speaks or clarifies the acceptance of the move from an exclusive lodge units to less lodge units and the addition of free market. Ms. Phelan replied there currently isn’t anything in the code regarding density changes. Mr. Mesirow asked if the request for a height increase is strictly discretionary or are there specific uses it should be used for if allotted. Ms. Phelan stated via the commercial design standards and in P&Z’s evaluation of the project in regards to mass and scale, the commission can say it makes sense to allow the increase in height to a portion of the project. She added it is discretionary and not required to allow. Ms. McNicholas asked if staff’s recommendation is based on 32 ft being out of character with the neighborhood. Ms. Phelan confirmed this and stated with the flat roof form, it creates a boxier look to the building which they do not feel is in character with the neighborhood. Mr. Goode asked if the existing on site employee housing are rentals or for sale. Ms. Phelan was not sure but stated she could follow up. Mr. Walterscheid then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Stan Clauson with Stan Clauson and Associates represents the applicant for this proposal. He is joined by Steev Wilson and Jamie Matz of Forum Phi. Mr. Clauson provided a review of the project. The project replaces an existing building with a building code compliant building including ADA accessibility (not currently available) and additional building standards for design and energy efficiency. The redeveloped lodge proposes nine total lodge rooms averaging 571 sf of net livable per unit. There are three free market residential units and two onsite affordable housing units. He emphasized they have been reviewed and approved by APCHA. There will be a new detached sidewalk along Aspen St and Hopkins Ave where currently there is none. There are enhanced public amenity spaces and large communal spaces provided within the building allowing both the lodge and residential occupants to mingle. Offsite parking options are currently being explored and they don’t have a specific proposal at this time. The lodge floor area is 8,633 sf. Through special review the floor area may be increased to 9,000 sf. The affordable housing area is 1,753 sf. The free market area is 4,279 sf and allowed up to 4,500 sf per the zoned district. The accumulative floor area is 14,665 sf and the allowed area is 18,000 sf. There is an emphasis on lodge floor area consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). The affordable P5 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015 6 units are appropriate according to APCHA. The free market is appropriate in regards to the floor area and actually less than the allowable floor area. He stated some of the lodges in town have come to the end of their functional life. This lodge has been renovated once and has come to the end of its functional life. The current lodge is not ADA accessible and does not meet the criteria from lodging guests. Clicker sessions were recently held and they all favored supporting expansion to the lodging base like this particular project. They recommended the City go out of its way to support lodging development. The requested special reviews include: • An increase to the lodging floor area to .96:1 where 1:1 is permitted by special review • A reduction in off street parking, cash in lieu for residential spaces including 5.5 spaces. Parking needs to be decreased from the existing by the site. The site does not utilize the available floor area per zoning on the site. Alternative methods of transportation exist right outside the door and the building is in close proximity to the downtown core. Site constraints make it so it is not practical. • The affordable housing finished floor is slightly below the natural grade. The code requires a special review approval if more than 50% of the finished floor area is below natural or finished grade. The proposed floor is just inches below the grade. The requested planned development setback variances include: • The front yard on Hopkins would not typically be considered a front yard or entrance to the building. They are asking for a five ft variance to allow for balconies and window wells. • The side yard on Aspen St would be the front of the building and they are asking for a zero ft setback. This represents a considerable reduction in the window well that is currently there. • The setback for the trash enclosure would be right up against the enclosure. A map of the Hotel Lenado and surrounding was then displayed and reviewed with the commission. Mr. Clauson pointed out the surrounding business buildings including the Park Central West Condominiums and noted the buildings are commercial and in nature generally flat roofed buildings. He also pointed out although there are Victorians in the first four lots on Hopkins, the buildings on the corner are commercial in nature and have flat roofs. In general, if you look at the block in which the hotel sits, flat roofed three story buildings are the rule rather than the exception. Pictures of the existing hotel were then displayed. The existing window well was pointed out and the roof form. Pictures of the proposed building was then displayed. The public amenity space is increased to 19.3% of the lot which is up from 14.8%. The applicant is working closely with the Parks Department to accommodate drainage and preservation of the cottonwood trees along Hopkins Ave. Right now there is no sidewalk along Hopkins and there are some very mature cottonwood trees. The engineering department wants to see a sidewalk along Hopkins Ave and the Parks Department is okay with a sidewalk but does not want it to impact the trees. There is some extensive work being done to place the P6 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015 7 sidewalk above the root system of the various trees. This is resulting in some steep entrances on that side of the building. The window wells were pointed out visually and they are proposing spacing the window wells between the existing trees. A picture of the proposed building viewed from the northwest corner was displayed. A lower level floor plan was then displayed. The applicant described what is proposed for each level of the hotel. The window wells are entirely within a five ft setback from the property line. The foundation wall itself is entirely within the existing location of the building. The subgrade patio is greatly reduced in size from the existing cut in the area. The amount of storage for the affordable housing units was pointed out as being about 113 sf of accessory storage for the units. On the entry level, there is public amenity space including the entry, lodge storage and a pull in ADA van accessible parking space. The parking space provides a direct connection to elevator access. The parking ramp is screened and there is another parking space off the alley with landscape screening. The next level up includes laundry facilities, a communal gathering space for both the affordable housing residents, the lodge units and the free market units. On the top level there are lodging units and additional lounge area with a kitchen. The roof top level contains mechanical, a green roof, hot tub and a communal gathering area. During an open house there was concern expressed from neighbors across the alley of noise generated from the roof. The roof top deck is only available to the users of the building. After hearing some concerns the roof top was modified to remove the stair tower to decrease the view intrusion. The tower did not exceed the allowable 10 ft. The rooftop mechanical has been relocated and replaced with a green roof. Mr. Clauson then pointed out the location of the lowest point of the lot which makes it the highest point of the building. The other corners are 29.7 ft and 29.5 – 29.9 in the back by the park. The elevator and stairs created overruns of 37.9 ft. The revised configuration only includes the elevator which is required for ADA compliance. The 32 ft is at the most extreme corner and the other corners are right over 27 ft. Additional height study pictures included in the packet showed other buildings in neighborhood at peak level including the following. The heights are consistent with the proposed roof heights. • The existing Lenado – 34 ft and has a busy roof line with isolated elements • Good Thunder condos – 33 ft • The Limelight P7 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015 8 • The Carver residence • Park Central West condos – 31 ft at peak with no gable roof forms Then an advantage was shown as taken from Paepcke Park, looking north on Aspen St, looking east from the alley, west from the alley towards Aspen St, looking southwest from Hopkins next to the park. He pointed to the contextual nature of the proposed development. He also pointed out a significant unresolved condition related to the slope from Francis Whitaker Park presently floods the property where the Lenado has a semi-subgrade set of windows for some of its rooms. They are also working with the Parks Department to resolve this issue. He stated out the proposed structure is a contemporary building with a lot of modulation. He closed by reviewing the small lodge character area design objectives and how the proposed project addresses the objectives as identified on p 80 of the packet. Mr. Walterscheid asked the commission for questions of the applicant. Ms. Tygre asked if the free market units will be in the rental pool and will be managed as part of the hotel. Mr. Matz replied it is possible, but the applicant has not fully decided at this time. Ms. Phelan stated it is a requirement to have onsite management. Mr. Clauson stated there is onsite management with a front desk. Mr. Goode asked when they were looking at the height of current building at the 31 ft at the top of the gable or another location. Mr. Clauson stated the measurement was from the peak of the gable even though the code defines the measurement from the one third or one half point. Ms. McNicholas asked Ms. Phelan if there are requirements for the parking spaces to have a setback from the alley. Ms. Phelan stated the can be head in parking so they can be from the lot line in. Mr. Mesirow asked if the setback in the alleyway was just for the trash enclosure and mechanical cover. If the cover was eliminated, would the setback still be required or is part of the building above. Mr. Clauson said it was just for the enclosure and there is no building above. If the enclosure was removed it would only gain the project inches, maybe a foot. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Clauson to review the other requested setbacks. Mr. Clauson utilized a slide to describe the requested setbacks. On Hopkins Ave, it is technically a 10 ft because it is considered the front yard. The request is for five ft because the window wells are five ft back. On the front yard, the current window well is on the property line so the request is for zero setback. Ms. McNicholas asked for confirmation if the building itself starts at 8.5 ft from the property line. Mr. Matz stated along Hopkins the actual building is more like 10 ft back. Ms. McNicholas asked the size of the window well and Mr. Matz replied it is the minimal size. Ms. Phelan stated the size is three ft. Mr. Clauson stated the building would be eight ft back from the property line. Mr. Matz stated the levels up are pulled further back. Mr. Wilson stated there is a three ft walking path, a three ft area for the wall and then a five ft setback for a total of eleven ft before the vertical portion of the building. P8 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015 9 Mr. Gibbs asked Ms. Phelan for clarification of the requirement for public amenity space. Ms. Phelan stated the requirement per code is 25% of the site. As long as it doesn’t go below 10% you can use the existing condition which is 14% and the proposal is for 19%. Ms. McNicholas asked if the applicant contemplated placing the public amenity near the park. Mr. Clauson stated no because the park itself has so much public amenity constituting over two thirds of the block. Any space next to the park would not have that much significance. Mr. Matz stated the Parks Department did not want anything along park to keep the spaces separate. Mr. Walterscheid then opened for public comment. Ms. Barbara young lives at Park Central West Building. There are 16 units with 15-16 parking spaces. There are three separate buildings. The first building on Hyman has businesses and one residence. The office building on Monarch provides parking for all of the condominiums in a parking garage. Her building is two stories. Directly across is the Pace house that is a one story historic house. On the other side is the Hearthstone House which has a garden level and one level above. Everyone on their block has provided parking for their buildings. She is concerned they are not providing parking. Ms. Ruth Carver lives at 116 S Aspen St. She lives directly across from the Lenado. She states the parking is chaotic around this location. There is free two hour parking in the neighborhood. She feels Aspen is at capacity for parking. She is also concerned about the setback on Hopkins Ave. She feels the upper level balconies are coming out into the setback area. She also feels the proposed design looks like another wooden block. She doesn’t’ feel the proposed building fits in with the surrounding Victorians. She objects to the height and setback variances and also the parking. She asked if a parking space cash in lieu is $30,000. She provided examples of free market parking spaces selling for $125,000 to 125,000 and feels the city should raise the price to buy out a parking space. Mr. Walterscheid closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Mr. Walterscheid then asked for any staff rebuttal. Ms. Phelan stated she would confirm the existing parking cash in lieu is $30,000 per space. Mr. Walterscheid asked Mr. Clauson if he wanted to respond to Ms. Carver’s comments about the balconies. Mr. Matz stated the balconies do not project past the retaining walls. The wall is at five ft from the property line. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the balconies cover the window wells. Mr. Matz stated the balconies cover the walk ways which provide access to an affordable housing unit and the free market units. Mr. Walterscheid then asked for rebuttal or clarification from the applicant. Mr. Clauson stated even though the basic height is 28 ft, they are looking at a three story building and the only way it can be constructed is to have at least 30 -32 ft of height. A 28 ft building would not allow by any means the utilization of the available floor area of the site. The zone district did not contemplate a two story height limit in this area. In respect to the parking, Mr. Clauson stated the architects have done their best in an attempt to provide parking. It is just a condition of the site that there is not any good spaces to provide additional parking. He feels there has been a movement for the utilization of alternative transportation. They have P9 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015 10 conducted a transportation impact analysis included in the packet which shows the trip impacts are fully mitigated which he feels speaks to the parking as well. Mr. Matz stated the building is 28 ft tall on the park side but they are trying to deal with a nine ft change in the grade from the park side to the E Hopkins Ave and S Aspen St corner. It is a challenging site to deal with and provide ADA access. The slope of the alley is too great to accommodate ADA access from the head in parking space to the building. Mr. Walterscheid closed that portion of the meeting. Mr. Walterscheid then reviewed the criteria for P&Z to consider. Mr. Clauson stated they have a 3D flyover that may help answer questions if the fact finding portion was reopened. Mr. Walterscheid then reopened the fact finding portion of the meeting. Mr. Matz demonstrated the 3D flyover and described the roof line. He stated the highest point on the proposed building is lower than the highest point on the existing building. He demonstrated where the mechanical area would be moved to allow for the green roof. The stairs are enclosed up to the landing and then there is a door to allow for roof access. The roof top amenities are located on the south side of the building to provide the best views of Aspen Mountain per the applicant’s request. He also showed examples of the community spaces. He showed where the transformer would be located. The requirements of the transformer dictated an increase in size. He showed where the landscape screenings would be located for the parking spaces. He showed the walkway access to the free market units. The finished floor is at grade level on the Aspen St side. The level is set for ADA access from the sidewalk. Mr. Good asked about the front desk located in the back of the building on p 12. He felt it seemed awkward. Mr. Matz stated the desk is centrally accessible from the garage and elevator. The applicant sees the garage as a primary entrance since it includes storage for skis. Mr. Walterscheid closed that portion of the hearing and opened for discussion among the commissioners. Mr. Goode is a fan of gable roofs and would rather see something more fitting with the Victorian style. He feels the parking should be resolved other than mitigation. He does like the employee housing located on the first level and easily accessible. On p 12 it mentions there is not a commercial kitchen or a break room for the employees. Mr. Matz stated the employees could use the communal kitchen area. Mr. Walterscheid informed the applicant’s representatives there may be suggestions brought up that will they can address at the next meeting. Ms. Tygre agrees parking is a huge issue for her when projects do not provide sufficient parking. She feels the neighborhood suffers when sufficient parking is not provided. She is not as concerned with the need for gable roof lines and feels it is an architectural style. She does feel the design reflects a modern style and resembles a medical clinic building. She doesn’t feel it speaks hotel or residential and looks very horizontal without modulation, especially along Hopkins Ave. P10 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015 11 Ms. McNicholas is having a hard time envisioning this building. She feels it maximizes the lot space and had it been closer to the commercial core, it may be more appropriate. She does not feel it reflects the surrounding buildings and would prefer to see significant rework of the design. In regards to parking, it is her understanding that code allows for cash in lieu for up to five spaces, so she would not be willing to waive any of the remaining four spaces. The affordable housing requirements seem to be met so she would support what was presented. She does not have strong feelings regarding the category assignments at this time. She would like to see the building fit within the setbacks and encouraged the architects to rework the design which she feels is important to the character of the neighborhood. She would be willing to reconsider the setbacks along the alley for the trash enclosure and the accommodation of a parking space on that side. Mr. Gibbs is in support of staff’s conclusions. Mr. Mesirow likes the intent of mixing the guests with those that live there. He concurs the finishes and general aesthetic is nice. He feels the building is out of character with the neighborhood and the proposed design extends the commercial core out instead of blending with existing neighborhood. He would find it difficult to support the requested setback variances except for the alley. He also finds it difficult to allow the requested extra height. He would like the proposal team to further expound on how this building reflects with AACP in regards to fewer rooms and the free market component. Mr. Walterscheid does not have issues with what they are trying to do in the alley and supports they are trying to give accessibility to the primary entrance of the building. He is curious if they could expand that area a bit more to allow a couple of parking spaces. Parking is a confusing issue currently in town because Council is pushing to get rid of it and the reality is that you can’t. He does not have any problem with the architecture of the building in the sense it is more contemporary in nature. He feels they will get more acceptance from the community if there some variation. He understands and appreciates the difficulties with engineering the sidewalk and feels it drives other issues with the design of the entrance. Mr. Walterscheid confirmed the hearing would be continued for the supplemented public notice and public comment. Ms. Phelan stated they were looking at the April 7 th for continuance. Ms. Phelan asked if story poles could be provided prior to the next hearing date to show the height of the building in relationship to the physical site at which Ms. Tygre agreed. Ms. Tygre moved to continue the public hearing to April 7 th . Mr. Mesirow seconded. All in favor. Motion carries. Mr. Walterscheid closed the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P11 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2015 1 Keith Goode, Vice-Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members, Jasmine Tygre, Skippy Mesirow, Brian McNellis, Kelly McNicholas and Jessie Morris. Also present from City staff; James True, Chris Bendon, Jennifer Phelan and Hillary Seminick. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES – February 3, 2015 Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes and was seconded by Mr. Mesirow. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. McNellis stated he would not be able to participate on the hearing for 200 S Aspen, Hotel Lenado. Mr. True stated he did not need to leave, but should not vote on anything associated with the hearing. Public Hearing – Hotel Lenado, 200 S Aspen – Planned Development (Continued from March 17th) The hearing was continued until May 19, 2015. Public Hearing – 69 Shady Lane – Special Review for Variances from Stream Margin Review Standards The hearing was continued to April 21, 2015 by a six to zero (6-0) vote. Other Business – Commission Input on Residential Mitigation Policies Mr. Bendon reviewed the 10 policy questions. Question 1: Should the City continue to require affordable housing mitigation for single-family and duplex development? P&Z agreed with staff’s recommendation to continue to require the mitigation. P12 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2015 2 Question 2: Is the RRC report sufficient? Mr. Mesirow asked if we are disincentivizing remodels. Mr. Bendon stated it would be for expansions and added it’s easier to equate additional floor area ratio (FAR) to impacts instead of an activity for remodeling. Ms. McNicholas asked about 40 year career plan for construction workers and wondered if it was reasonable or not. Mr. Bendon stated the study relates to the construction data available at a state level and some assumptions were be made by the consultants including the life of a building. P&Z expressed concern the remodels were not included in the study. Question 3: Should mitigation requirements include both construction and operations? Ms. McNicholas asked if commercial was included, would there not be double counting. Mr. Bendon replied they are careful to avoid the situation. P&Z would like construction included as well and is in agreement with staff. Question 4: Should the requirement affect all residential expansions? Staff feels it should not hinge on demolition and the fee should apply to townhome and condo expansions. Ms. Tygre feels the second part may not come up often because these types of units can’t be expanded. P&Z is in agreement with staff. Question 5: Should the City provide a “credit” for RETT taxes? Mr. Bendon stated the study implies there should be credit for their mitigation. Houses pay $26.26 per sf over the life of the house. Staff suggests the impact fee not be lowered based on the presence of this tax. Staff suggests credit should not be provided as it might undo a citizen tax without allowing them to vote on it. Ms. McNicholas views this as a separate revenue source for the same utilization. Mr. Mesirow asked about a step approach. Mr. Bendon stated based on the report, there is overcharging. Ms. McNicholas feels this may raise additional policy questions to address any gaps. Question 6: Should the City assess the full impact fee? P&Z agrees with staff’s recommendation. Question 7: Should the City provide an exemption or waiver for “small” projects? Mr. Bendon stated currently we don’t have an exemption. Staff does not feel exemption should be allowed. P&Z agrees with staff’s recommendation. P13 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 7, 2015 3 Question 8: Should the City continue to allow payment deferral as an option for local working residents. Staff feels it is a good policy and works well. The payment deferral is tied to the title of the property. P&Z agrees with staff’s recommendation. Question 9: Should accessory dwelling units continue as a mitigation option? Mr. Goode asked if they fall under Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) at which Mr. Bendon confirmed. P&Z does not feel it should be continued. Would be on board if it could be changed. Question 10: Should there be a voluntary process to eliminate existing ADUs? Staff feels property owners should be allowed to eliminate accessory-dwelling-units (ADUs) if they choose. Mr. Bendon stated currently it is a strenuous process and staff would like to simplify the process. Mr. Morris asked how the mitigation would be calculated. Mr. Bendon stated they are working on flat structure but considering cash in lieu or credit. P&Z in favor of establishing a voluntary process to eliminate existing ADUs. Question 11: Should cash-in-lieu continue as a mitigation option? Staff feels the credit certificate program which will eventually replace cash in lieu program, but feels the cash in lieu program should be maintained at this time. Currently the City has only one developer who holds credits at this time. Ms. McNicholas asked if the cash in lieu can be capped and then require credits above the cap amount. Mr. Bendon stated he would look into this option. Mr. Bendon noted the recommendations from the questions asked during the meeting. Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P14 IV.B. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: Hotel Lenado (200 S. Aspen Street) – Planned Development, Resolution No. , Series 2015 – Public Hearing MEETING DATE: May 19, 2015 Due to the scope of comments received at the March 17 th public hearing, the applicant is working on revisions to the proposal and is not ready to present to the Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the application be tabled and has discussed this proposed action with the applicant’s representatives. Tabling the item will keep the application active but will require re-noticing for a public hearing when the applicant is ready to present before the Commission. Tabling appears to be a more appropriate way to keep neighbors informed of the project rather than repeatedly continuing the hearing. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to table the Hotel Lenado application.” P15 VI.A. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: May 19, 2015 RE: Commercial Elevator Access Code Amendment SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on a potential code amendment related to commercial building access. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT: Currently there are no requirements related to elevator access in Commercial buildings. Staff is proposing an amendment that would require elevator access to all building floors in a commercial or mixed-use building. This ensures ADA access to all commercial units in a building, and provides more usable commercial spaces. This issue has come up in the past few years, most notably with the Gap Building redevelopment. That redevelopment included an elevator to the upper floor but not to the basement where all the commercial tenant storage is located. The owner is now, less than two years later, looking at retrofitting the building to provide access. Another possible amendment would be to require separate elevators for residential and commercial uses. This would provide some additional separation between basement and ground level commercial spaces and upper level residential spaces. Staff has become concerned that some building owners are attempting to “co-opt” the lower level commercial spaces and combine them with the residential units. This is in violation of the code and specific approvals, but can be difficult to enforce. Requiring separate elevators may provide some additional protections. REQUEST OF P&Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on the potential code amendment. P16 VII.A. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: May 19, 2015 RE: Housing Credits Code Amendment SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on potential code amendments to the City’s Housing Credit regulations (Chapter 26.540). PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT: Staff is proposing four code amendments to the Housing Credits chapter. These are intended to clarify the operations of the program, and are based on experiences over the past 2-3 years. Public Sector Limits: In late 2014, City Council held a work session regarding the application of Affordable Housing Credit Certificates. It was noted that previous Council provided direction that no public sector or non-profit entity whose core mission was to provide affordable housing was to use the program. The rationale was that these organizations have adequate revenue stream to complete their mission and should not be competing with for-profit private sector individuals for certificates. Staff is proposing to amend the Housing Credits chapter to address this policy issue. Dormitory Units: A dormitory unit does not provide the same standard of living that typical affordable housing does. Staff is recommending dormitory units not be eligible for credits. Fractional Credits: Often an applicant will provide more housing than is required by their development because of how the unit is configured. For instance, an applicant may have a requirement to house 2.15 FTEs, and the easiest way to do that is to provide a single 2-bedroom unit that houses 2.25 FTEs, leaving an overage of 0.10 FTEs. This policy issue has occurred once since the Housing Credits chapter was created. At the time, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved credit certificates for the Hotel Aspen only for a full unit, not for an incremental amount of FTEs provided above what was required. Staff believes the P&Z’s approach during that review that only full units be granted Housing Certificates makes the most policy sense and proposes to codify it. Sales Limitations: Staff suggests that units which are built to create Housing Credits be limited to for sale units if those units are part of a commercial, lodge, or free-market development. This will help ensure that these units will remain permanently in the inventory, particularly if the P17 VII.B. building is demolished in the future. Staff suggests that units in an entirely affordable housing building be able to be for sale or rent. Category Limitations: The Housing Credits system is based on the category of the units provided, and the associated cash-in-lieu amounts assigned by the Housing Guidelines. Currently, there are no cash-in-lieu options for Categories 5 or higher, which poses a problem when mitigation requirements are Category 4 or lower. There is no way to convert an established credit certificate from Category 5 or higher. Therefore, staff recommends limiting the credit program to units Category 4 or lower. Location Limitations : The Housing Credits chapter is unclear on where City of Aspen Housing Credits may be created. Typically transferable rights can only be created and landed in the home jurisdiction (City of Aspen). This is the case, for instance, with the City’s Historic Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Program. Designation of a historic property in Pitkin County does not provide a property owner with a City of Aspen TDR. In 2013, an applicant requested that City of Aspen Housing Credits be established through the construction of voluntary affordable housing at the ABC in Pitkin County. At the time, City Council approved the request, stating that any additional housing should be eligible. Staff questions if housing created anywhere (Basalt, Carbondale, Redstone, Garfield County, Eagle County, or Vail, for instance) should be eligible. Staff requests direction from the Planning & Zoning Commission regarding if Housing Credits should be allowed to be created from voluntary housing outside the City of Aspen. If the P&Z is interested in supporting Housing Credits from affordable housing outside the City, other potential geographic limits could be the Urban Growth Boundary or Pitkin County. REQUEST OF P&Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on the proposed code amendment. P18 VII.B. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: May 19, 2015 RE: Timeshare Code Amendment SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on potential code amendments to the City’s Timeshare regulations (Chapter 26.590). PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT: Staff is proposing amendments to the Timeshare Chapter to simplify the review process and eliminate redundancies and conflicts with other code sections. This work is an outgrowth of direction from City Council related to updating the lodging codes. The timeshare regulations outline the process by which a lodge or dwelling unit can be divided into multiple time-span estates. Timeshare is defined by the State as a form or style of ownership. This means the City cannot attach new regulations or conditions upon a lodge converting its ownership style to timeshare. Timeshare Estates: The current code has different processes depending on the number of estates created. A timeshare project with 8 estates per unit goes through a different process than the same project with 6 estates per unit. This creates confusion and does not seem to serve any larger purpose. The proposed changes unify the process for creating various numbers of shares or “interval estates.” In addition, the proposed changes would allow no less than four (4) estates to be created from a single unit. Dwelling Units: The current timeshare regulations allow residential units and lodging units to be converted to timeshare ownership. Staff is recommending that residential units not be allowed to be converted to timeshare ownership, as they are able to operate as vacation rentals. Staff is working with the attorney’s office to determine if this prohibition is acceptable under state law. If not, staff is proposing some new limitations on the timesharing of residential units, including a requirement that if a multi-family unit wishes to convert to timeshare ownership that the entire complex convert. Staff believes this will encourage greater compliance with the timeshare requirements, and will enable other issues such as required housing mitigation to be more appropriately addressed. Planned Development & Subdivision Requirements: The current chapter requires all Timeshare projects to be reviewed as a Planned Development and as a full Subdivision. This requirement applies even if a project conforms to all zoning requirements and the land is not being subdivided. This is counter to the City’s goal of reserving heightened reviews for projects P19 VII.C. which are requesting variances. With the proposed amendments, projects would continue to be subject to all existing requirements, including design review, but would not be forced to request a Planned Development or Subdivision. Review Criteria: Currently, the review criteria include redundant requirements – timeshare projects must pay taxes, comply with State Statute, comply with the City’s zoning and building codes, comply with affordable housing requirements. These requirements already apply to all new development. The criteria then go on to recite various sections of the land use code, often times in conflict with what those very sections actually require. For example, the timeshare chapter requires 100% agreement of an entire HOA and all mortgagees of the individual units for any change to the timeshare plan. This conflicts with the City’s requirements for all other land use applications and likely conflicts with present-day State Statute. The proposed changes remove these redundant and conflicting requirements. In addition, the City’s timeshare chapter sets forth requirements that are not traditional City interests, and are not required for any other project. For example, the chapter requires disclosure of closing costs. While this is commonplace in real estate transactions, this should not be a City- managed issue. The current chapter specifies how an owner’s agent can proxy vote on behalf of an owner on HOA issues. Again, the City should not manage internal HOA voting rules. The proposed changes remove all “non-city” issues from the chapter. Finally, staff proposes to simplify and strengthen the review criteria for timeshare development. All proposed timeshares would be required to meet the same set of criteria, including a requirement for on-site reception and services, a management plan, a requirement to be available to the general public when not used by an owner, remittance of all required taxes, and a recognition of other code requirements such as housing mitigation and parking requirements. With the proposed changes, only the physical requirements may be varied through a special review with the Planning & Zoning Commission. REQUEST OF P&Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on the proposed code amendment. P20 VII.C. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Rebecca Levy, Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: May 19, 2015 RE: CC and C-1 Code Amendments SUMMARY : The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on CC and C-1 (Chapter 26.710.140 and 26.710.150) code amendments to clarify the status of existing free market residential units that were legally established prior to the 2012 code amendment that prohibited the creation of any new free market residential units. BACKGROUND : Staff is proposing amendments to the Zone District Chapter of the City of Aspen Land Use Code to clarify the permitted uses in the CC and C-1 districts. This policy proposal is in response to several requests from the public for clarification regarding the extent to which legally established non-conforming free market residential uses can maintain and upgrade their properties without expanding their nonconformities. The present language in is worded so as to prohibit free market residential uses on all floors in buildings within the CC and C-1 district, with the exception that free market residential uses established prior to the enactment of Ordinance 25, Series 2012 are permitted to be used as vacation rentals. Consequently, any legally established free market residential use in CC or C-1 on the second or third floors are considered legal nonconforming uses. Permitted uses on fourth floors are not addressed at all in the code, despite the existence of several buildings with four floors above ground level in both districts. The Code’s treatment of legal nonconforming uses in 26.312.020.B restricts the amount a nonconforming use and its occupied structure can be maintained in any 12 month period to 10% of the replacement cost of the structure. As long as a free market residential use established prior to Ordinance 25-12 does not expand its use, cease functioning as a free market residential use for a period of 12 months or longer, or exceed the 10% replacement cost in annual maintenance, it may continue its residential use. City staff has received feedback that some property owners of residential units in CC and C-1 that were established prior to Ordinance 25-12 are facing obstacles when seeking financing for maintenance and repairs to their units because lenders are reluctant to finance nonconforming uses. OVERVIEW: Staff is proposing a code amendment that would use more specific language in order to clarify that free market residential units established prior to Ordinance 25, Series 2012 are permitted to P21 VII.D. continue in CC and C-1 as long as they do not expand. By stating that the continuation of these free market residential uses is a permitted use in CC and C-1 with the condition that they can never expand or discontinue for a period of 12 months, such uses would become conforming. It is highly likely that many of these existing free market residential uses will continue their use, regardless of whether or not they are conforming. Potential benefits to making these uses conforming include removing the owners’ disincentive to invest in the upkeep of their properties, and removing the barrier that a nonconforming designation has to attaining financing for such improvements. The existing prohibition on new free market residential uses would remain. REQUEST OF P&Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on the proposed code amendment. P22 VII.D. Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: May 19, 2015 RE: Land Use Code Applicability Code Amendment SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on potential code amendments to clarify which land use code a project may rely on when part of a multi-step process or when amending a previous approval. The Community Development Department often receives inquiries from project applicants wondering which land use code applies to their project. These questions arise when projects are part of a multi-step process, such as a project requiring Conceptual HPC Review, and Final HPC Review, as well as when a vested project requests an amendment to the approval. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT: Nearly all projects require amendments to their approvals, and this code change would clarify how to determine which land use code an amendment is subject to. In addition, it would address which land use code is in effect when multi-step land use processes are required. Minor Amendments: Most amendments are simple, non-substantive changes that do not affect a project’s original representations. For example, in 2014 the Aspen Club received an amendment approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to amend a few retaining wall heights in a setback area along the back of the property. The City applied the same codes to the amendment as were in effect when the project originally received approval. The proposed code amendment would clarify that the vested land use code applies. For the purposes of this code amendment, staff proposes that minor amendments are those which do not change the inherent nature, use, massing, character, dimensions, or design of the project or which change these attributes in such a subtle way as to be immaterial. All other amendments would be considered major. Major Amendment: Other project amendments appear as completely new projects with nothing resembling the former project – different uses, new site plan, different massing and architecture, etc. Staff believes processing these types of “amendments” under an out-of-date code is inappropriate. This has also been a concern of the Planning and Zoning Commission, specifically during the reviews of the Aspen Townhomes amendment and the Boomerang amendment. Staff believes these “amendments” should be considered new projects and subject to the land use code in effect upon submission of the amendment. Staff’s proposal would require P23 VII.E. Page 2 of 2 these so-called major amendments to be subject to the code in effect upon submission, and would prevent an applicant from using a decades old land use code. Multi-Step Processes: Often a project is subject to multiple land use reviews. For instance, a project may be subject to a Conceptual Commercial Design Review and a Final Commercial Design Review. For these projects, existing department policy is to review them according to the land use code in effect on the date of the complete application for the first-step. For instance, a project requiring separate applications for Conceptual HPC Review and Final HPC Review, is reviewed according to the land use code in effect when the complete Conceptual HPC application is made. Multiple applications that are not part of a code required multi-step process would be subject to the land use code in effect for each individual submission. For instance, an application for a Subdivision would not vest an applicant in that code for a subsequent separate application for Commercial Design Review. REQUEST OF P&Z: The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to provide feedback on the proposed code amendment. P24 VII.E.