HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20150317Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015
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 12th in
Council Chambers or May 26th in Sister Cities. After discussion, it was decided to reschedule on May 26th.
Ms. Phelan then informed P&Z the runoff election (if necessary) will be held on June 2nd. She asked to
reschedule them meeting to June 23rd or June 30th. After discussion, it was decided to reschedule the
meeting until June 30th.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
MINUTES – February 17, 2015:
Ms. Tygre moved to approve the February 17th 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 7th meeting. It is sufficient to start, but
she stated additional public comment may be received at the April 7th 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.
1
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015
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.
2
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015
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.
3
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015
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
4
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015
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
5
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015
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
6
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015
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
7
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015
• 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.
8
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015
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
9
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015
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.
10
Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning March 17, 2015
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 7th 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 7th. Mr. Mesirow seconded. All in favor. Motion
carries.
Mr. Walterscheid closed the meeting.
Cindy Klob
City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager
11