Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20240716 REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16, 2024 Commissioners in attendance: Eric Knight, Ken Canfield, Tom Gorman, Teraissa McGovern. Staff present: Jeffrey Barnhill, Planner I Ben Anderson, Community Development Director Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Tracy Terry, Deputy City Clerk Commissioner Comments: None. Staff Comments: Ben Anderson said that Community Development, planning in particular, has had a lot of turn over and there is a new HPC officer starting mid-August and there are a couple planner positions open. Bob Narracci is retiring at the end of August; recruiting has started for his position. Public Comments: None. Minutes: Mr. Gorman motioned to continue the minutes for April 16th and May 7th, 2024, to the next meeting, and the motion was seconded by Mr. Canfield. Ms. McGovern asked for a roll call vote. Roll call vote: Mr. Knight, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Motion passes 4- 0. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: None. Submission of Public Notice for Agenda Items: Ms. Johnson said that notice was provided. Public Hearing: 331-338 Midland Avenue-Aspen Hills-Growth Management Quota System, Multi- Family Residential Design Standards, Transportation and Parking Review Applicant Presentation: Chris Bendon, Bendon Adams Mr. Bendon introduced Dave Lavis, he is the owner representative, the owners are KT Colorado Holdings LLC and PK Equity Aspen LLC, both entities are managed by Bill Trefethin. Theresa May is here from Red the project architect, and Jay Engstrom of Crystal River Civil. The Aspen Hills property is in the Smuggler neighborhood, has multiple addresses, and is known as the Aspen Hills Condominium development. The neighborhood is a mix of single-family duplex and multi-family units. The property is 15,160 square feet and zoned Residential Multi family. They are not here to negotiate zoning and are not applying for variances. Two reviews are being handled by P&Z: Multi-family housing replacement and new growth management allotments for both free market and affordable housing units. There are also a series of reviews that will happen at building permit. The first review for the replacement of multi-family housing, is 8 units on site which requires replacement with eight affordable housing units and the second set of reviews deals with the six additional units that are being built. Multi-family housing review, the building is all free market units, eight units developed in 1965. There are six 2-bedroom and two 1-bedroom units. These have functioned as housing local working residents and that triggers the requirement to replace those with affordable housing units when we demolish. At that point you can replace the eight free market units which brings the project to sixteen units. The eight free market units will be replaced with affordable housing at 100% replacement as resident owned units. They have been reviews by APCHA and they are recommending approval. Once the affordable housing replacement is met the free- REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16, 2024 market replacement units can be built. The next review is the growth management allotments for the new units coming onto the site, three affordable housing and three free market units, bringing the project up to twenty-two units. He went over the code requirements for growth management, affordable housing and free market and the residential design standards. The next is compliance with transportation and mobility. He went over the parking requirements. He said they are providing twenty- two parking units which are within the required amount, so they are not needing any variance with parking. Any extra vehicles will be allowed to rely on the city’s street parking policies like everyone else. Transportation impact analysis, they only need to mitigate .37 trips, so no variance is needed, and this conversation continues all the way through building permit. Next is civil engineering, the project has been reviewed by the city engineering department but will be reviewed more in depth when construction plans are submitted for building permit. Theresa May presented architectural site plan. She said the proposed building is 5 stories, 2 stories below grade and 3 stories above. She went over the plans showing all the floors, units, elevations, and conceptual renderings. Mr. Bendon discussed the relationship of the building with the berm it is built into. He said the project meets all the city requirements, nothing is out of the ordinary, no variance requests. It meets the requirements for replacement housing and growth management. Board Questions: Mr. Gorma n asked if there are steps that can be taken, besides payment, to ease the burden on the surrounding neighborhood as parking is concerned. Mr. Bendon replied that there are 22 spaces on site and no room to put more spaces in the garage. He said the parking may be less than people want to see but they have met the city’s requirement. He said they would like to partner with the city to bring more mobility projects into the neighborhood. Ms. McGovern asked how many parking units are dedicated to affordable housing. Mr. Bendon replied it is one space per unit. Mr. Canfield asked where residents will park if they have more than one car. Mr. Bendon replied that the city has an on-street parking permit program, and while those spaces may be hard to get, the residents will have access to them. Mr. Canfield asked how many public parking spaces are in that neighborhood. Mr. Bendon replied that it depends on timing and other factors. Mr. Canfield asked if Mr. Bendon has a response to the public comment about shading. Mr. Bendon replied that the city does not have requirements or limitations regarding shading. They are straight zoning so that allows them to build a building within those requirements. Mr. Gorman asked about the units with rooftop access and if the height meets the spirit of the city code with neighbor views being blocked. Mr. Bendon replied that the city code has a height allocation, which is 32 feet and a series of exceptions including railings which can be 5 feet above the specified height if they are set back. He suggests it meets both the letter and the spirit of the law. Ms. McGovern asked if they had done any lighting studies so see how much natural lighting there will be in the living spaces of the affordable housing units. Ms. May replied they have not gotten to that yet. Ms. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16, 2024 McGovern asked if they considered putting bedrooms in basement and living space above grade. Ms. May replied the code requires rescue windows from the bedrooms so they put them above grade. Staff presentation: Jeff Barnhill, Planner I Mr. Barnhill went over the property details and reviews. The growth management review, multifamily residential design standards review which is handled by staff, but he wanted them to know it was part approval, and transportation and parking reviews. He gave an overview of the project Mr. Bendon gave and the code requirements. Applicant was required to do level a 1 transportation impact analysis. Staff finds the criteria is either met or not applicable for this project and includes the Aspen Area Community Plan. There are a lot of concerns from neighbors, including shadows, roof top decks, noise and lights, snow removal, underground parking and short-term rentals. Some of these concerns are valid but the project meets all the land use code requirements. Staff recommends approval of the project. Board Questions: Mr. Canfield asked how the city determines how to use the growth allotments. Mr. Barnhill said it is first come first serve, from 2023 to now none have been used, there are twenty-seven allotments and only three are being used in this project. Mr. Canfield asked if they could put up the code language for parking requirements. He read that you either do an analysis by the total number of bedrooms or total number of units and said all the proposals are unit by unit. He asked what the actual requirement of the code is. Ms. Johnson asked for a few minutes to pull up the code and look it over. Ms. McGovern asked for a five-minute recess. Ms. Johnson replied that the parking standards are subject to a lesser of one unit per bedroom or two units per dwelling unit. She said they use the term unit which has a very specific meaning in the code and it’s not a space. It’s the lesser of those two and asked staff to let them know how they decided. Mr. Barnhill replied that the parking requirement is one parking unit per dwelling unit is the minimum and 1.25 units per dwelling unit is the max, you go with the lesser of one unit per bedroom or two units per dwelling unit. Ms. Johnson clarified they did it as a unit-by-unit analysis. Mr. Anderson responded as well saying that this standard has been in place since 2017. When you start getting into a 3-bedroom unit people assume there will be two cars. The way this is structured is a calculation per unit. Ms. Johnson said it complies with the code as the required number of parking spaces on site has been met using the lesser requirement per unit. Mr. Canfield asked what the meaning of the code requirement is. Is it on a unit by unit basis or project by project basis. Ms. Johnson said it only requires the lesser of one per unit or two per dwelling unit, the lesser of the two. It does not require that one specific calculation be used across the board in any given project. Mr. Bendon wanted to clarify that the neighborhood meeting was not an officially noticed meeting but rather a meeting with Mr. Barnhill, Mr. Bendon, and some neighbors that wanted to talk about the project. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16, 2024 Public Comment: Ms. Johnson wanted to make sure that the public comment emailed was received by commissioners. Ms. Johnson read into the record a public comment received late from Robert Kern, property owner of 322 Park Ave stating he is in favor of housing but opposed to this project because of the lack of parking on site and in the surrounding neighborhoods. Barbara Lee said she lives directly across the street from the project. She is all for affordable housing and free market housing, but nobody is addressing Midland Avenue. It is bordered on one side by 82, one side by Park Ave, by Smuggler Park, and Neale and none of these have on street parking, there are no on street parking spots in this neighborhood. In the winter almost all spots are filled with snow. There is also horrible drainage. Art Phillips said he is concerned with the rooftop deck. He said it will be a major impact to Midland Park and Aspen View. Parking is already a problem, and they are tripling the density. He has no idea where construction workers going to park when they start building it. If people come in for short term rentals there will be nowhere to park. Nicole Garrimone-Campagna, an attorney representing the Aspen View HOA said Aspen View borders this project. The applicant presented that the project complies with zoning, but you do have the discretion to impose some conditions of approval. They would like the character of the neighborhood be considered not just the zone. If the City code does allow payment for impact to compensate for providing onsite parking, they would encourage the city to work on redeveloping Midland Avenue to make it more on street parking friendly. The rooftop deck is pushed toward the Aspen View side, so they ask for restrictions in lighting and noise. They request a copy of construction management plan to Aspen View before development for review. Sara Garton wants to remind the city that there is a dark sky regulation and there are not rooftop decks in residential neighborhoods. It is also a wildlife migration area. The drainage comes down Midland Avenue and the drains cannot handle it. It may fit within the code but that doesn’t mean you can’t adjust for the character of the neighborhood. Alain Sunier lives catty corner to the property. Parking is going to be a big issue, there is no on street parking now. The cash in lieu fee was set in 2016 and that should be revisited every two years to adjust for inflation. There is a lot of concern for this type of housing being used for short term rentals. He would like to see that this property will not find loopholes to use as short-term rentals or timeshares. Claire Finley lives at 121 Midland Park Place. She said ditto to Sara Garton’s comments. Her son loves to run around the neighborhood and enjoys its quietness and safety. The night sky is important to them as they are stargazers, and the rooftop deck could prohibit that. Bringing a hotel type structure to a residential neighborhood is not good. Buzz Patten live at 810 Midland Park Place. He said this is a very flawed application in many ways. He cannot understand why anyone would want to approve the rooftop decks. Commercial properties have these but by allowing them in residential area it will create a hotel like atmosphere. We cannot keep going down the path of degrading our residential neighborhoods. He commented that Mr. Bendon said everything is within code and nothing is out of the ordinary but to me that indicated that what is ordinary is unacceptable. There is no parking in the neighborhood. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16, 2024 Jim McPhee said this project is too dense. They are requesting variances; the code requires a 24-foot space between the two lines of cars, and they want a variance down to 21 feet. He also asked where the construction staging is going to be. Cindy Houben lives at 2311 Midland Park Place and said she sent a letter from their association and asked they please consider those and please add conditions of approval. We all feel pinched by the regulations that say of you meet the standard you get a rubber stamp. She requests that P&Z kick it to City Council and read their emailed comments. She points out something that presents uncertainty, a quote from application letter that says the plans illustrate compliance with the RMF zone but are not meant to limit the property owners’ rights beyond RMF zone district and land use code allowance in effect on the date of submission. As the property is not subject to planned development, applicant reserves the right to adjust interior plans, exterior materials, location, extent of fenestration, heights, parking layout, floor area, and net livable calculations including adjustment between units, as long as such changes are in compliance with the RMF zone district, minimum replacement requirements, and applicable city regulations. To me that says this review is a sham because all those things could be changed if you’re just looking at the letter of the code. Laura Calk lives at 722 Midland Park Place and wants to reiterate everything others have said about parking and shadows, night sky, str ’s, and wildlife. She would like to point out that the renderings do not show how close this is to adjacent properties. She was in talks with the HOA president and vice president, and they said that neither of them spoke with the property manager to give him permission to speak on their behalf and no one is in favor of this project. Shael Johnson lives at 713 Midland Park Place and agrees with everything the neighbors have said and wants to point out that the windows will impact their views. There is a lot of glass, and the glazing will impact their views. She wants the applicant to consider if the project is still economically feasible if they don’t ask for the 6 extra units. Pamela Cunningham said the shadowing is of great importance because she has a new hip and cannot afford to fall. She is worried what the shadowing will do to ice in that space. Motion Mr. Canfield motioned to extend the meeting to 7:30 and Mr. Gorman seconded. Ms. McGovern asked for a roll call vote. Roll call vote: Mr. Knight, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Motion passes 4- 0. Continue with Public Comment Carl Heck lives at 812 Midland and dittos everything said tonight. He wants to add that the parking is already a nightmare, and they are looking at tripling the units. There is no parking anywhere but Midland and those are always full. He said there goes our view of Sopris. Staff rebuttal Mr. Barnhill clarified that some neighbors asked to meet him for a site visit, and it was properly noticed. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16, 2024 Applicant rebuttal Mr. Bendon said his response is that they are doing their best comply with city code and that is what they have done. The decks are private individual decks, not communal. The city does have short term rental limitations and there is a long waiting list, so these free-market units will be able to apply for and get on the waiting list just like anyone else. They would like the parking mitigation money to go directly to this neighborhood but that is up to City Council. Ms. McGovern said they can elect to make them RO or lower category units. Mr. Bendon said they can do that, but it is as their election. Mr. Bendon said the parking in the garage has been reviewed by the city engineers. He said ultimately the questions before you are on the two reviews, the multi-family housing replacement, which we comply with, and the Growth Management Standards and we meet those requirements. Mr. Canfield said there was a comment about a variance in the parking garage and asked if there was a variation for that. Ms. May replied that there were some adjustments made after a review with the engineering department, but it meets all the code requirements. Board Discussion Ms. McGovern asked Ms. Johnson if they are allowed to recommend conditions of approval, such as submitting a copy of the CMP to the neighboring HOA’s. Ms. Johnson replied they can establish conditions of approval. With respect to the CMP, it will be a public document so they can access it. She said they can encourage that staff share it, but it is not a condition of approval. Ms. McGovern asked when it becomes a public document. Ms. Johnson replied when it is submitted for review it becomes part of the public record and can be accessed by CORA. It would be out of your purview to require that staff share it. Ms. McGovern asked if they could defer to Council. Ms. Johnson said she does not see a mechanism by which they can delegate their powers to Council. Ms. McGovern asked if Council could call up their decision on this. Ms. Johnson said possibly only on appeal. Mr. Anderson said they cannot defer to Council and if the decision is appealed it would be appealed to Council. Then based on their decision another appeal would go to court. Mr. Canfield asked if P&Z discretion is to assess whether the standards of review have been met, if they have, they do not have the discretion to say the project should not be approved. Ms. Johnson said you are tasked to take the facts as they have been presented and apply the review criteria. There is some level of subjectivity to those questions, but she thinks that level of subjectivity is fairly narrow. She said if you feel there is sufficient on the record to find that criteria have been met, that would drive your decision toward approval. In reverse if there is a denial, the question would be was there sufficient info rmation in the record to support your decision to deny this. All boils down to did they meet the review criteria or not. Mr. Canfield asked if that is the same with their discretion to impose conditions of approval. Ms. Johnson replied that depends on the condition and whether that fits cleanly within their powers. For instance, there are several conditions of approval. With respect to lighting and noise there is already ordinances in place. In respect to PD developments there can be added conditions. We have allowed conditions of approval when the applicant agrees. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 16, 2024 Mr. Canfield said a member of the public commented that the parking mitigation fee has not been updated in six years and asked if that is a concern of the city moving forward. Ms. Johnson said you can encourage Council to look at that, but it will not affect tonight’s application. Ms. McGovern asked if they want to deliberate or continue to the next meeting. Mr. Canfield asked if the commissioners who are not in attendance tonight will have voting power at the next meeting. Ms. Johnson said the commissioners not in attendance tonight would have to listen to the record before they vote. They would commit on the record that they have read the packet and public comment and listened to the record. She said she would send them everything presented tonight. Mr. Canfield said he respects the time the applicants have put in and the public and said it is an important project with a lot of public concern. Motion Mr. Canfield motioned to continue to the August 6th and Mr. Gorman seconded. Ms. McGovern asked for a roll call vote. Roll call vote: Mr. Knight, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Motion passes 4- 0. Adjourn: Mr. Canfield motioned to adjourn; Mr. Gorman seconded. All in favor. Tracy Terry, Deputy City Clerk