Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20160517Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 17, 2016 1 Mr. Keith Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Spencer McNight and Keith Goode. Brian McNellis arrived a few moments later. Jason Elliott, Skippy Mesirow, Ryan Walterscheid, and Jesse Morris were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Hillary Seminick. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. Tygre asked for an update on land purchased years ago by the City that was saved to build employee housing. She remembers three or four parcels and would like to know what has been developed and what has not been developed. Ms. Phelan believed there were three or four parcels on a recent request for proposal (RFP) to be developed. Ms. Kelly McNicholas Kury asked for a status update on the recent request and schedule for commissioners to participate committees for commercial design changes. Ms. Phelan responded she would follow up with a status. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES No draft minutes were presented. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Aspen Alps Planned Development Mr. Goode opened the continued hearing for the Aspen Alps Planned Development and turned the floor over to Staff. Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner, noted this is continued hearing from May 3rd for the 300 building of the Aspen Alps Planned Development and Subdivision. The reviews to be considered by P&Z include:  8040 Greenline Review  Mountain View Plane Review  Growth Management Review  Residential Design Standard (RDS) Review Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 17, 2016 2 She added the applicant had contacted her on the previous day and requested the reviews not be consolidated into one recommendation to Council. Therefore, P&Z would be the final review authority for the 8040 Greenline, Mountain View Plane and Growth Management Reviews. P&Z would then provide a recommendation to Council for the RDS Review. A drafted a resolution reflecting this change for the P&Z’s consideration was provided to the commissioners (Exhibit P). Ms. Seminick noted everything else in the resolution reflects what was updated in the staff memo. Mr. McNellis wanted to confirm Council was the final review for dimensional requirements. Ms. Seminick answered Council is the review authority for any dimensional changes from a recommendation from P&Z. Mr. Goode asked if there was a call up procedure for any of the reviews. Ms. Seminick stated there is no call up and remand process for any of the reviews although Council may discuss P&Z’s approvals. Ms. Seminick reminded P&Z the application is subject to the 2015 land use code. The application had been submitted prior to the effective date of Referendum One as well as changes to the RDS. In summary, the applicant is requesting to replace a 100% multi-family, residential building with a new structure. The existing building has structural issues due to lateral loading. The applicant explored and eliminated options to repair the structure due to the expense and unforeseen issues. Staff is overall supportive of replacing the building. Since the May 3rd meeting, the applicant revised the height and design of the buildings. The design has been revised to remove any windows or glazing within the “now window zone”. The applicant is still seeking a variance for the stairwell forward of the front most wall. The applicant plans to utilize this feature as both a mud flow diversion and egress into the structure. At the last hearing, the applicant had only provided one of the two required street facing entrances. Since then, they have updated the design to meet the front entry RDS requirements. Given that the site slopes away, Staff is supportive of the variance required for the reduced entries into the building. In regards to height, the applicant reduced the proposed height from 44 to 42 ft. this permits a 9 ft floor to ceiling height and a 1.5 ft floor to ceiling assembly. Staff still recommends further study of the floor to ceiling height and any construction techniques that may help reduce the proposed height of the development. Staff remains concerned of the proposed floor area. As mentioned in the previous hearing, there are three buildings on Lot 3 including the 300, 400 and 500 buildings. These were built at essentially the same time and are of equivalent size. The 300 building consists of 9,942 sf of floor area with 3,131 sf of deck area. The existing structure has seven units averaging about 1,300 sf in size. One of the units will be split back into two units and the two new units will be added for a total of ten units. Each unit will grow by about 377 sf of net livable area each. The two new units will increase the project size by about 1,500 sf of net livable area each. The applicant is requesting an increase of the approved dimensions to 17,574 sf of floor area with 8,495 sf of deck area. Staff is still concerned about how the massing will relate to other buildings on the site. The proposed building results in a much wider building than the existing building. At the May 3rd hearing, P&Z was concerned with setting a precedent for the overall planned development (PD). While the PD is not being considered at this time, as the property is developed over time, the floor increases may not be available to the other buildings on this site. Overall, Staff recommends the applicant revise the design to reduce the overall massing, height and floor area requested. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 17, 2016 3 Mr. Goode then asked if there were any questions from the commissioners. Mr. McNight asked who is responsible for identifying additional options. Ms. Seminick stated the applicant is responsible. Mr. McNight asked if the 42 ft height is approved on this building, would P&Z then be handcuffed to the same height for the surrounding buildings. Ms. Seminick stated this amendment only pertains to the 300 building. In order to amend any dimension of the other building, the applicant would have to go through the same process. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the Recommended columns on Table B on page 7 of the memo include only the deck. Ms. Seminick confirmed this and stated if they reduced the deck area to 5,624 sf, it would better align with what currently exists on the property. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. John Corcoran, General Manager of the Aspen Alps, provided background of the Aspen Alps and pictures of the 300 building and noted it is largely hidden from views from town. The design of the proposed building was inspired by the architecture of the existing Aspen Alps buildings and is designed to be compatible with the other buildings. He displayed different views of the property including one from Smuggler and then pointed out the location of all the Aspen Alps buildings. He provided a site plan showing the footprint of proposed building over the existing building. The new building will provide dramatic upgrades for safety, access, environmental conservation, modern spaces and amenities. The ceiling heights will meet traveler’s expectations. He noted the floor to ceiling heights are driving the building height. Part of it being this is a four story building. They believe nine ft floor to ceiling heights are the desirable spec, but after the previous hearing he wanted to be sure this height is comparable to what is being built. He noted they visited locations and talked to developers regarding recent development and noted the following heights for lodge and multifamily developments:  Dancing Bear Phase II: 9 ft  Monarch on the Park: 9 ft  Aspen Club: Up to 10 ft  Limelight Hotel: 9 ft  Burlingame Employee Housing: 8 ft 10 in. From their perspective, nine ft seemed to be a contemporary standard. They also feel the building meets the spirit and intent of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) by revitalizing lodging and supporting the tourist and resort economy, providing environmental stewardship and respecting green spaces. He closed stating the height challenge of the building comes from its unique position and being a four story building. Mr. Gilbert Sanchez, Studio B Architects, identified two contributing factors to the height of the building. 1) Floor to ceiling height 2) Depth of the floor/ceiling assembly and roof top assembly Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 17, 2016 4 Since the last meeting, they have looked at the design more closely and feel they can confidently achieve the 1 ft 6 in floor/ceiling assembly depth. The detail of the assembly is included in the packet and commits the owners to construction methods which are not necessarily the most economical or the easiest achievable. Although Staff’s memo continues the challenge to investigate other construction methods, he is not aware of any other approaches that would reduce the dimensions while still providing the structural depth for the necessary sound, mechanical and electrical systems. He continued stating the nine ft ceiling height makes sense because:  The City’s commercial design guidelines require a minimum of 9 ft ceiling heights on all floors. Staff has noted the guidelines don’t necessarily apply to this project because it is considered a multi-family residential building and not a lodge building. In fact, the property does function as a lodge. It has previously been pointed out two thirds of the building is available for rent which they feel is significant enough to allow the building to comply with the guidelines as a lodge.  It will improve the opportunities for allowing daylight deep into the units which improves the sustainability by reducing the use of electrical lights and mechanical systems for cooling.  They will provide a comfortable and appealing inhabitable spaces for long time house owners and competitive renter spaces. He then provided an elevations illustrating the building height for the different sides of the building. On the west side, the building is only 20 ft 10 in which is its lowest point. The highest point of the east side of the building is 34 ft 10 in. On the park side, the highest point is 42 ft. He reiterated the reasons for the height of the building as proposed including:  Replacing a four story building with a new structure which needs to accommodate the existing owners.  Providing the minimal floor/ceiling depth.  Providing ceiling heights mandated by the commercial design standards.  Site can provide the dimensions with little or no perceivable impact.  The closest building is 48 ft away.  You are unable to see the three dimensional relationships between the neighboring buildings. The 400 building is 10 ft higher and the 500 building is 18 ft higher. He feels the lack of clarity regarding the proposed deck area is continued in Staff’s memo, particularly Table B. The table includes real deck area consisting of the outdoor space and the access space of the building including corridors, egress stairs and the elevator. He provided a diagram of the floors of the building and pointed out the areas used for egress and the outside deck space. The access space is almost half of the total deck space as defined in Table B. The access space represents the same amount of space in the existing building. The stairs on the existing building only go to the third floor and will need to go to the fourth floor of the new building. Current building codes require an additional stair and an elevator. The actual deck space per Table B is 48% of the buildings floor area. His calculation of actual deck area is only 26% of the floor area. They believe their deck area proposed is reasonable because: 1) The decks contribute to the indoor/outdoor living opportunity desired by the owners and renters. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 17, 2016 5 2) The decks are consistent with the physical historic context of the Aspen Alps buildings with the continuous use of wrap around corner balconies. 3) By creating the deep shadow lines, the balconies server to break up direct sunlight and reduce the mass of the building. 4) The balconies serve as solar shades to block direct sunlight while permitting desired daylight. 5) The balconies mitigate the light spilling on to the lawn and control the light pollution into the night sky. In closing, he hopes the unique qualities of the site accommodate the amendments to the dimensional requirements of the project including:  Visual isolation of the site  Adjacent green space and dense vegetation creates an effective buffer between the building and its neighbors.  The significant change in topography  The need to replace a 50-year-old building that is failing with one that needs to meet current codes. Mr. Corcoran want to respond Mr. McKnight’s earlier concern regarding the decision on this application setting a precedent for future applications. He wanted to point out the 300, 400 and 500 buildings are all four story buildings. The 100 building is two story and the 200 building is a two/three story building. The 700 building is three stories. In regards to earlier concerns expressed the height of the building as related to the PUD in 2013. He feels the PUD was completed in collaboration with Staff to remove nonconforming status of the buildings as they relate to height, density, and floor area. They were told the nonconforming status makes it very difficult for any future improvements. At the time the City gained valuable knowledge of the Aspen Alps it previously did not have and Staff was supportive of the PUD. He feels if they had tried to reserve height at the time of the PUD, people would have been skeptical. Mr. Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services, wanted to discuss how the site is conducive to absorbing the proposed height and floor area. In regards to PUD flexibility, their proposal is appropriate for this site. The PUD tool has been around since the late 1970’s. When it was first created nationwide, it was supposed to apply to larger sites such as the Aspen Alps. The City’s code at the time prohibited the use of PUDs for sites less than on a sites less than 27,000 sf. Some may say it is abused in more recent times because it was never meant of small core sites. The tool was to be able to look comprehensively at a larger piece of land to identify where development might best occur and not occur on the property. A PUD allows the density and floor area to be clustered on the buildable areas. He feels it has turned into a “let’s make a deal” in terms of community benefits in exchange for giving more development to applicants. The Aspen Alps was not originally developed under a PUD. You will see the way it was developed includes clusters of buildings surrounded by significantly larger areas of open space. This development pattern and the location of the property with the buffers makes the proposal appropriate. If look at parcel 3 in isolation, the numbers do go above the underlying zoning because there is no accounting for the large areas of undeveloped land surrounding the developed buildings. He also believes this PUD should be looked at differently than a PUD in the core where buildings sit next to each other and consider height comparisons, shadow conditions, and blocked views. None of these factors are part of this application on this property. In regards to the height, they are not throwing out numbers to see if they will be accepted, they are proposing a height that they can do with the new building. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 17, 2016 6 In regards to splitting the reviews as discussed earlier by Ms. Seminick, he is used to P&Z having final authority over the 8040, view plane and RDS reviews. He feels they are a bit in double jeopardy when all the reviews are combined. He feels Council has delegated the reviews to P&Z as final authority. Mr. Goode then asked the commissioners if they had any questions. Ms. Tygre asked how the average size of the current decks compares with the average size of the proposed decks. Mr. Sanchez responded the existing units have at least two small decks which are usually five ft wide and up to 10 ft for 95 sf times at least two or four. Some units have almost 400 sf of deck currently. He estimated the proposed to be double the current size. Mr. Corcoran noted the proposed decks are more useful to allow occupants to use them more as living space. Ms. Kelly McNicholas Kury asked Staff for more details on how the decks are calculated. Ms. Phelan stated the calculations have been in place for at least 10 years. The calculation allows for 15% of floor area for deck space and it doesn’t count towards the sf. If more deck is desired, the house will be smaller. She thinks it goes back to massing and she also sees applications asking for more and more. She also wanted to point out to lodging comment in regards the floor to ceiling height. She noted the department sees application where the penthouse unit has taller heights creating an upside down tiered look. The heights are in the lodging and commercial design guidelines and not in the residential guidelines. She understands everyone wants the higher ceilings for a higher volumes and better spaces. Even though the Aspen Alps currently rents units, it is not guaranteed they will continue to do so in the future so Staff has been looking at the application as a residential project. Mr. Richman wanted to note there is a peculiarity in this building. For some reason when the PUD was done in 2013, the floor areas were documented for each building. Numbers were provided for the floor area and the deck and access space separately. He stated Ms. Phelan is correct in the way the code treats deck space. Based on this, they tried to provide an apples to apples comparison. Mr. Goode asked where they found the two ft that was proposed at the last meeting. Mr. Sanchez responded the two ft reduction was from floor/ceiling assembly. Mr. McNellis asked for clarification if the no window zone has been modified since the last meeting. Mr. Corcoran stated it was modified and Mr. Sanchez demonstrated the location of the zone. Mr. Goode then opened for public comment and there was none presented. Mr. Goode then opened for commissioner discussion. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated she is fully supportive of all the final approval reviews. She feels this project is a great example of why PUD is useful planning tool. It is also an example of why people can’t stand them because she feels what is being asked is a mixed bag in regards to how it is zoned residential and how P&Z is asked to consider lodge zone requirements for some items. She is fine with the setback variance request and feels it is appropriate since it is a PUD. She also feels losing another 6 inches would matter to those who live there. She does struggle on the request for overall massing and feels it is hard when they are requesting lodge relevant massing for residential use. She is fine with the setback and the 42 ft height. Ms. Tygre agrees with Ms. McNicholas Kury for slightly different reasons. She supports the request for the height and it really doesn’t have anything to do with lodge or residential. Many of the older condominium complexes are a mixture of residential and lodge use. She feels the ceiling height is very important and low ceilings are a drawback and a quality issue. She commends the applicant for reducing Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 17, 2016 7 the overall height using construction techniques. The decks do bother her because she feels they will be enclosed with glass to increase the year-round living space. She does agree with Ms. McNicholas Kury in that if you reduce the size of the decks, you reduce the massing of the building. She supports everything except the decks. Mr. McNellis agrees with the others and feels most of what is proposed is appropriate for the site. He was originally a little dismayed with the 225 sf and sees it as an easy fix. He does have some comfort in the cumulative allowable sf as indicated in Table 2. The proposed sf is eight ft below what is allowed for the lot. In his opinion, the bulk and mass belongs lower on the lot in building 300 and not in buildings 400 and 500. No one from building 400 or 500 has attended the hearings to oppose the application. He supports the proposal as it stands. Mr. McNight also agrees with the others. He agrees with Mr. McNellis and is supportive of the building based on the site. He also agrees with Ms. Tygre regarding the ceiling heights. The massing on the decks bothers him a bit but mostly because he is trying to look at the code. But he thinks it makes sense when you look at the property. He believes it has his vote. Mr. Goode thanked the applicant for dropping the height two ft. He doesn’t think lowering it to 40 ft will make a difference. He is okay with the 42 ft height. He is in agreement with Ms. Tygre and Ms. McNicholas Kury regarding the deck massing. He feels the mass is what is holding up the project currently. Overall, he loves the project and the site. Mr. McNight stated the site is unique and not many will notice the building when it is built. He feels when P&Z has the ability to use common sense in regards to projects, it should be used. Mr. Goode countered the code still exists. Mr. McNellis noted there is more open space associated with this building. He noted the two massive evergreens serve to break up the mass of the building. Ms. McNicholas Kury wants to have a consistent thread for weighing, but also feels the PUD provides an opportunity to look at it differently. Ms. Phelan told them they could consider adding a condition in the recommendation to Council stating the commission recommends further review of the exterior decks for further refinement and to reduce the mass of the building. She added they could include something in regards to the land use code. Ms. Tygre felt this would be good to add and would like to see the application move forward. Mr. Sanchez note as the architect, it wasn’t his vision for the decks to be enclosed. Mr. Corcoran noted he could see it happen. Mr. Sanchez thought it could be discussed internally to see what safeguards could be put in place to prevent enclosures. Mr. Richman felt it would require a permit, but Ms. Tygre responded owners do not typically obtain a permit when they do this. Mr. Sanchez asked the commission to specify an order of magnitude for reducing the massing of the decks. Ms. McNicholas Kury felt it would be appropriate to maintain the overall square footage of the decks. Mr. Corcoran asked if this would be a number or a percentage. Mr. Richman did not want to put a number on it at this meeting. He wants it to respect the function and ensure they break up the massing. He gets from the commission they are talking about a dramatic decrease and not just shaving the size. Ms. Tygre wants to have language in the condition to provide direction. Ms. Phelan then proposed the following statement to Section 1 requesting further study the size of the exterior decks prior to Council review to reduce the mass to better align with the existing ratio of deck area to floor area. Ms. Seminick noted 26% of the 17,574 sf would be 4,569 sf. Ms. Phelan added the numbers would be verified prior to going before Council. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning May 17, 2016 8 Ms. Tygre then moved to approve Resolution 3, as amended. Her motion was seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury. Roll call: Mr. McNight, yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; and Mr. Goode, Yes; for a total of five Yes and zero No (6-0). Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURN Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager