Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20160607Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 7, 2016 1 Mr. Keith Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Ryan Walterscheid, Jasmine Tygre, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Skippy Mesirow, and Keith Goode. Jason Elliott, Jesse Morris, Spencer McNight and Brian McNellis were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; James R True, Jennifer Phelan and Sara Nadolny. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan wanted to discuss a couple of items from the previous meeting and make an announcement: 1. In response to Ms. McNicholas Kury’s question regarding participating in upcoming planning committees, Ms. Jessica Garrow informed Ms. Phelan they are still working on the committees. The commissioners will be informed when the committees are available. 2. In regards to Ms. Tygre’s request for a status update on the properties to potentially used as affordable housing, she noted the following: a. Lumberyard – ProBuild has a lease until 2025 and they have a termination option. There are no current plans, but it is expected to be utilized for a long term, future development. b. Request for proposals (RFP) for three properties on W Main St, Park Circle and Castle Creek Rd have been issued. They are thinking within the next three years there will be something going on at these sites c. Another site on W Hyman Ave is currently on hold and is rented to local workers at this time. 3. She introduced Mr. Ben Anderson as the department’s recently hired Planner. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES May 3, 2016 Minutes - Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes and was seconded by Mr. Walterscheid. All in favor, motion passed. May 17, 2016 Minutes – Ms. Tygre moved to approved the minutes and was seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 7, 2016 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 230 E Hopkins Ave – Mountain Forge Building – Conceptual Commercial Design, Off-Street Parking and Growth Management Quota System Reviews Mr. Goode asked if notice had been properly provided at which Mr. True noted he had the notices and upon review, found them acceptable. Mr. Goode opened the hearing and turned the floor over to Staff. Ms. Sara Nadolny, Planner Tech, introduced the following individuals on the applicant team and stated the applicant is seeking approvals related to conceptual commercial design review and various growth management reviews.  Mr. Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson & Associates  Mr. John Rowland, Roland and Broughton  Ms. Dana Ellis, Roland and Broughton She noted the building is located on the corner of S Monarch St and E Hopkins Ave on a 6,000 sf lot and is located in the Mixed-Use (MU) zone district. The commercial design guidelines characterize it as a central mixed-use character area. The existing building is mixed-use with commercial and one affordable housing unit. The building was constructed with a number of nonconforming conditions and a portion of the structure is built to lot lines on almost all the facades except for the alley. The building extends past the property lines at Hopkins Ave, which is the front façade. There is a large area way on the southeast corner of the building and extends to the edge of the property. This will be discussed a great deal because the height is currently measured in the area way at 34 ft 8 in which exceeds the 28 ft to 32 ft permitted by the code. The large area way is also nonconforming because it extends to the property line. The existing nonconformities may be maintained and/or lessened upon redevelopment, but cannot be expanded upon. She also mentioned if the building reaches demolition as defined as 40% or more of the existing structure, then the applicant must bring everything into compliance. At this time, the demolition is calculated by the applicant at 39%. She then pointed out the location of the area way on a picture of the building. The applicant is proposing to remodel the building including changing a lot of the roof forms, removing the onsite affordable housing unit, adding two free market residential units, reducing the commercial net leasable floor area for the entire building and reducing the onsite parking. She then covered the commercial design review topics which focus on height, scale, mass, public amenity, a trash recycling area and parking. The purpose of commercial design review is to preserve and foster proper commercial district scale and character while maintaining a pleasant pedestrian environment.  In regards to height, the highest point of the building as measured from the area way is 34 ft 8 in is a nonconformity. The MU zone district allows for 28 ft and up to 32 ft with commercial design review. The applicant is proposing to remove the large shed roof on the Hyman Ave side and replace it with a gabled roof form on the Monarch side. The applicant is also proposing to infill Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 7, 2016 3 the area way to bring up the height about 27 in. When the roof form is changed from the shed roof to the gable roof, the height is measured differently. With the gabled roof height without the area way infilled would exceed the height limitation. The height measured will be 34 ft 5.5 in which lessens the nonconforming height. The gable on the north side is a slightly different pitch and would have a height of 32 ft which is the maximum the applicant can request through commercial design review. Ms. Nadolny stated it is up to P&Z if they want to grant the 32 ft.  The applicant is looking to add a gabled roof form to the Hopkins side of the building to complement the other gabled roof form. This roof form will be under the 28 ft height limitation.  The applicant is proposing to fill in a large light well along Monarch St which currently goes to the lot line. By filling it in, they are bringing the building within the 5 yd setback requirement which is a current nonconformity. They are also introducing a flat roof in this location which also helps to minimize the overall scale of the building. She then showed pictures of the existing and proposed roof lines along Monarch St. The height of the flat roof portion of the building is 23 ft. At the corner closest to the alley, the building rises to a gabled roof form with a height of just below 24 ft.  Staff is supportive of the proposed mass and scale of the building. They find the roof forms calm the design and the gabled roof forms give a nod to the neighboring one and two story Victorians. However, Staff would prefer a design which infills the entire sunken area way, instead of the proposed partial infill. The area way creates issues with height and setbacks which will be ongoing and creates a three story building in this area comprised primarily of one and two story buildings. Infilling the entire area could improve the pedestrian experience by utilizing the public amenity space or provide closer interaction with the windows of the building which is a commercial design guideline.  Ms. Nadolny then discussed the proposed public amenity. She noted the existing public amenity space is 490 sf or approximately 8.2% of the site. The goal is to have 25% of a site used as public amenity. Upon redevelopment, the code allows a deficit to be maintained as long as there is not less than 10% is provided. In this case, the site is 6,000 sf and 10% would be 60 sf of public amenity. The applicant is proposing address this in two ways. One is an onsite landscaped 450 sf (7.5%) area along Monarch and curves to the alley. This is partially achieved by filling in the light well. They are also offering 510 sf (8.5%) directly adjacent to the site as a landscaped area within the public right of way along Hopkins Ave. Total proposed is 960 sf or 16% of the site. The applicant has made suggestions for improvements including a piece of art or interpretative marker. Engineering, Parks and Planning Staff have looked at the site and discussed a bench or something similar. At this point, Staff is comfortable with what has been proposed.  In regards to the utility and trash/recycle areas, Ms. Nadolny stated it does not need to be voted on at this time. The applicant is proposing to maintain the current trash/recycle area located off the alley. The Environmental Health department has reviewed the application and determined no upgrades are required to what is currently provided. The Utilities and Engineering departments have reviewed the application and determined it meets the minimum requirements.  Ms. Nadolny then stated Staff has performed multiple site visits to review the current site plan and parking spaces and found seven onsite parking spaces. The spaces are striped and assigned to uses within the building. Currently there are no deficits in parking. The code requires one space per residential unit and one space per 1,000 sf of commercial net leasable floor area. The applicant is reducing the commercial net leasable floor area to 3,671 sf of commercial for the site. This would require four physical onsite parking spaces as well as two onsite parking spaces for two residential units. The applicant is proposing two onsite spaces, one for each residential unit and will be located in the garage accessed from the alley. A fee-in-lieu payment owed for Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 7, 2016 4 the commercial space is being proposed. Staff has determined a fee would be due for 3.67 parking spaces that would not be provided onsite. Within the infill are, the code allows for cash- in-lieu payment as an option. The other area for discussion on this application is growth management. The applicant has requested a consolidated review for growth management with commercial design review. There are three separate growth management topics to be addressed. 1) Allotments – The creation of two free market units requires allotments from the 2016 growth management pool. The applicant is requesting two growth management allotments. Each resident requires the approval of one growth management allotment. Staff is not concerned regarding the availability of the allotments. 2) Mitigation for 2 free market units – The applicant is proposing one unit of 500 sf and a second unit of 1,845 sf. Both units are located on the second floor. For a total of 2,345 sf, required mitigation is calculated at 30% of the total free market floor area or 703.5 sf or 1.75 full time equivalents (FTEs). The applicant is proposing to mitigate through certificates of affordable housing credit or through the provision of an offsite buy down unit. The Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) recommends mitigation through certificates or through the purchase of a deed restricted APCHA approved off site unit. Either option is code compliant to be considered. 3) Demolition of the multifamily affordable housing unit currently onsite – The existing two- bedroom unit is 792 sf located on the second floor. Per APCHA, this unit represents 2.25 FTEs. Per code, the removal of the unit is recognized as demolition and must be mitigated. The code looks for the unit to be replaced on site unless one of two items can be demonstrated the replacement of the unit onsite would either be in conflict with the zoning (MU) or inappropriate due to physical constraints of the site. If either one of these criteria is found to be met, P&Z must decide the appropriate number of units that can be accommodated onsite and the number of units that should be replaced offsite. Staff does not find either criteria to be met. Affordable housing is not a use in conflict with the MU zone district. Staff has not identified any physical site specific constraints requiring the removal of the unit. At the meeting with APCHA, the applicant presented drawings indicating difficulty maintaining part of the unit onsite while keeping the commercial unit as well as two free market units. A subgrade one-bedroom unit was proposed instead of a two-bedroom unit. Subgrade units do not meet the affordable housing requirements. APCHA recommends mitigation of the 2.25 FTEs through certificates of affordable housing credit or through an approved off-site buy down unit that was deed restricted. Staff does not agree with APCHA’s recommendation and feels the unit is valuable based on its location near the commercial core district and recommends P&Z require the affordable housing unit to be maintained onsite. Ms. Nadolny then recapped the items for P&Z to consider at this hearing. Staff recommends continuing the hearing for all reviews for the applicant to further study and consider filling in the area way on the southeast corner of the building and to find a way to maintain the affordable housing unit onsite. Mr. Goode then asked if there were any questions from the commissioners. Mr. Walterscheid asked for specific reasons allowing an application to go to 32 ft in height. Ms. Phelan stated she would obtain the reasons and provide them later in the meeting. Ms. Tygre asked if P&Z has the ability to determine if the proposed mitigation options including cash-in- lieu, on-site or off-site was acceptable or not. Ms. Nadolny agreed and stated P&Z would make the final Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 7, 2016 5 decision. Ms. Phelan stated with the demolition of the multifamily unit, the code is very specific that the replacement unit is preferred to be onsite unless one of the criteria mentioned previously has been met. Ms. Phelan added when a cash-in-lieu exceeds a set amount, then Council is the final approval. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if APCHA’s position is to not have affordable housing in the mixed use zone. Ms. Nadolny replied APCHA’s preference is to maintain offsite. APCHA does not look at the land use code because it is not their criteria, but noted difficulties with financing and compliance tracking challenge. Mr. Goode asked Staff to confirm if the affordable housing unit was proposed as subgrade. Ms. Nadolny replied the applicant had presented the difficulties of maintaining the entire program onsite including two free market unit and all the commercial space. The affordable housing was presented as subgrade and reduced from a two bedroom to a one bedroom. The affordable housing guidelines require a certain amount to be above grade. Mr. Mesirow asked if the maintenance of existing nonconformities is automatically allowed or with some form of review. Ms. Nadolny replied it is maintained under nonconformities section of the code. Ms. Phelan then answered Mr. Walterscheid’s earlier question regarding the reasons allowing an application to go to 32 ft in height. She stated the additional height may be added for one or more of the following reasons: 1. In order to achieve at least a two ft variation height with an adjacent building 2. The primary function of the building is civic 3. Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource or location within a view plane and therefore relief in another area may be appropriate 4. To benefit the livability of affordable housing units 5. To make a demonstrable contribution to the overall energy efficiency for instance by providing improved day lighting. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if public amenity space may be incorporated into construction of a building such as flower boxes or artistic railings. Ms. Phelan replied the standard is within a certain amount of upgrade, at grade and open to the sky. A flower box on the second story would not be considered public amenity. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Stan Clauson introduced the remainder of the team and then stated he wanted to respond to Mr. Walterscheid’s earlier question as well. He noted section 2.14 of the guidelines state a new building or addition should reflect the existing range of two to three stories. It notes additional height is permitted in a zone district for one or more of the following reasons. He noted the following key reasons. 1. Some portion of the property is affected by the height restrictions due to its proximity to a historic resource or location within a view plane 2. To make a demonstrable contribution to the building’s overall energy efficiency He continued stating the building is essentially a two story building as perceived from grade. The only issue with respect to the height limit are the existing light wells. He then summarized the building, its location, zone district and existing uses. He then described the proposed development. The proposed floor area is 6,132 sf and emphasized a total 12,000 of sf is Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 7, 2016 6 permitted per the zone district. Demolition has not been triggered with 61% of the building remaining in place. He noted the building is in a transitional area between commercial and residential. He then reviewed the existing conditions and pointed out the historic forge portion of the building comes right up to the sidewalk and the rest of the building is set back. He also pointed out the location of the two light wells. He also provided a picture of the back of the building including the existing parking spaces and noted this is where the addition would be placed. He also noted the existing bollards. Mr. Clauson then discussed the history of the Mountain Forge portion of the building. He stated their intention is to memorialize the historic nature of the forge. An iron worker familiar with Mr. Francis Whitaker’s work has proposed a sculptural element to be incorporated into a memorial placed in the parkway adjacent to the forge portion of the building. The objectives of the project include remodeling the existing building by incorporating forms from neighboring structures, reorganize and improve the commercial space, maintain unique site features and enhance the pedestrian experience, meet the height limit, reduce the nonconformities including filling one of the area wells, provide two new free market units, relocate the affordable housing unit to a more appropriate location, and maintain the existing parking deficit. Mr. Clauson then reviewed the public outreach including a meeting on May 26th at the offices of Rowland and Broughton. They also notified 79 abutters and enhanced public information signs were placed in front of the building. Comments taken at the meeting included questions about the impacts and time of the construction and alley noise relating to residential units. The avoidance of demolition was appreciated in some comments as well as support for maintaining the unique character and historic nature of the building. There was not significant concern raised regarding the relocation of the affordable housing unit. He then displayed the proposed site plan and noted the site is constrained by existing development. The existing footprint would remain and the addition would occur adjacent to the alley. The Mountain Forge façade will remain and the area way off Monarch will be removed and made into public amenity space. The sidewalk improvements and off street amenities will be provided. The existing sidewalk has an unusual configuration and will be straightened and the curb ramps and cross walks will be realigned. The existing trees will remain and appropriate trees will be added. Mr. Clauson noted the existing public amenity was calculated by Staff at 8.2% of the site and 10% is required. They are proposing 16% of the site or 960 sf divided between space immediately onsite and offsite immediately adjacent to the property. In addition to the amenities already identified, they are proposing some paving at the cross walk and pedestrian seating in an area that looks onto Francis Whitaker Park across the street. Mr. Clauson then discussed parking. He displayed a survey showing the location of the existing bollards. He believes a situation with the Molly Gibson informs their calculations. In the alley at the Molly Gibson, there was some five parking spaces used by their guests. When Staff calculated the size of the spaces, they were found to not conform to the 8.5 ft x 18 ft dimensions as defined by code. In a similar fashion, they have counted four conforming parking spaces and the bollards protecting the stairway create a situation where two spaces are striped and utilized, but are nonconforming. The existing development requires six spaces including five for commercial and one for the affordable housing unit. They feel there are four compliant existing spaces and a two space deficit. The required parking includes 5.4 spaces for commercial, two spaces for residential, totaling 7.4 spaces. They are proposing two space in the garage Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 7, 2016 7 on the site, retain the two space deficit and a cash-in-lieu payment for the 3.4 spaces. He noted Staff had calculated 3.7 spaces which he said was acceptable. He then noted the trash/recycle and utilities for the site had been reviewed and there no upgrades were requested or required. Mr. Clauson then discussed the affordable housing component of the proposal. He noted the commercial net leasing is decreasing so there is no additional mitigation required for it. The free market net livable is increasing and the mitigation would be provided through affordable housing credits for 1.76 FTEs or the final number. The physical constraints really make the existing affordable housing difficult. In order to achieve this program for redevelopment on the site is quite impossible to have a good affordable housing unit. An offsite solution would result in a higher quality option, more appropriately meeting APCHA’s standards. The APCHA board unanimously recommended an offsite location for the 2.25 FTE replacement. He then read from the code section and noted APCHA’s reasons for making the recommendation. In addition to the physical constraints of the site, the board identified financing issues related to for purchase unit and the challenges when a single unit exists in a building with other uses. Mr. John Rowland then covered the history of his firm residing in this location for the last ten plus years. They currently occupy an area in the subgrade space and the second floor. He noted the building does have assets but also shortcomings, which one is form. The roof form is a bit unorthodox and the character of the building looks like a gangster’s hat. It’s difficult to use the natural light on the second floor. Another shortcoming is the insensitivity of the materials. The forge is buried under wood siding and he feels it does not say anything about Whitaker’s legacy. He displayed a diagram of the existing building form along with the gabled forms highlighted of the neighboring structure. They want the proposed building to adopt gabled forms. He then showed several renderings of the building showing the location of the gabled forms and the proposed materials including barn wood siding in the gable volumes, metal siding on the forge portion of the building, new railings around the area well, and masonry on the two story flat volume. Ms. Dana Ellis then displayed and described a diagram showing their approach to minimize demolition while adding the gabled forms. She noted that triggering demolition would require the forge portion of the building to be removed. This included removing the shed forms and addressing the undesirable setbacks. The portion of the building that currently steps back with windows along Monarch will be brought forward. The alley side addition was also shown which will include circulation, garage spaces and a new free market residential unit. The footprint of the addition is only 744 sf. They are also planning to upgrade the façade with new siding, expanded windows and new materials around the windows. She then displayed some early concept drawings along with pictures of their current offices in the subgrade space. She thinks the intent of a lot of the land use code direction currently is about vitality of commercial spaces and the economics of having a local business in Aspen. This usually means using second floor or subgrade office spaces. She feels if the windows were not available to the subgrade space, it would be a very different experience. Architecturally, the building maintains a two story appearance while allowing this corner to achieve something unique. Mr. Clauson then summarized the benefits of the application:  Sustainable development by utilizing the existing structure  Maintaining a unique aspect of Aspen’s history with the forge Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 7, 2016 8  Improving the pedestrian experience with amenities  Replacing the affordable housing in a more suitable location  Providing an architecture more compatible with the neighborhood. He added during the 1970’s, structures like this were encouraged. He noted the Creperie and Café Ink as similar locations. He thinks keeping the light well maintains a bit of Aspen’s planning history. Mr. Goode then asked the commissioners if they had any questions. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if P&Z will review the final design. Ms. Nadolny replied if/when the application is approved by P&Z, it will go to Council for call up. It will then come back to P&Z for the final design review, but mass and scale will be locked in. Mr. Mesirow asked the applicant to make a case from a broader community perspective for taking affordable housing outside of the core. Mr. Rowland was not sure. Ms. Ellis replied as family living in affordable housing, she values her neighborhood. She noted employees do interact with the tenant currently in the nonconforming affordable housing unit. There is a sign on the back door reminding everyone to close the door softly because it is right across from the tenant’s door. She feels the tenant is expecting a quieter experience and it is not. She does not feel an alley unit would be a quiet unit. In terms of use, designers love the idea of affordable housing downtown, but questions how to achieve a sensitive community. Mr. Rowland noted the current tenant has asked the design staff to quiet down after hours. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked where the two free market units are located and more details regarding the physical constraints identified by the applicant which would be specific to affordable housing, but not specific to free market. Ms. Ellis stated the gabled forms are the residential units in the design. The second unit is in the gabled form on the alley side of the building. The constraints actually have more to do with they can’t demolish the alley side façade. This means the additive pieces of circulation and parking create an access issue for an affordable housing unit. Currently the affordable housing unit is accessed off the alley. In order to meet APCHA’s standards, the unit would need to be accessed from a main road. And to provide a proper exit enclosure for the whole building and an elevator, which neither exist now, the circulation must be added somewhere. She feels the main limitation is demolition. When they explored with APCHA adding the unit on site, it moved circulation around in an unfavorable way in terms of the building function. Because the added piece is so small, it meant the majority of the unit was subgrade in order to meet the APCHA’s size requirements. Of the two free market units onsite, the smaller one would not meet the standards and the larger unit really is as big as it can be based on the wall constraints. They have looked at many options on how to achieve a unit onsite, she did not feel the option presented to APCHA was good. She feels affordable housing deserves the same access and value. They may have had more options if they could remove the back wall, but this would trigger demolition which they want to avoid. Mr. Mesirow followed up and felt they missed the core of the question which was to identify the difference between affordable housing space and free market space. Mr. Clauson responded there are Home Owners Association (HOA) issues that are quite different for affordable housing than those of free market and commercial spaces. The HOA issues often impose a burden on the affordable housing simply because the level of finishes desired. That is something APCHA is very mindful of and has been an issue. He also wanted to point out the financing a single room unit has been proven to be difficult for potential buyers. Mr. Mesirow asked for more granularity on the issues. Mr. Clauson responded he could not provide additional granularity on the exact reasons for the financing difficulties. Ms. Phelan responded it could also be a rental unit as an option instead of a for sale unit. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 7, 2016 9 Mr. Goode asked if it is currently a rental and both Ms. Phelan and Mr. Clauson responded it is a rental unit. Mr. Clauson stated the building would be reconfigured in a condominium format. Ms. Tygre felt in the renderings provided, the top levels appeared much taller than the street level. She asked if the ceiling heights are different between the first and second floors. Ms. Ellis stated they are about the same at the low points. The window in the stairway comes down to the floor and pointed out on a rendering. They do have plans for a planter box on the upper level to break it up a bit. The ceiling heights on the first floor go up to about 10 ft and it is similar in the upper level. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked staff if variances can be provided on demolition percentages at which Ms. Phelan responded no. Mr. Rowland feels their approach to demolition was a sustainability issue as well. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the applicant had considered to the Aspenmodern program. Ms. Ellis stated too much of the original building has been taken over the addition in the 1980’s. Mr. Mesirow thanked them for the informative graphic explaining their approach to the changes to the building. Mr. Goode then opened for public comment. Ms. Ruth carver, lives on same block and would like to see the open space remain. She does not like the idea of the bottom floor being totally subterranean. She feels all the houses on the block have a setback as well as the surrounding businesses. She does not want to see all the buildings redone in town to come directly to the lot line. Mr. Christian Storich works for Rowland & Broughton and appreciates the courtyard available to the lower level. He agrees the nonconformities add depth and quality. Mr. Nick Massmann works for Rowland & Broughton and he agrees with his colleagues in the viability of the subgrade space is increased with the daylight available. Mr. Goode then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Goode then opened for commissioner discussion. Mr. Goode stated overall he likes the design of the building. His hang-up for the project is the affordable housing. He likes living downtown and likes the idea of having affordable housing available downtown to provide a mixed culture. Parking is another concern. He sees the applicant’s position on the nonconforming spaces but feels they would have to work it out as well. Ms. McNicholas Kury is totally fine with the proposed height. She does feel the area way celebrates density and does not agree with Staff. She would prefer the applicant come up with the additional 100 sf of public amenity on site to reach the code. She appreciates the celebration of the forge. She does not support APCHA’s recommendation and feels it goes against the code which she believes the codes priority is to maintain the mixed use. For these reasons, she cannot support the project at this moment. Mr. Mesirow agrees with the affordable housing comment. Mr. Walterscheid agrees with the others regarding affordable housing. He feels the community wants to keep affordable housing inside Castle Creek. He stated he lives in employee housing in a mixed use building and it was difficult to obtain financing. He feels a rental option is viable. While his homeowner’s fees are absurd, he can get value out of it as well. He realizes the free market component is key to the developer, but feels there are ways to maintain the affordable housing onsite. He does not have an issue Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 7, 2016 10 with the existing area way and appreciates the applicant’s efforts to decrease the nonconformities. The parking is an interesting issue and does not feel there is a clear concise direction. Ms. Tygre agrees with her fellow commissioners regarding affordable housing onsite. She feels P&Z perhaps has a different attitude about what is and is not allowed based on different criteria. She feels the criteria regarding affordable housing is very clear in the code. She does not have a problem with the area way. With parking, she feels this is a busy section of town and feels it is contrary to the spirit of mixed use to only provide two spaces for the free market units. She would prefer to see commercial parking made available. Mr. Clauson states he is hearing from P&Z is they would like to see some, if not all the affordable housing onsite. He asked if P&Z would entertain this a condition of approval and allow the project to move forward. Ms. Phelan stated they have a continuation date set for June 21st. Staff would prefer an updated memo to see the proposed program to ensure to location of the affordable housing meets the criteria and any ratios of the use mix on the site set and parking could be looked at as well. Mr. Mesirow and Mr. Goode felt it would be best to continue the hearing. Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to continue the hearing to June 21st and seconded by Ms. Tygre. Mr. Mesirow wanted to clarify he feels the project looks great and appreciates the applicant considering what the community currently wants from redevelopment projects. He does not feel the argument can be made against affordable housing and for free market based on the financial issues. Parking is not a big concern for him. He wants to see all the affordable housing back onsite. Mr. Goode asked for the commissioners to vote on the motion. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURN Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager