Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20160719Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 1 Mr. Keith Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jason Elliott, Keith Goode, Brian McNellis, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jasmine Tygre, Ryan Walterscheid, and Jesse Morris. Skippy Mesirow and Spencer McNight were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Sara Nadolny. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ms. Toni Kronberg wanted to make P&Z aware of the Elected Official’s Transportation Committee (EOTC) is reopening the entrance to Aspen discussion to identify an alternative to rubber tire solution at a meeting this Thursday. The proposals to be discussed in include light rail and the Aspen| Snowmass aerial connection. The intent of the meeting is to approve funding to kick start feasibility studies. She hopes the aerial connection will become a reality and described the proposed connection points including Snowmass Base Village, Town Center, Rodeo grounds, Brush Creek Intercept Lot, airport, Buttermilk, Burlingame Affordable Housing, Rubey Park. It will be accessible to the Silver Queen Gondola, Lift 1 and Highlands. Ms. Kronberg wanted to comment on Michael Brown’s application. Mr. Goode asked MINUTES July 5, 2016 draft minutes – No changes were requested. Mr. Elliott motioned to approve and Mr. Morris seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Gorsuch Haus (S Aspen St/Lift 1A) – Planned Development Mr. Goode re-opened the hearing continued from July 7, 2016. He announced there was a sign in sheet available for those wanting to make public comment. The sign in sheet is Exhibit M. While names were collected, Ms. Phelan explained the public hearing process to the audience. She added that she had sent an email out to the commission of letters received after the packet deadline. These will be included as part of Exhibit L. She described the two letters. The clerk noted the following poster boards brought in by the applicant (Exhibit N). Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 2 1. Illustrated site plan 2. Illustrated neighborhood plan 3. Rendered views of the Skier Plaza and Public Walkway 4. Rendered view of the ski approach 5. Application process and stakeholder engagement timeline Mr. Goode then continued the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Bob Starodoj wanted to remind P&Z of the history starting with the gondola. It was an absolute battle with City Council to get it approved because someone developed a rendering which made it appear you could not see the mountain while standing on street below. It finally passed 3-2 after many meetings. The next battle was the hotel because it was assumed the hotel would dominate the landscape and block the view of Lift 1A. It’s obvious now the naysayers went crazy over what they felt was too much development. The last issue was the hotel at the bottom of 1A. They were told if they could get the six or seven surrounding groups together on a consensus, the City said they would approve it. Eighteen months later it was brought to the City and it was turned down. He asked P&Z to think about it deeply and make something good happen. Ms. Toni Kronberg feels it is a complex application. In her opinion, the community wants to see lift 1A brought further down the mountain. She feels the zoning discussion including height and mass needs to after the alignment for lift 1A. She is passionate about this because it is a transportation solution. She feels there is an opportunity to make S Aspen St one of the premier transportation systems within the skiing industry. When she came forward to discuss the platter lift during the discussion of Michael Brown’s application, she was shuttled off because she had been informed it was not within the purview of P&Z. She stated Mr. Jim True, City Attorney, asked her to speak with all the developers. She stated she spoke with Mr. Michael Brown, Gorsuch and the Aspen Historical Society. She complimented Staff’s memo as it pertains to the lift. She feels everyone, including the Aspen Skiing Company (SkiCo), wants the lift to come further down. She has not been able to pull everyone in the same room. Mr. Andrew Gerber lives at 701 S Monarch St. He submitted a site plan the Gorsuch group provided last summer indicating the lift terminal in line with Summit St (included within Exhibit L). He doesn’t know why this plan was scratched, but this plan brings the lift closer to town and closer in connectivity to the Lift One Lodge. He noted the size and scale of the Gorsuch building is much larger in size than the neighboring buildings. He feels the Ski Lift Zoning (SKI) is scary and doesn’t protect the neighbors. Per the current design there will be an eight ft retaining wall blocking their access to the hill they have had for 45 years. He noted within the application, the trees shown in the photo of the Wheeler view plane which they say block the view will be cut down so they can move the summer road over towards the Mountain Queen Condos. He feels the SKI zoning is inappropriate for this area because of its impacts to the neighboring properties. He stated they have communicated their concerns to the applicant several times, but nothing has been done to address their concerns. Mr. Mark Cole stated he participated in COOP group and was crossed when the proposal was not approved by City Council. He feels this is an opportunity to get behind. He feels the applicant understands the community, ski racing history and honors the past while meeting a current community need. He doesn’t look at the Jerome, Nell, St. Regis as blights, but as community resources. He anticipates something similar with the Gorsuch Haus. He feels we will look back and be glad this was done at this time. Mr. Ryan Smalls, an Aspen native and former ski racer, cares very deeply about P&Z decisions, but has been guilty of staying on the sidelines. He is challenged with preserving small town character, funk and charm while evolving it as a ski community. He has seen many great ski resorts around the world. He Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 3 believes Aspen needs to remain competitive internationally as a resort and a town. He feels we need to continue to make the most of this golden opportunity to secure the vitality of the base of Aspen Mountain. He feels this development team has integrity and a strong commitment to the community and will deliver a project we will all be proud to have and he hopes they have the opportunity. Ms. Ruth Carver lives on Aspen St and is not averse to the development at all and feels it is the one opportunity to do it right to have access to the mountain similar to the gondola. She does feel there is a big bottleneck between the two new developments and it should be wider. She also feels the lift should come all the way down and busing people from Rubey Park is not a good idea. Mr. Corey McLernon has worked for Jeff Gorsuch for many years and it has only been a positive experience. He feels have more open beds would be a great. Norway and Henrys are his favorite runs and he doesn’t feel they will be impeded at all. He supports the project and would love to see a new lift. Mr. Jeff Halferty has served as a former Historic Planning Commission Chairman and is currently a HPC member. He feels the proposal enhances this area. This area is excellent lodge base and feels they are trying to revitalize it. Jeff Gorsuch is a family friend. He feels the project and the lifts will enhance that side of the mountain. He feels everyone’s values in the area will be protected and enhanced. He feels the proposed transportation option is great. The public amenity spaces will be used. The architecture is sensitive to Aspen’s history. He encouraged P&Z to support the project. Mr. Peter Fornell feels there are a lot of good minds involved regarding the size of the building and the location of the lift. He wanted to let P&Z know he has worked closely with the group regarding affordable housing and they have a direct plan. Mr. Jim Cardamone knows the applicants and knows they care a lot about the ski area and ski racing. He trusts them to listen to constructive criticism and open to adjusting the proposal. He feels they are the team to develop this side of the mountain. Mr. Hughes Okor feels it is a difficult site to develop and getting a team that is invested in the community is huge. He is behind the team. Ms. Ruth Krueger wanted to amend her comments in the previous hearing. She noted she spoke passionately about the platter lift at the last meeting. She has since walked the property with Mr. Peterson to observe where things will be situated and she now thinks the shuttle will be a better option. She believes it will provide more people access to the location and it will reduce traffic because people won’t be trying to drive up and drop off people. She would prefer the shuttle over the platter. Mr. Goode then closed public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Goode then asked the applicant to respond to the public comment. Mr. DeFrancia wanted to respond the comments discussing the platter lift. He stated the origins trace back to the COOP efforts some time ago and a number of things have happened since then including the approvals of the Lift One Lodge and South Aspen Street Townhouses. He stated the canvas is different now in particular to accessing the lift. Under the platter lift, the lift was actually higher. They have also raised the issues of a platter lift including the inability to allow skiers down the hill while operating due to the dimensions. He noted this is also only a seasonal solution for skiing only. This is why they are advocating the shuttle program which will take people from Rubey Park about every eight minutes. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 4 Mr. DeFrancia then wanted to note the previously mentioned skittle lift also provokes dimensional and operational questions. He questions its viability and the applicant continues to favor a committed, dedicated shuttle operating from Rubey Park. Mr. DeFrancia responded to the question regarding when the lift would actually be built. The contractual obligations between the applicant and SkiCo are such that they need to secure a land use approval, then move to final designs and building permits including an excavation permit. Once an excavation permit has been secured, they will give notice to SkiCo to proceed with building the lift to be completed within 18 months. Mr. DeFrancia then responded to Mr. Brown’s comment regarding the applicant checking a box for their meetings. He stated this is not true and they met with the Lift One Lodge team on several occasions, including a meeting predating their acquisition of the property and subsequent meetings. He stated they made adjustments to their building placement as a result of their meetings last summer. Mr. Shaw then commented on the following: Wheeler View Plane – He described the view plane and showed pictures of the view plane from the east before the development and after the building was built. He noted most of the building scurries the base of the view plane as do other structures located between the Wheeler and development site. He then showed similar pictures from the west. He noted P&Z must understand how the building impacts the view plane. Additional pictures provided a view from the west looking down to the Wheeler from the development. 8040 Green line review standards - He discussed what is included in a Green line review per the code, noting it is a heightened review in order to address the impacts that may occur at the base of the mountain including suitability to the land, stability, natural hazards such as mud flows, erosion, natural drainage and run off. It also includes water quality and utility provisions. He noted the proposed new water line is on the property. The review also considers roads, access, clustering of the buildings as well as the mass and distribution on the site. They believe application contains all the information necessary for P&Z to conduct the review. He noted the higher on the slope you are on the property, the lower the building. At the 8040 line, the building height is a two story above grade structure. In total, the project has an average of 37 ft of height across the area. The topography has been thoroughly considered including the placement of the lift and the return skiing. The proposed grading fits with the functionality of a ski base to allow skiers to return to the lift or the ski corridor below. Property Easements – He stated the Mountain Queen to the east was granted a 20 ft wide drainage and fire access easement by SkiCo to the original developer of the project. This property had no other access available. At the time in which it was granted, it was to retain its ski-ability, not to be cleared of snow. Today, this type of easement would presume the clearing of snow for vehicle access. Any activity of this project does not inherently change the language or purpose of the granting of the original easement. The Aspen Fire Protection District has indicated by today’s standards; they would prefer another method of fire protection to the Mountain Queen. One suggestion involved installing a dry standpipe along the edge near the access. The Gorsuch Haus has suggested the possibility of jointly covering the cost of installing the dry standpipe which has not been finalized. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 5 Other utility easement – He noted the utility easement on the northern side looks like a sailing course going back forth and around features including the existing Lift 1A building. The proposal grants to the City of Aspen an easement in this general area which straightens out the utilities, avoids the existing feature and provides for a new 16 in water main. This would be a wider easement than what is currently granted, more direct and includes all the rights and responsibilities for the City of Aspen to construct and maintain the water right. Other utilities exist along the border of the property. Scale of building – He described the additional renderings of the building brought to the hearing (Exhibit N). a) From Dean St including the constructed Lift One Lodge, Gorsuch Haus and the lift. He noted the existence of the green towers from the original lift. b) A view from further up the ski corridor looking up towards the lift canopy showing access to the slope. c) A view looking up S Aspen St from below the Lift One project looking at Shadow Mountain and the proposed right-of-way, the Gorsuch Haus is aligned north and south. d) A view of the turnaround transit drop-off, arrival to hotel, and part of the pedestrian corridor. e) A view showing how to access skier services from the drop-off location. The 30 ft wide pedestrian corridor was also included. f) A view of the skier plaza including the milling, mazing and loading areas. The mazing capacity shown is for a 10 min line moving about 200 people upslope. g) A skier’s view of the return including the slow-down, loading zones on the eastern side of the project. h) A night time plaza view of the Gorsuch Haus including the outside stairway, hotel rooms and restaurant. i) View of the sketch-up model from a very large database. He stated they have multiple sketch-ups available if P&Z requested a particular view of the project. Dimensional characteristics as appropriate to neighborhood and other lodges – He then displayed a comparison matrix including the Lift One Lodge, The Little Nell, Residences of the Little Nell, Sky Hotel, and North of Nell (included in exhibit N). The matrix compared zoning, gross lot area, floor area in sf, height, room size and number of lodge units. He noted their average height is made up of two, three and four story building heights. Mr. DeFrancia wanted to underscore the lift is public, not private. He stated it is clear as you exit the drop-off area that you are entering a lift plaza. After walking approximately 30 paces, you can see the lift. As compared to the Silver Queen Gondola, as you get off the drop in front of the Little Nell, you do not see the lift until you walk back to the plaza. He stated it is public in its appearance and use. Technically, the positioning of the proposed lift is lower than the existing lift, but it is essentially at the same location. Grading will drop the lift down to provide room for entering the lift from the rear. Mr. Shaw described the change in loading location from the existing lift to the replacement lift as two time the width of the Sister Cities Meeting Room. Mr. Shaw then displayed a rendering from top of Norway ski run and described skiing down the eastern and western sides of the run based on the proposed changes. On the eastern side, the skier return is under the lift. From the western side, the skier ends up in front of the Shadow Mountain Condominiums Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 6 and the turnaround at which point the skier becomes a pedestrian and enters the plaza to become a repeat skier. Mr. Goode then opened the commissioner discussion portion of the hearing. Mr. Morris stated there are five things he wanted to comment on from Staff’s memo and the past two hearings: 1. The sheer volume of character references is great, but P&Z needs facts and evidence 2. The full time equivalent (FTE) calculation discrepancy needs to be resolved 3. He feels he has the evidence to evaluate the view plane to determine if it has minimal effect. He asked Staff if P&Z is only concerned with the Wheeler View Plane at which Ms. Phelan replied it is the only one. 4. He doesn’t feel they can resolve the discussion of the platter or aerial lift connectivity to this property alone. This needs to be a community effort. From what he has seen of the shuttle as proposed, it is the least capital intense solution and the highest likelihood of success as providing more skiers. 5. He feels there is no justification for the requested 10 year vesting period. 6. He is still stuck on the mass, scale and SKI zoning. He asked Staff if they have vetted the dimensional comparisons provided by the applicant earlier. Ms. Phelan stated they have not yet had an opportunity. She added Staff will come back to provide direction and discuss the dimensions. She wanted to point out in memo it states Staff’s is concerned the 49 ft is not the actual height. There is a reference in the application to an exemption to height that the property is not subject to because it is in the SKI zone base. She feels there are some bigger fundamental questions to be addressed in application. Ms. McNicholas Kury thanked the applicant for the additional information regarding the community process. She feels P&Z is limited on what they can learn until they are in the review process. She is struggling with things presented in the memo that P&Z has not received a response from the applicant in order to evaluate. She would like to see further direction from the applicant regarding the zoning request and re-platting since there is no underlying zoning dimensions for their request. She feels P&Z emphasized direction to the former community development director to generate a positive outcome for this neighborhood. She stated they were told at that time that one plus one can equal three. She is still committed to that and feels the neighbors have valid concerns to be addressed. She also feels during the Lift One Lodge application, the board emphasized retaining the historical character of this side of the mountain regarding its legacy and ski history. She feels this is missing from the application. Some things emphasized for the Lift One Lodge application review included retaining the line of sight from the mountain down to the original lift lines existed. She feels this may be a lost opportunity if this project is approved as presented. Specifically, for her it is how the building curves around and blocks the line of sight. In regards to the technical feedback from the applicant, she would like to see the following: a) Response to the subdivision criteria b) Response to the engineering comments c) Opportunity to retain the lift at its current location and feels the concerns of the lift being privatized are valid – look at revising the design to eliminate the concerns d) Discussion of provision of public amenity space based on what the code requires Mr. Walterscheid stated he appreciates the effort put forth and the supporters coming forward. He feels everyone prefers to see a hotel at this location. He stated P&Z must look at the applicant in the same Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 7 manner they would anyone else submitting an application. He applauds the effort to upgrade this portion of the mountain. He does not feel the proposed application is the right answer for the property. His reasons include: a) It appears there is a concerted effort between SkiCo and the applicant to “hug” the lift. He feels there were opportunities lost to maintain the view plane up the corridor while still allowing for the traffic circle. b) The neighbors realize a hotel will be built at some point and it will be sizable. Regardless if P&Z agrees with the SKI or Lodge (L) zone base, a PD review provides flexibility with the heights. Because there is no clear direction, he feels it will be important to compare the heights to the properties directly adjacent to applicant property. As the review moves forward, he would like to see a lot more graphic representation of the specific heights around the property. c) In regards to the rezoning, he feels the SKI zone may apply, but the limits to be defined are more closely related to the surrounding neighborhood. d) In terms of the commercial design standards and the architecture, he has no complaints. He feels the applicant needs to demonstrate the heights are necessary where proposed as the building steps up the slope and how it relates to grading on the site. e) The 8040 green line review should be handle mostly with the Engineering department. He understands the needs for fighting fires has changed over the years. He does not have anything specific to be addressed. f) He does not feel the Wheeler view plane is blocked significantly and does not feel it is an issue. g) In regards to the GMQS reviews, he does not agree with how they are subdividing the lot. It is taking advantage of the building footprint in a manner to allow them to configure it for a higher density. He would rather see the entire portion in the city limits as the lot. He understands this will raise the affordable housing requirements, parking and a few other areas, but will more accurately present what they are doing. h) He understands the major subdivision and feels it can be dealt with condominium documents and home owner agreements. He feels there may be a bit of creative subdivision of the lots. i) He does not agree with a ten-year extension of vesting rights and would prefer a shorter time. Mr. Elliott then reviewed his comments: a) He does like the Rubey Park connection, but he is concerned if S Aspen St can handle the volume of skiers, employees, guests in a town that is trying to reduce congestion. He wanted to know the raw number of trips during peak times. He needs to see more detail on this proposed solution. b) In regards to Norway, if you come down the western side you will have to take your skis off and come all the way around the new curve and get back on the lift. This distance seems substantially longer than the current distance to return to the lift. He is concerned if this would turn skiers off because they will have to navigate pedestrian traffic within the round-about. c) He feels the ten year vesting period is too long. d) In regards to the size of the building, typically he feels the applicant has the right to build whatever they want to build. In an earlier presentation it was discussed at a portal, but from views above, the building cuts off the rest of the west of Aspen. All you see is the building. He is not sure it is welcoming, like a portal to a ski area. It does not seem like a portal to him. It is not a deal breaker, but it does invite conversation. e) He takes the applicant at their word regarding moving the ski lift. If it has to be moved back to be gradual, he does not have a problem. He feels like pulling it in makes it feel like they are pulling it into the building. f) He feels 49 ft in height is pretty high. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 8 g) Because the zoning change is unique, it will be a more meticulous process and require more time for evaluation. h) Overall, he thinks it’s a great project and he gets that it’s going to be a hotel. The neighbors will have to get used to having a building in their visual plane. i) He does understand the support behind the Gorsuch family, but this building will be here for a very long time, and properties get sold and new management comes in. j) He is fine with the stairs to the skier plaza as presented. Mr. McNellis presented his comments: a) He was very elated to learn this development team was coming forward with a project on this side of mountain and feels it is far overdue. He respects and understands the quality of team. b) He does agree with many of Staff points in their memo. c) He agrees with Ms. McNicholas regarding the historical integrity. He feels it should be retained and made better than it is. He feels this is the birthplace of western skiing which intrigues him. He noted the original lift is on the National Register. He would like to see what could be done to preserve the cultural and historical identity to the best extent possible. When he sits at the bottom of historical Lift 1A, he wants to be able to look up the corridor and see where people skied down the mountain in the 1930’s. He would like skiers to retain the ability to use the original corridor. Right now, he was dismayed the northern wing of the Gorsuch Haus blocks the corridor. d) He is also concerned about the bulk and mass of the project. He feels it is significantly bigger than other structures in the area. He would like to see the mass broken down and had hoped the applicant would come forward with a proposal breaking it down into multiple structures. Looking up from the bottom, you will see seven stories creeping up the mountain and he feels that is significant and will be overwhelming. e) He is concerned about the lift being hugged by the building. He feels this will be a bit of a turn off regarding accessibility to the area. Along with this is the bottlenecking of the ski hill below and accessibility for people to come around and ski the historic hill. He would like to see what the applicant can do to open it up for accessibility. Ms. Tygre commented the following: a) She complimented Staff on a thorough and thoughtful analysis of the issues appropriate for P&Z to consider and she agrees with their findings. b) She is concerned with the mass and size of the project and the privatization of the lift. c) The relocation of the lift and how it will be accessed is an eye roller. She feels it is a huge drawback for any project on this side of the mountain. She feels there is a better solution than the one proposed. d) The shuttle is a terrible idea. Ms. McNicholas Kury wanted to see more exploration of the transportation options and does not feel it has to be one or another. She feels there could be multiple transportation solutions. There will not be any opportunity retained for any type of lift to Dean St if there is not through way. A shuttle may be appropriate for high volume time and a platter lift is appropriate for certain hours. Ms. Tygre feels unless there is significant access from Dean St in some manner, then all the lift improvements are meaningless. A lift must be accessible and desirable for people to reach from Dean St. She reiterated she would like to see a real lift solution. The ones proposed so far seem to be patchwork. Mr. Goode provided the following comments: a) Thanked the applicant for the amazing project but he thinks it has a long way to go. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 9 b) He feels the biggest issue is determining the zoning. The community sees it as a lodge and to pretend those requirements don’t exist in this area is misleading. He noted the applicant’s discussion of the other large projects in town and found it eye opening. He feels code has set down what the community wants. He does not find it appropriate to find this project not abide by a Lodge zoning. c) In regards to history, he feels P&Z has a passion for it and it needs more definition. d) He feels the commissioners have provided a lot of direction and feels Staff did a great job of breaking down the project. e) He thinks asking why the COOP wasn’t approved may be a good place to start with this project. He believes it would be beneficial to address issues now, before going to Council. Mr. Walterscheid motioned to continue the hearing to August 16, 2016 and was seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury. All in favor, motion passed. Ms. Quinn asked Mr. DeFrancia for an electronic copy of presentation for tonight that was not part of the packet. This was entered as exhibit N. Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. 230 E Hopkins Ave (Mountain Forge Building) – Conceptual Commercial Design, Off-Street Parking and Growth Management Quota System Reviews Mr. Goode opened the continued hearing. Ms. Quinn stated the applicant was required to re-notice the hearing because of a change in the application. She reviewed the affidavits of notice and found it is appropriate to proceed on all aspects of the application. Ms. Sara Nadolny introduced Mr. Stan Clauson, Clauson and Associates and Ms. Dana Ellis, Broughton and Broughton, as the applicant representatives. She stated this hearing was a continuation from the June 7th and June 21st public hearings. Two new topics, a special review and a variance request, are part of the application. The notice for the hearing will be entered as Exhibit L. The public hearing covers the conceptual design review, growth management, special review and dimensional variance. She then provided a recap of the prior hearings. P&Z previously provided a favorable opinion of the proposed exterior changes to the building through the commercial design review. This included the roof forms, a slight decrease of nonconforming height on the south, southeast end, the completion of a gable to extend a to 32 ft, an addition of the garage along the alley way as well as pedestrian entrances along Monarch St. The applicant has continued to propose two free market residential units on the second floor level and commercial on the basement, ground and second floor levels. At the June 7th hearing, the direction to the applicant was to maintain the existing two-bedroom affordable housing unit onsite. P&Z reviewed a version of the unit at the June 21st hearing and provided direction to make the unit more livable. In particular, increase the floor area while not departing Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 10 significantly from the 50% above and 50% below grade requirement, include storage for the unit and greater access to natural light. The applicant has responded with a plan for the unit. The Aspen | Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) requires a two-bedroom unit to be a minimum of 900 sf and the applicant is proposing a 908 sf unit with 40% on the ground level and 60% below grade. The code requires 50% of the net livable floor area to be located at or above grade so the proposed ratio requires a special review by P&Z. She then reviewed the criteria for a special review. She stated the unit is compatible with the residential and commercial uses in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff has not identified any site specific constraints that would require placing more of the unit below grade. Any hardship would be self-created in this aspect in regards to the use mix on the site. APCHA has reviewed the proposed design and they have provided a favorable recommendation for the unit. Both Staff and APCHA appreciate the increase in the net livable space as well as onsite storage and enhanced natural light. However, the applicant is not providing a significant increase of storage space from the 10% required per the code. The amount provided is 91 sf, which is just over the minimum. The unit also lacks access to any privatized outdoor space, patio or other amenities on the site. Staff does not feel the application adequately meets the criteria for allowing less than 50% of the floor area to be subgrade and therefore recommending denial of the special review. She then discussed the dimensional variance. The applicant is requesting a dimensional variance for the window well along Monarch St façade. The current window well is nonconforming as it is within the site’s five ft side yard setback. The applicant is proposing to reduce the size of the window well, but it will still extend past the side yard setback, decreasing its nonconformity. They also need to deepen the window well by approximately 11 in to meet the interior level necessary for the required egress from the subgrade bedrooms per the building code. The deepening of the window well triggers the dimensional variance review. She then reviewed the criteria. Upon review, Staff has determined the applicant can avoid the review by reducing the size of the window well to the minimum required for an egress which is three ft by three ft for an individual well. A lesser size window well will not reduce the reasonable use of the structure. Staff understands the applicant is proposing the window well size in response to P&Z’s direction from the previous hearing to allow more natural light into the subgrade bedrooms and make it more it livable. Staff appreciates the enhance livability aspect provided by the natural light, but the code does not speak to livability to be considered for a variance. Staff cannot support the request for a dimensional variance at this time. The proposed changes to the affordable housing unit does impact other site factors including the amount of net leasable floor area. This is increasing by about 500 sf but is still less than what is currently on the site so not mitigation is required. There are also changes to the free market residential units. Ten sf has been removed from the larger of the two units. The larger unit is changed from 1,845 sf to 1,835 sf. The smaller unit remains at 414 sf. The applicant is responsible for providing 1.69 FTEs for mitigating the free market units. They are proposing mitigation through the purchase of certificates of affordable housing credit. This is supported by Staff as well as APCHA. Staff has asked the applicant to restudy the public amenity maintained onsite. The applicant is required to provide a minimum of 10% of the net lot area as public amenity and has responded with a plan similar to what had been previously proposed. They are proposing 9.7% onsite as a landscaped offer between the building and the sidewalk and wraps slightly around the affordable housing unit along the alley as well as the paved walkways along both facades. The applicant is also proposing 8.4% public amenity adjacent to the site along Hopkins Ave between the street and the walkway as improved landscape possibly incorporating bench seating and public art. Any plans would have to be approved by the parks and engineering departments prior to the final design. The total public amenity proposed is 1,086 sf or 18.10% and is supported by Staff. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 11 Ms. Nadolny then discussed parking. The increase in commercial floor area triggers a new calculation of parking requirements. There are three spaces required for the proposed residential units and one for every 1,000 sf of net livable floor area for a calculated amount of 4.82 spaces. The total number of spaces is 7.82 or 8 physical parking spaces. The applicant proposes to provide two spaces onsite in the garage along the alley for a remainder of 5.82. There has been some disagreement between Staff and the applicant regarding what is currently on site. To date, Staff has not received clear documentation to ensure the calculations are accurate. Staff is basing their measurements and calculations on a survey and how the property is currently being used. The applicant and Staff can further discuss this. The applicant is proposing a fee-in-lieu of payment for the spaces not onsite which is allowed per the code and acceptable to Staff. She stated with addition of the residential unit, the environmental health department requires an increase of trash/recycling provided for onsite. The department has approved a decrease in the size that would normally be required through their own administrative special review. They are requiring an increase of 75 sf instead of an additional 125 sf. The applicant has added unenclosed trash area along the alley meeting the minimal requirements to be used by the affordable housing unit. This requirement has been met per the environmental health department. She then summarized the approvals being sought tonight. 1. Commercial Design Review. 2. Growth management including two allotments for two residential units. 3. Certificates of affordable housing for the free market units. 4. Dimensional variance for the window well along Monarch St. 5. Special review to vary the amount of net livable floor area at or above grade for the affordable housing unit. Staff is recommending continuation to study the affordable housing unit in order to provide at least 50% of the unit’s net livable floor area at or above grade. Staff is recommending denial of the request for the dimensional variance and would prefer the minimum size. Staff is supportive of the topics associated with the commercial design review and growth management. Mr. Goode asked for questions of Staff. Mr. Elliott asked for the proposed percentages of the above and below grade for the affordable housing unit. Ms. Nadolny replied they were at 366 sf above and 366 sf below with the previous hearing. Now they are proposing 366 sf above and 542 sf below grade. Mr. McNellis asked if 91 sf was storage. Ms. Nadolny noted there is storage both above and below grade. It also includes the closets in the bedrooms. Ms. Tygre asked if the bedrooms had changed size. Ms. Nadolny responded they have, but she did not have the exact dimensions. She added they have both increased in size to accommodate a king size bed. Mr. Goode asked for a visual example of the rear yard setback. Ms. Nadolny stated it was discussed at the previous hearing and Staff was on board with P&Z. With the increase in trash, some of the area ended up in the location. Mr. McNellis asked what they propose for the public amenity along the alley. Ms. Nadolny stated the last iteration was a landscaped area and it was assumed it remained the same. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 12 Mr. Clauson introduced the applicant team. He reviewed the direction they heard from P&Z at the previous hearing.  Expand the subgrade windows  Expansion of affordable housing unit even if it was subgrade or busted the 50/50 ratio. Mr. Clauson displayed and provided an overview of the existing development, proposed dev and proposed floor area including the following:  2,249 sf of free market unchanged  720 sf affordable housing unit was a reduction, but allowed under the code. It has been increased to 907 sf two bedroom onsite affordable housing unit per direction from P&Z. P&Z also indicated the expansion would be acceptable in the subgrade area.  Proposed total floor area is 6,240 sf which is slightly more than the prior plan, but considerably less than what is allowed on the site. He noted it is a constrained site and much of what they have done is reflective of the constraints. He then displayed and discussed the project objectives and noted two additions. One is providing a fully compliant and exceptional onsite affordable housing unit. The other was to meet the environmental health requirements for trash and recycling which he noted jumped considerably with the addition of the affordable housing unit. He then displayed and discussed the modified site plan.  907 sf replacement affordable housing unit  Monarch areaway partially filled for egress window with the request for a larger window to enhance livability of the unit as indicated by P&Z at the last meeting.  Addition of the trash/recycling areas per environmental health. He then displayed and Ms. Ellis discussed the revised architecture. She noted the window well is larger, but proportional to the bedroom sizes. The front façade of the affordable housing unit is the same which is a private entrance directly off of Monarch St. The windows at the entry are in front of the staircase going to the subgrade space. The stairs lead to a small seating area that may serve as an office or media room which will have access to the light from the windows. Mr. Clauson then displayed and discussed the window well. He noted it is a reduction of the very large well that currently exists. The dimensional variance request is rather minimal; 3 ft 6 in from the building and 8 ft wide to cover both windows. The minimal standard window well that would not require a variance would be 3 ft from the building and 6 ft wide. This would allow for a substantial filling of the existing window well. They believe it is a reduction in the existing areaway with no significant impacts except it enhances the livability of the subgrade portions of the unit. He then discussed the applicable code and displayed the code for review standard for the affordable housing unit identified as Section26.430.040(I)(3) and discussed the following conditions as a basis for a variance of the 50/50 requirement. He feels the proposal exceeds these conditions.  Significant Storage – storage is proposed on both the subgrade and main levels  Above average natural light – there is generous glazing on the main floor and a small upsizing of the subgrade windows.  Net livable size exceeds the minimum requirement – true of this proposal  Unit amenities – direct access to Francis Whitaker Park, transportation facilities and the activities within the core. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 13 He then displayed and discussed the floor plan of the affordable housing unit. He noted there is 542 sf subgrade and 366 sf on the main level for about a 60/40 split. This varies from the 720 sf unit which was approved by APCHA and split 50/50. Ms. Ellis then displayed and discussed the subgrade portions of affordable housing unit. She noted one bedroom was 11 ft 2 in X 10 ft 9 in. The second bedroom is 14 ft 6 in X 9 ft 9 in. They both have standard sized closets, each over 6 ft in length. They were also able to fit in a washer / dryer location. Storage is available under the stairs with a slight compressed ceiling to access the storage. The bathroom has a double sink. A storage area was added next to the garage and it was decided it would be best to have the access from the inside. At the very last minute, they adjusted the size of the storage unit because the garage was changed slightly to accommodate the increased trash/recycling area required outside. Ms. Ellis then provided an alley elevation demonstrating where the trash would be located. It will be a shielded area because it is open to truck traffic. They have not determined if it will be closed off or if glazing will be used. They had hoped to put it an enclosure but it not allowed per code because it is within setback. She then displayed a Monarch St elevation to demonstrate the glazing of affordable housing unit. Mr. Clauson noted there is 8.2% onsite, 10% required and between the on and off sites, they are proposing 18% along with special features including a monument to Francis Whitaker and a bench. The sidewalk will be straightened, improvement to the crossings and filling a substantial portion of the window well on Monarch St. In regards to trash/recycling, he then noted that by adding one unit the requirement bumped from 75 sf to 200 sf. Environmental health supports 75% of the requirement and they are providing 157 sf. He then displayed and discussed parking. He stated they had provided Staff a stamped survey showing the bollards protecting the egress stairway and making two of the spaces not compliant. He stated this is a similar situation to the Molly Gibson where Staff accepted a noncompliant space. They believe there is a two space deficit. They agree with Staff’s assignment of parking spaces of 7.8 or 8 spaces. They propose two will be provided in the garage, two to be maintained by deficit and cash-in-lieu for four spaces. Or as needed as it might be resolved. He then discussed the affordable housing mitigation. They are proposing 2.25 onsite with a two- bedroom unit and 1.69 through credits. He provided an elevation from the corner of the project and asked if there were any questions. Mr. Goode asked for any questions of the applicant. Ms. McNicholas asked if the affordable housing unit was a for purchase or rental unit. Both Mr. Clauson and Ms. Phelan stated it was a rental. Mr. Goode then opened for public comment. Ms. Ruth Carver lives on S Aspen St. She asked if he parking spaces located on the alley are closer to the other house or the sidewalk. Ms. Phelan stated there are two spaces on the western side. Mr. Clauson pointed out the two garage parking spaces on a site plan. Ms. Phelan stated they are paying a fee-in-lieu for the other spaces as allowable per code. Ms. Carver asked if there was room for the dumpsters to be moved in and out. Ms. Ellis stated five feet of clearance is required for the dumpsters. They are Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning July 19 2016 14 providing an additional three feet for circulation and it will remain open. Ms. Carver is concerned because a lot of trucks and cars park there for Grape and Grain. Mr. Rick Head, APCHA board member, believes the board unanimously approved the first iteration and feel it was a better unit. They are very much in favor of the project. Ms. Carver feels it will be nice to have someone living there in an affordable housing unit. Mr. Goode then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. McNellis stated he has no problem with the project and would like to approve it as presented. Mrs. McNicholas stated she is happy to sign off on what was presented. Mr. Walterscheid appreciated the effort to make the lower level more livable by offering up space. He is fine with maintaining a slightly larger window well. He would have liked to see a larger storage area but understands the space requirement for trash/recycling. Ms. Tygre does not have any problems with the employee housing unit as proposed by the applicant. In general, she likes the project. Parking is a real sticking point and she doesn’t feel this is an area in which cash-in-lieu is appropriate. She passes this area a lot and there are always six or seven cars there. Mr. Morris has nothing to add. Mr. Goode asked for a motion. Ms. Quinn noted there is a resolution in the packet. Mr. McNellis motioned to approve Resolution 5, Series 2016 as drafted by Staff and Mr. Elliott seconded. Roll call to vote: Mr. Morris, yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Elliott, yes; Ms. Tygre, no; and Mr. Goode, yes for a total of six Yes and one No (6-1) in favor of the motion. Ms. McNicholas Kury noticed the amount of the sf for trash/recycling identified in Section 5: Trash/Recycling Service was 200 sf and should be 157 sf. Mr. McNellis amended his motion to reflect the changes noted by Ms. McNicholas Kury. His motion was seconded by Mr. Elliott. Roll call to vote: Mr. Morris, yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Ms. Tygre, no; Mr. Elliott, yes; and Mr. Goode, yes for a total of six Yes and one No (6-1) in favor of the motion. Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURN Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager