Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20160621Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016 1 Mr. Spencer McKnight was elected to serve as chair for the meeting since Mr. Goode and Mr. Mesirow were not present. Mr. McKnight, Acting Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Ryan Walterscheid, Jason Elliott, Mr. Brian McNellis, Ms. Jasmine Tygre and Mr. Spencer McKnight. Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Ms. Kelly McNicholas Kury, Mr. Jesse Morris and Mr. Keith Goode were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Ms. Debbie Quinn, Ms. Linda Manning, Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Ms. Sara Nadolny and Ms. Hillary Seminick. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan provide the following information:  The parking consultants are in town and they are doing a couple of meetings on June 22nd. She wanted to remind everyone they are interested in meeting board members from 1-2:30 pm and a general meeting from 3-4 pm.  A new website called www.aspencommunityvoice.com was launched the previous week with information and feedback related to the moratorium. She will provide an email and link to the board members.  More is coming the week of July 18th regarding the commercial design in relation to the moratorium.  The City Council would like to meet with each of the boards. Ms. Phelan or Ms. Manning will be sending out additional information. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES June 7, 2016 Minutes – Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes and was seconded by Mr. Walterscheid. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. McKnight wanted to declare he does not have any conflict of interest for the hearing regarding 230 E Hopkins Ave. One of the tenants in the building works at his business, Aspen 82. Mr. McKnight also wanted to note Mr. Hunt has purchased video work from his business, Aspen 82, in the past but he does not see any conflict of interest. Ms. Quinn stated Mr. McKnight had met with her to discuss these two items and he indicated he can be fair and impartial at both hearings. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 230 E Hopkins Ave – Mountain Forge Building – Conceptual Commercial Design, Off-Street Parking and Growth Management Quota System Reviews – Continued from June 7, 2016 Mr. McKnight opened the continued hearing and turned the floor over to Staff. Ms. Sara Nadolny, Planner Tech, introduced the following individuals on the applicant team and stated this is a continued hearing. The applicant is seeking approvals related to conceptual commercial design review and various growth management reviews.  Mr. Stan Clauson, Stan Clauson & Associates  Ms. Dana Ellis, Roland and Broughton She noted the building is located on the corner of S Monarch St and E Hopkins Ave. The proposed remodel includes changes to many of the building’s roof forms, increases the onsite and offsite public amenity space, decreases parking, decreases the commercial net leasable floor area, adds two free market residential units on the second floor, and removes the onsite two-bedroom affordable housing unit. She then provided renderings from Hopkins Ave and down on Monarch St. She noted at the June 7th hearing, the commission unanimously voted to continue the hearing directing the applicant to restudy the design in order to maintain the affordable housing unit onsite. The applicant has responded with a new proposal maintaining the unit onsite and alters some aspects of the earlier request in regards to the design and growth management. In regards to growth management, she wanted to talk about the onsite affordable housing unit. The current unit has two bedrooms and is located on the second floor of the building and houses 2.25 full time equivalents (FTEs). They are proposing a two-bedroom unit to be maintained as a rental unit onsite. The unit will be located along Monarch St and will be split between the ground and basement floors. It will measure 360 sf of net livable floor area per level meeting the requirement that 50% of the floor level be at or above grade. The total unit size is 720 sf. She noted is part of Exhibit E1 to the memo today. The growth management requirement for 2.25 FTEs should be a 2 bedroom, 900 sf net livable area unit. The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) considers up to a 20% reduction in floor area if the project demonstrates it is an exceptional unit and meets at least some of the following criteria: 1) Significant storage space located outside the unit 2) Above average natural light into the unit 3) Efficient and flexible layout with limited hall and staircase space 4) Available onsite amenities such as a pool, play area or hot tub 5) Location of unit above ground instead of ground or basement level 6) Reduction in floor area allow higher density onsite of deed restricted units Staff is pleased to see the applicant is maintaining the two-bedroom unit onsite. However, they did not find the unit to meet any of the criteria to allow for a reduction in floor area. Staff is recommending the applicant meet the required size for the 2.25 FTEs, which is 900 sf; or provide an exceptional unit meeting some of the exemption criteria previously mentioned. The other part of the growth management application deals with the residential development. Two second story free market units were previously proposed measuring 1,845 sf with 500 sf net livable floor Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016 3 area. The latest application maintains the larger free market unit of 1,845 sf, but reduces the other unit to 414 sf. The new proposal alters the previous mitigation rate and the FTEs generated from 1.76 FTEs to 1.69 FTEs. The applicant is continuing to propose utilizing certificates of affordable housing credits to mitigate for the FTEs. The APCHA board will accept the certificates of housing credits or an offsite unit within the City boundaries that would be deed restricted and approved by APCHA. Staff supports either of the mitigation options. The applicant is also continuing to request two growth management allotments for free market housing for the construction of the two free market units. Ms. Nadolny reiterated this would need to be acknowledged in the resolution. In regards to the changes to the commercial design review in this application, there are some changes to the building’s exterior on Monarch St. She provided a rendering of the changes and noted the previous design completely filled in the large window well along Monarch St making it public amenity space. The most recent proposal includes two bedrooms along Monarch St below grade and they will provide the minimum sized window well for each of the sub grade bedrooms. Staff feels it has little impact on the mass, scale and height of the building so they are supportive of the change as a mandatory egress option. Ms. Nadolny then referred to the public amenity areas identified on p 39 of the packet. She noted the applicant is required to provide at least 10% of the total lot area as public amenity onsite. The guidelines define public amenity as an area open to the sky, accessible, abuts a public walkway, along a street edge, meaningful and enhances the property in some way. The applicant previously proposed 7.6% onsite as a landscaped area between the building and sidewalk along Monarch St and another offsite, directly adjacent 8.5 % space between Hopkins Ave and the sidewalk for a combined total of 16 % of the total lot area. At the previous meeting, she noted P&Z did not see this as a big issue. Ms. McNicholas Kury did request more onsite at the meeting. The current proposal accommodates the window well along Monarch St. Additional public amenity space along Monarch St and the alleyway for a total onsite of 680 sf or 11.3% of the site as well as maintaining the offsite space of 510 sf or 8.5 % of the site. The current proposal includes a total of 1,190 sf or 19.8% which far exceeds the required amount. Staff does not feel all areas should count as public amenity, particularly the areas along the alley as well as in front of the garage space and trash areas. Staff feels the applicant should work on providing more meaningful space as defined by the commercial guidelines. Ms. Nadolny then discussed the parking for the project. She noted with the addition of the affordable housing unit, one more space is required. The applicant is also proposing to increase the commercial net floor area on the site from 3,6741 sf to 4,321 sf. This amount is still under what is currently onsite, but more than what was previously proposed which triggered a recalculation of the mitigation. One parking space is required for every 1,000 sf of commercial net leasable space and every residential unit requires one space. The new required mitigation calculated for the parking is 7.32 parking spaces. The applicant is still maintaining two onsite for the free market units leaving 5.32 remaining. Staff is acceptable of the proposed payment-in-lieu for the remaining mitigation. Ms. Nadolny stated they expect some changes to the existing trash and recycling area. With the last application, there were no requirements to increase this area per the environmental health code. With the addition of the affordable housing unit onsite, this will need to be re-examined. Environmental Health staff was not available to review this in time for the hearing and feels this can be part of the final review. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016 4 Ms. Nadolny then summarized the issues. She noted she only touched on the issues tonight that were impacted by the affordable housing. She reviewed the proposed height as part of the commercial design review, changing roof forms, and growth management allotments. Mr. McKnight then asked if there were any questions from the commissioners. Mr. Walterscheid asked in regards to the public amenity area within the right-of-way (ROW), what differentiates the side to the south from the side to the east and why not ask for all of it. Ms. Nadolny stated the application has been looked at by both the parks and engineering departments and no one has an issue with adjacent public amenity space. Staff would need concrete evidence of what they plan to install in the area in regards to a sculpture and landscaping. It is in the public right-of-way, so it cannot be just given away. Mr. McNellis asked Staff to confirm they are still exceeding the public amenity requirements. Ms. Nadolny stated they exceeded with the last application. Staff reviews the proposals to determine if a deficit in public amenity space and if they are able to maintain the deficit in the future. Mr. Walterscheid asked why they can’t count all of the area in the public ROW. Ms. Phelan stated the improvement needs to be more than grass and trees. The intent includes benches or a sitting area such as the Aspen Art Museum. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Stan Clauson introduced the applicant’s team and noted there were two key issues identified at the previous meeting. 1. An affordable housing unit should be provided onsite. He stated it was challenging to insert an affordable housing unit into the structures and still make it a viable project. He then reviewed the project: Existing development:  2,333 sf of free market residential  792 sf of affordable housing net livable area  2-bedroom unit housing 2.25 FTEs – Code states replacement should be based on FTEs  5,600 sf of commercial net leasable area Proposed development:  2,249 sf of free market residential  Second unit reduced from 500 sf to 414 sf to accommodate the  750 sf 2-bedroom onsite affordable housing unit fully meeting the FTE requirement and approved by APCHA (memo in packet). He stated a two-bedroom unit can be required to be as large as 900 sf. A 20% reduction is allowed for a well-designed, amenity laden unit.  The commercial net leasable was reduced to accommodate the affordable housing. Previously it was 5,376 sf and has been reduced by almost 1,000 sf.  The overall floor area is 6,202 sf and he pointed out the allowable floor area ratio is 2:1 or 12,000 sf permitted. The floor area proposed is almost half what is allowable. He then provided a southeast elevation and north elevation of the existing conditions. They have received comments from the neighbors stating the proposal is a vast improvement. He pointed out two Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016 5 bollards at the rear of the building and noted these parking spaces are not legal because they do not extend 18 ft. He then displayed and discussed the original project objectives and noted they are adding an onsite affordable housing unit. He then reviewed the objectives.  Incorporate roofing forms from neighboring structures  Reorganize and improve the commercial space  Maintain the unique site features  Enhance the pedestrian experience  Meet the height limit  Reduce the existing nonconformities  Provide two new free market residential units  Maintain the parking deficit  Provide onsite affordable housing unit He then displayed the revised site plan with the replacement affordable housing unit provided onsite with the entry off Monarch St. He stated the site is constrained by existing development. It is right up against the property lines in certain areas to the west. The existing footprint remains and the addition would be on the alley side. The Mountain Forge building has historic quality and will be maintained and enhanced including a sculptural element relating the Francis Whitaker’s work and a bench along with some paving and trees. He then responded to the question why the public ROW would be considered public amenity. In some respect, it could all be looked at as public amenity. In fact, they have not counted the area as public amenity. He stated there will be new trees and lawn area. The sidewalk does not currently align properly. The new sidewalk will be realigned. He noted the public amenity can also be counted where they are filling in the existing light well, some areas in front, and some area on the other side of the affordable housing unit. The area way off Hopkins is substantial and was part of the sunken areas built in the 1970s. He noted other locations in town with similar sunken areas. They are looking to maintain the front area and it will be modified somewhat to meet dimensional requirements. The one along Monarch St will be filled and added to the amenity space. Ms. Ellis then discussed the architectural changes. She noted they heard from the commissioners at the previous hearing and looked into balancing the site constraints to meet the 40% demo rate rule. It is important to maintain some of the nonconformities in order to keep the Mountain Forge building which projects into the setbacks. The looked in to using the added piece on the alley to include an affordable housing unit. She displayed what had been proposed earlier and discussed the original entry to the building now specified as the entry to the affordable housing unit. They wanted the affordable housing unit to have a direct street access. They were able to meet the requirements with reduce square footage in order to have a 50/50 breakdown of the unit between ground level and subgrade level. She then displayed a floor plan. She noted the net livable area is not counted on the upper level where the stair is located. She mentions this because the upper level is quite large sized approximately 16 ft wide x 29 ft deep. The stairs reduce the sf amount. The ground floor would be a great room with a Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016 6 kitchen and living/dining area. She noted there is a dedicated front door, which they think is exceptional. She noted they plan to add glazing around the stairway to allow light to come down to the subgrade level. She stated Staff had directed them to maintain the minimum size window wells as to not increase the nonconformity. She stated there is a full bath and two bedrooms located downstairs. Ms. Ellis stated they struggled with the sf breakdown and worked with Staff to identify the best option. In terms of criteria, they would like to propose storage downstairs, but it adds to the net livable and busts the 50/50 rule. They feel storage is a good exception and she then pointed out possible locations for storage to be located along the corridor adding approximately 100 sf to the subgrade space. It was not a part of the application because it would tip the 50/50 scale with more sf in the basement. She added they focused on adding as much light as possible to the first floor as possible. The applicant feels strongly about creating an amenity onsite for possibly for one of the commercial tenants. She noted they also feel this is exceptional in that the unit will be a new space entering the rental market. APCHA was pleased with this option. The applicant feels it created a crunch on the FAR numbers, causing a reduction in commercial as well as the free market. Ms. Ellis stated the availability of the site amenities include an adjacent park, location within the commercial core, direct access to a shuttle route. They feel this definitely meets the criteria. Ms. Ellis stated they also feel the location of the unit within the development is exceptional. The location and access provides a sense of identity. The current unit shares access with a commercial tenant, which is not ideal. Ms. Ellis stated it does meet the criteria for a reduction to the net livable space. Mr. Clauson noted it is 360 sf on the main level and 360 sf subgrade. While it is 360 sf as net livable is calculated, it really is over 400 sf of area in the first floor unit. He added APCHA found the criterial for net reduction to be all met. The criteria pointed out by Staff were possible items, not additive. He noted with respect to storage, they would be happy to accept a conditional approval allowing for the additional storage. In regards to public amenity, he stated Staff has calculated 18.2% onsite. They initially felt there was no public amenity that was useful or interesting to the public. They accept the 18.2% which meets the 10% requirement. As previously indicated, this is met by the improved sidewalks and crosswalks, and an art sculptural piece. In general, the parkway along Hopkins would be significantly improved and could include seating with a view of the park. The new public amenity space consists of 900 sf or 15% of the site which is within the 10% requirement. They excluded areas in the back as requested by Staff. He then pointed out when they added the affordable housing and the light well, it reduced the public amenity space a bit. The light well meets the minimum requirement, but P&Z may determine to expand it and they are not opposed to it. He added this could also be a condition of approval. Currently it meets the building code. Mr. Clauson then discussed parking. He noted the existing development requires six spaces including five for commercial and one for the existing affordable housing unit. Four spaces are compliant leaving an existing two space deficit. The four spaces are along the back of the building the two spaces with the bollards are nonconforming. There was a similar situation with Molly Gibson Lodge where there was parking behind the Lodge on Gibson that were deemed to be noncompliant because of the size, so none were counted as existing. The proposed parking would require 4.3 spaces for the commercial and three Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016 7 spaces for the residential units totaling 7.3 spaces. Two spaces are provided for in the garage, two spaces by maintained deficit and 3.3 spaces met through payment-in-lieu. He added this will be calculated at the time of the permit by the zoning officer. Mr. Clauson stated the trash/recycle, utilities and delivery services are provided off the alley. The applicant will work with the Environmental Health Department to ensure adequate trash/recycle is provided. The believe they will need the addition of one small dumpster unit. Mr. Clauson then discussed the affordable housing mitigation. The commercial net leasable is decreasing, so not additional mitigation is required. The free market net livable represents a mitigation met through affordable housing credits for 1.69 FTEs. The existing two-bedroom unit at 2.25 FTEs is being replaced onsite. Mr. Clauson then reviewed the project benefits:  Sustain development utilizing the existing structure  Maintains unique aspect of Aspen history  Improves pedestrian experience  Affordable housing replacement onsite  Architecture is more compatible with neighborhood He stated it is very difficult to keep continuing these hearings for the project and hopes P&Z recognizes the work they have done to maintain the affordable housing unit onsite and allows the project to move forward to final design with any conditions of approval they may want to attach. Mr. McKnight then asked the commissioners if they had any questions. Mr. McNellis stated he looked at APCHA’s referral and asked if they met APCHA’s option A. Ms. Nadolny stated there were two options were presented to APCHA and they were supposed to review the option identified as Option A. After the first hearing, another option was discussed with Staff which had more than 50% below grade. Staff appreciated the larger unit size but were concerned the code would not be met with this option. This option was scrapped in favor of option A in APCHA’s referral. Only option A is in the packet. She spoke with Ms. Cindy Christensen of APCHA who stated the storage area was offered on the fly to the housing board. The storage included in option A was never offered or reviewed by Staff. APCHA’s recommendation includes the storage that has never been reviewed by Staff. Staff would like the opportunity to look at it closer and discuss if it meets the criteria. She also noted Staff has not had the opportunity to review the enhanced glazing included in the presentation which might provide additional light into the affordable housing unit. What they have been able to review does not live up the criteria as discussed earlier. Mr. McNellis stated the APCHA memo is dated June 15, 2016. Ms. Nadolny responded the memo date is prior to due date for the packet. Ms. Phelan reiterated Staff has not seen these changes that have been proposed on the fly. She added APCHA has their standards and the City has its standards and Staff has not had the time with one product. Mr. Clauson responded the option meets the AOCHA requirements and was endorsed by APCHA. APCHA noted the applicant had offered additional storage but it was not a condition of the approval. Mr. Clauson stated they’ve shown P&Z where the storage could go and it is not a complicated matter. It doesn’t require too much board review to see that approximately 100 sf of additional storage could be provided. Mr. Clauson displayed a floor plan showing where the storage would be located. Ms. Ellis noted the plan shows 200 sf of possible storage and they are offering one or another of 100 sf. She noted the have the most opportunity to configure the storage in the basement space and believe it would be beneficial to the unit. They presented a version to Staff that met the code, but APCHA is dealing more with how tenants live and not numbers. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016 8 Mr. Walterscheid asked Staff in addition to the 50/50, are they not also required to provide 30% of any above grade free market as above grade affordable housing. Ms. Phelan responded there are two mitigation requirements. One for the free market component, which requires a certain percentage to be above grade. They are proposing credits for that component. The requirement onsite is with regard to the demolition of the affordable housing which requires the 50/50. Mr. Walterscheid asked why the exterior wall on the main level does not stack with the foundation. It appears to be a two-foot setback. He was curious as to why they don’t take advantage of the sf space. Ms. Ellis stated the primary façade is along the alley. She noted the alley is where the delivery trucks park. The largest piece of feedback they received was regarding the sensitivity to the alley and it is a terrible spot for a residential unit. The space is not considered public amenity space because the building extends over it. They also felt the relief from delivery trucks was important. Architecturally, they like the corner glazing because it relates to other corner. They are sensitive that this is an alley and not a park. In similar projects where a building was placed close to the alley, the building gets damaged. Ms. Tygre asked for the dimensions of 2 bedrooms. Ms. Ellis responded one is 8 ft 2 in by 10 ft 9 in including the closet area. The second is 10 ft 4 in by 9 ft 9 in. Mr. McKnight asked Staff to clarify their concerns with storage in that they had no opportunity for review. Ms. Phelan stated they were told the applicant was not attending the hearing, but they did. Staff could have attended to provide clarification of the land use code if they had known. She feels there has been a lot of discussion without clarity regarding land use rules and regulations. Mr. Clauson added that APCHA is quite aware of the rules and regulations. Ms. Nadolny stated Staff has concerns regarding the livability of the unit. She feels it is important to understand how light gets to the subgrade level and Staff would like the opportunity to review the proposed unit to see if it meets the criteria. Staff would prefer and encourage see more of the unit at grade, not that they are balking on the 50/50 ratio. Mr. McNellis asked Staff if they disagree with the numbers APCHA came up with. Ms. Phelan stated they are responsible for ensuring applications mitigation requirements are correct and in this case, APCHA should only be reviewing it if they should grant the 20% reduction. Mr. Elliott asked Mr. Clauson if they felt APCHA had stated they had met the criteria for the 20% reduction. Mr. Clauson replied yes. Ms. Nadolny stated they have not been able to verify this because the minutes of the meeting are not yet available. Mr. McKnight then opened for public comment. There was none, so Mr. McKnight then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. McKnight then opened for commissioner discussion. Ms. Tygre stated at the previous meeting there was a lot of discussion about the difference in the criteria applied by P&Z and the criteria applied by APCHA. The previous memo and application did not have any affordable housing onsite which APCHA stated was okay. P&Z unanimously stated it was not okay. Very often, there is disagreement between P&Z and APCHA just as P&Z and the Historical Preservation Commission (HPC) may at times because each board works off different criteria. When Staff discusses their responsibilities under the code, they are looking at it from a different perspective and it is important to consider. Mr. McKnight stated it concerns him as well and it seems there has been a breakdown in communication regarding meetings when Staff could have attended to address land use Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016 9 code items. Ms. Tygre believes Staff is stating they have not had an opportunity to perform the necessary evaluation. Mr. McNellis stated for him it really comes down to the affordable housing unit. From what he has heard from the applicant, he was initially dismayed by the lower sf of the unit, but the applicant has made up for it somewhat by offering the storage space. If this throws off the 50/50, he feels it is semantics. He feels better with the offering of storage and believes it belongs subgrade in many cases. He also liked that APCHA is recommending it as well. He feels there may be some things that still could be done to expand the livability of the unit including expanding the light well to provide more natural light. He realizes this comes at a cost of the pedestrian space. He would be in favor of expanding the light well and possibly more pedestrian amenities along the streetscape along Monarch St. Mr. Walterscheid is happy the applicant brought back the onsite affordable housing unit. He stated if 100 sf below grade is available, he would like to see it used in the bedroom than a storage unit. An 8 ft by 10 ft bedroom is minimal at best. He sympathizes with Staff regarding their request to review the plan. If space is being carved out, what keeps the applicant from carving it out above grade or below grade. He feels they should try to at least make the unit as livable as possible. On the alley side of the affordable housing unit, he feels the occupant would have the shades drawn most of the time so they are not looking at the cars. He feels there are other opportunities that could have been worked through to get there. He understands the application is way under the FAR, but he questions the livability. He does feel they have to some extent accommodated the feedback from the P&Z from the previous hearing. Mr. McNellis wanted to add, he thinks more livable space would be better. Mr. Elliott asked Staff if APCHA reviews and approves it or does P&Z have its own criteria. Ms. Phelan stated P&Z approves the housing unit and APCHA makes a recommendation to P&Z only. Mr. Elliott doesn’t feel the park across the street is within the context of an amenity. He is not over the hump that the 20% has been met. Mr. Clauson stated it is one of the criteria and quoted the code. Mr. Elliott thanked Mr. Clauson. Ms. Tygre knows the applicant would like to move the proposal forward, but the issues concerning the affordable housing unit to a point P&Z can make recommendation, even with conditions. Ms. Tygre motioned to continue the hearing. Mr. McKnight likes the affordable housing back onsite as well as the street level entrance. He is hesitant to approve it at this point even with conditions, because staff has not had time to vet it thoroughly. He is a bit concerned the idea of the storage space was floated right when packet was due. He agrees with Ms. Tygre. Mr. Elliott also wanted to commend the applicant on the street level entrance. Ms. Tygre and Mr. McNellis agreed. Ms. Ellis requested clarification. She feels she is hearing something different than what Staff has been advising. Is P&Z open to additional sf in the basement level to enhance the area, even if it breaks the 50/50. Mr. Walterscheid stated if there is an opportunity to add sf to the affordable housing unit, he would like to see it added to the livability of the unit. He noted Staff, P&Z, and an applicant don’t always agree. He feels it is a decision the applicant must make. Personally, he would rather see larger bedrooms than additional storage. He thinks storage could be accommodated elsewhere. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016 10 Mr. McKnight agrees with Mr. Walterscheid. He is also thinking about the other 2 ft mentioned and is confused about their reasoning for not extending out. He feels this is the easiest space they have rights to use. If at capacity, he would prefer to see it added to livability and not storage. But he wants it in application and wants Staff to have the time to evaluate it. Mr. Clauson noted the applicant had presented a layout of a larger affordable housing unit, but not a 50 /50 split. He stated P&Z has the ability to approve it if they feel it is a livable unit. If P&Z would provide direction, they would be amenable to larger bedrooms and allowing more space subgrade. He asked P&Z to also state they are willing to see larger egress carved out for existing light well. Ms. Phelan stated the size of the light well would have to be checked for height requirements of the code. The 50/50 requirement could be through special review and would need to be noticed. Ms. Nadolny added the light well would be a re-notice as well. Mr. McNellis seconded motion. Ms. Phelan stated they could continue until July 19th. Mr. Elliot stated he would be willing to look at an amendment to the mend 50/50, but not an 80/20 split. Ms. Tygre amended her motion to include the date of July 19th and it was seconded by Mr. McNellis. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call. Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Elliott, yes, Mr. McKnight, yes for a total of five Yes, zero No (5-0). Motion passed. Mr. McKnight then closed the hearing. 730 E Cooper Ave – Base – Planned Development – Detailed Review and Final Commercial Design Review Mr. McKnight opened the hearing. He reviewed his declaration of conflict of interest as previously stated in the meeting. He then asked if notice had been properly provided. Ms. Debbie Quinn reviewed both and it appears notice was properly provided. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to Staff. Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner, noted the address of the application and introduced the application team.  Mr. Mark Hunt, Project Developer  Mr. Spiro Tsaparas, Modif Architects  Ms. Heather Henry, Connect One Design She stated the application is for a detailed review and final commercial design review. The detailed review is the third step in the plan development process. P&Z first saw this as a project review and noted there have been quite a few changes since then. P&Z is the final review authority for both reviews at this hearing. City Council may decide to call up the final commercial design approval. She noted a correction in Table 1 on p 46 of the memo. For the Number of Lodge Units/Bedrooms(keys)/Pillows located in the last row, third column; it should state there are 38 units/38 bedrooms/76 pillows. There was a reduction of two units and four pillows. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016 11 She noted Ordinance 2, Series 2015 approved the Base Lodge in February, 2015 which included 44 lodge bedrooms, accessory lodge use in the basement, commercial net leasable space on the ground floor and a roof top deck. It also included a number of variations including one for the underlying zone Commercial Lodge district with regards to height, off-street parking, employee generation as it pertains to affordable housing. Staff had determined the approvals were void due to a submission deadline missed in earlier 2016. The applicant as a condition of reinstatement of the approvals had agreed to remove any variations granted in the original ordinance. Ordinance 6, Series 2016 was approved in March, 2016. This amended the original Ordinance and was included in the agenda packet. Generally, there were bathrooms proposed on the roof top deck which have been relocated to the third floor. Two rooms have been removed to accommodate the bathrooms. Additionally, parking is now being provided in a subgrade garage resulting in a change in the commercial net leasable space. The applicant is seeking minor amendments to the dimensional approvals of the lodge. The changes are allowed if they do not change the requirements of the underlying zone district. The changes include: a. Modest increase of the average lodge unit size from 200 sf to 201 sf b. Reduction of 112 sf from the public amenity space due to design refinements and site planning including the bulb out at the corner of Cooper Ave and Original St. This reduction was per engineering requirements. This reduced the available public amenity in the public right-of-way (ROW). c. A subgrade garage was added and will provide 23 parking spaces. d. One additional handicap parking space, providing one more space than required. e. A loss of 118 sf of commercial net leasable area due to the addition of the garage. f. Reduction of two lodge bedrooms or four lodge pillows to accommodate the placement of bathrooms on third floor. Generally, the design consistent with the project review approvals granted by Council. Staff finds the design appropriate and reflective of Aspen’s mining history. The design palette includes aged wood, steel, glass, wooden slats, steel and concrete. The use of timber, steel and green walls will break up the overall façade of the structure. The wood columns are anchored by concrete bases. Wooden slat details have been incorporated into the window design on the second and third floors to help reduce glazing impacts and defuse light pollution. The slats also help de-emphasize the second and third levels focusing the eye on the first floor. Green walls and roof technology have been incorporated in the proposed design in addition to vegetation at base to soften the relationship of the building to the sidewalk. There are operable windows and a walk up, take out window on the Cooper St façade. The most notable difference from the original design is the exclusion of an entrance along Cooper Ave. The applicant explored an entrance on this façade and found the only option would eliminate the operable and take- out windows. These elements would allow the dining areas to spill out to the exterior and finds these elements would better activate the area than an entry and display windows. Staff recommends approving the project as proposed. Mr. McKnight then asked if there were any questions from the commissioners. There were none. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Mark Hunt provided an overview of how the project started. Mr. Hunt discussed how the project started and provided pictures that provided inspiration. He finds this to be an interesting location because it is one of the entries into the city. A mine outside Leadville provided the initial inspiration for the architecture. The lodge was designed for travelling sports teams and other events held throughout the year. The design basis was to have small rooms with communal Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016 12 areas along with areas for eating and drinking. The roof deck and bowling lane also provide places to gather. Mr. Hunt noted the rooms are small, but well appointed. They are also looking to do things to invite the locals in. One may be repositioning Sammy the barber in part of the retail area. There is also a walk-up window, court yard and roof top deck. He then provided an image of the Smuggler Mine provided by the Historical Society. He then provided a rendering of the proposed building showing the play on the mining structure. Mr. Hunt then discussed the location of the building. he noted the significant curb cuts on both Original and Cooper. They are looking to clean up this. He then provided the differing neighboring residential and commercial designs. He showed the floor plans from the 2015 approval as well as the 2016 approved floor plans including the garage. He showed each floor and discussed the changes from the 2015 approval. The bathrooms and mechanical space have been moved from the roof to the third floor. He feels this was a lost opportunity. The building size has not changed an inch. The whole point was to provide as many rooms as possible. The code requires a public restroom to be available one floor above or below the public amenity space on the roof top deck. He then showed renderings and described the changes from the 2015 approval and to the 2016 approval. He noted City Council asked them to look into dropping the parapet, so they moved it back and put up a glass parapet. Mr. Hunt then showed the existing site plan and described the approved public amenity space.  Street level o Build up the parkway with plantings and trees o Adding in a bulb out to improve the pedestrian experience when crossing the street o Increasing the parkway on Cooper Ave o Adding a permanent We-Cycle station and may have snow bikes available in the winter  Roof top deck He noted the project has five times what is required. They plan to add vegetation to the side of the building to soften the architecture and provided examples. He stated the tree on the edge of the property located directly in the middle of the sidewalk does not allow for ADA accessibility. They plan to expand the sidewalk to go around the tree. Mr. Tsaparas then covered the materials to be used. He provided background of the design process for the building. The end result was a timber construction building with glass and some playful accents from the mining era. He also discussed methods they are considering to make the small rooms feel larger including mirrors and windows. They feel the interior of the rooms will be sufficient They plan to use Douglas fir for the timber. He provided an example of the rough sawed beams with stain. He also showed an example of recessed bolts. He stated they are not using architectural grade Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016 13 because they are usually filled with epoxies. They want the materials to be organic both inside and out. He believes using organic materials creates an environment that feels great and one in which people want to be around. In regards to glass, there are three different options. The glass is a ¼ inch, double pane glass with one in air space. They are looking into the films and treatments of the glass as it affects reflectivity. They are also adding louvers for privacy and provided an example of the color and noted they will be three in wide. All the lighting inside the rooms will come from a low perspective to minimize light leaking out. There will be ambient light in the room, but it will not filter out into the street or impact the dark night. The doors on the ground level will be bi-fold doors that will create a canopy which interact with the street where they expect pedestrian traffic. The piers holding structure will be precast to maintain a look of rust. In the interior of the rooms will have sealed paneling on the ceiling. The floor above with polished poured concrete. He then showed an example of metal siding on west elevation and noted there is no glass. They are still exploring green wall options. No one will guarantee the plants will survive and there are only two or three species that will survive the heat from the sun in this environment. They are investigating how to maintain it. They may look in to artificial greenery. Mr. Hunt stated they really tried to capture the past and tie it to the present. He feels it comes down to three things: 1. Materials 2. Glass 3. Landscaping Mr. McKnight then asked the commissioners if they had any questions. Mr. McKnight then opened for public comment. Mr. Jim Farrey feels it will be an unbelievable gateway building. Mr. McKnight then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. Phelan stated a standard vesting rights clause for three years should be added as a new section 6. This is required by the state. Mr. McKnight then opened for commissioner discussion. Ms. Tygre feel changes made have improved the project and is pleased they have spent such time and concern to address the light leakage. She thinks big windows are important for the hotel guests. Mr. Walterscheid feels the applicant has done a great job. Mr. McKnight asked if the blinds can go up. Mr. Hunt replied no which is one reason for the larger slats. Mr. Tsaparas added it also keeps light from spilling out. Mr. McKnight feels it is a great project. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning June 21, 2016 14 Ms. Tygre motioned to approve Resolution 4, Series 2016 granting final commercial design review and planned development detail review for 730 E Cooper Ave, Base Lodge, with the addition of section 6 to for vested rights as well as renumbering the following sections to 7, 8 and 9. Mr. Elliott seconded. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call. Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. McNellis, no; Mr. Elliott, yes, Mr. McKnight, yes for a total of four Yes, one No (4-1). Motion passed. Mr. McKnight then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURN Mr. McKnight then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager