Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20161220Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2016 1 Mr. Keith Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Ryan Walterscheid, Spencer McKnight, Skippy Mesirow and Keith Goode. Brian McNellis arrived late to the meeting. Jesse Morris was not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; James True, Andrea Bryan, Jennifer Phelan, Ben Anderson, and Sara Nadolny. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. Tygre feels the Aspen Art Museum does not adequately clean the snow from their sidewalks, especially around the snowman sculpture. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, wanted to follow up on an email previously sent to the board. Staff is looking to have a third meeting in January on the 24th. She added they are looking to schedule a working lunch for Tuesday January 10th or January 17th. Most commissioners did not care which date except for Ms. McNicholas Kury requested it to be on the 17th. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES There were no draft minutes to approve. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Walterscheid stated he would be recusing himself for the 404 Park Ave hearing. Mr. McKnight also determined he needed to recuse himself for the 404 Park Ave hearing. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing – 701 S Monarch St (Caribou Condos) – Mountain View Plane and Dimensional Variance Reviews Mr. Goode asked if the hearing had been properly noticed and Ms. Bryan responded it had been. He then opened the public hearing and turned the floor over to staff. The notice was submitted as Exhibit E. Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner, stated the applicant is represented by BendonAdams and was before P&Z for two reviews. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2016 2 1. Mountain view plane 2. Dimensional variance for a setback encroachment Ms. Seminick remarked she had provided updated renderings to the commission earlier in the day. She added the new renderings were the last three pages of the file provided earlier. Hard copies were distributed at the meeting and for the record as Exhibit F. She then described the location of the structure, noting it is near Lift 1A and is within the Lodge zone district. The condos were built near 1973 and there are a total of six units and six at-grade parking spaces. There are a number of improvements which project into the setback currently as shown in the site plan on p 3 of the packet depicting the items in the setback marked in orange.  Stone walls in the front setback  Retaining walls enclosing the current surface parking lot  Trash enclosure within the side setback The applicant is proposing a new subgrade parking garage to be accessed by a lift. Egress will be provided to the subgrade structure via an enclosed staircase. Create 12 space. Relocate trash enclosure to side of property. This will provide 12 parking spaces for the six units on the site. The applicant plans to relocate the trash enclosure back on the property to the side yard. They are also proposing planters on the at-grade parking surface. They do not plan to remove the walls along the perimeter parking lot and Staff is concerned the walls will not survive construction. Ms. Seminick the provided details for the reviews. 1) The project is almost completely within the Wheeler Opera House view plane. Any approval granted by the commission for this application is subject to a public vote per Referendum 1. She added Council is considering amending this section of the code, but this application is subject to today’s code. Several structures block the view of this site from the point of origin which is 1,300 ft away. All the features listed below are within the view plane.  Garage  Lift access  Staircase access  Planters  Trash enclosure Staff believes the applicant has demonstrated you cannot see the improvements or the existing structure from the view plane point of origin. She added you cannot see the Wheeler Opera House due to many structures and vegetation between the site and opera house. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2016 3 2) The requested dimensional variance is to allow for setback encroachments. There are currently setback encroachments on the site. They are requesting a variation for portions of the subgrade parking garage, portions of the car elevator and the perimeter wall to be constructed in the setback. Staff does not support granting a variance for the improvement because there is not a parking deficit on the property. Staff is appreciative of the efforts to provide more parking to their residents and guests, however the application does not meet the requirements for a variance and is the result of a self-created issue and not a hardship. Staff is recommending denial of the project at this time. Mr. Goode asked for questions of Staff. Mr. Goode asked if the existing wall is a variance. Ms. Seminick responded the existing wall is a legally established nonconforming structure. However, if it is demolished for reconstruction, then a variance would be required for reconstruction. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Chris Bendon, BendonAdams, was present to represent the applicant. He introduced Mr. Andrew Gerber, Caribou Condominiums HOA President, and Ms. Kim Raymond, Kim Raymond Architects, also present for the applicant. Mr. Brian McNellis arrived at 4:44 pm. Mr. Bendon agrees with Staff that it is not a code issue and they understand they are not required to provide more than the minimum number of parking spaces which is six. He provided a picture of the existing parking and noted the issue is a practical, everyday operating issue. There are three three- bedroom units, three four-bedroom units, twenty-one bedrooms onsite. This is a highly used property. Once Lift 1A opens, the area and their spaces are clobbered. He then provided a picture of one of the parking spaces filled with snow and pointed out the street is not always a great solution. The overflow is on the street which impacts the neighbors, the overall usability of the site and increases safety risks. He reviewed their proposal to expand parking below grade to allow for two spaces per unit. He pointed out where the stairs, trash enclosure and car elevator will be placed on layouts displayed of the sub- grade and surface areas. The new layout will have four surface spots and eight subgrade spaces. Mr. Bendon noted for the car lift, they wanted to keep the same aesthetic as the building. He added the trash enclosure will be protected by hog wire to keep bears out. He stated the application is an effort to take care of what they feel is an ongoing operational issue as well as reduce the impacts to the neighborhood and allow them to essentially take care of their own problem. Mr. Bendon then discussed the Wheeler Opera House view plane, noting they agree with Staff in that the project is not visible in any way from the point of origin. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2016 4 They would like to amend the approval to go the new regulations. As mentioned by Staff, if approved at this hearing, it would trigger a Referendum 1, public vote. He stated the view plane regulations are being amended to remove the public vote requirement to address situations such as this where there is not impact to the view plane. Ideally, they would like to do this thru administrative review. He then discussed the setback variation review. He stated they have been working on this design for some time and feel the design presented is the most minimal impact of all the options explored for this tight space. They considered a ramp, but discovered it would require two curb cuts and it would eat up much of the available space. The building built in the 1970s and the residents do not wish to redevelop the entire building. He added while the below grade variances are technically variances, you will not see them. They already have a zero setback on the front. The car elevator will be placed where the trash enclosure currently exists. Mr. Gerber stated they have been working on this design for three years. He reiterated they look at ramps and car lifts at different locations on the property. Their proposed layout is the only one they have found which will work based on their meeting with Staff and multiple engineers. He knows their situation is not the end of the world, but it will have minimal impacts and will benefit the residents, neighbors and community. He believes the neighbors are okay with the project. Mr. Goode asked if there were questions for the applicant. Mr. Mesirow asked in their efforts to design the space, did they always consider 12 spaces and nothing less. Mr. Gerber replied they first considered a ramp, but the code requires a mountable curb which increased the length of the ramp to the point it would not fit into the space. He added originally, they considered having six spaces below with the ramp. The elevator option provided the opportunity for additional spaces. Mr. Mesirow asked once they went with the elevator option, did they consider less than 12 spaces to avoid the variation request. Ms. Kim Raymond, architect, stated they looked at making it smaller, but it didn’t make it worth doing with the expense required to install the elevator. Mr. Gerber added if they made the subgrade space smaller, they do not have enough room to move the cars below. Mr. Bendon stated either the elevator is too small to fit a car in or the elevator is situated where you can’t pivot a car into it. The other option they explored was placing the elevator on the other side of the parking lot, but the grades will not allow for appropriate access. Ms. Raymond also noted the cars parked on the building side are actually under a sidewalk preventing the elevator from being placed on the building side of the parking lot. Ms. Penny Meepos, Caribou Condominium resident, stated they currently have six uncovered spaces. This proposal is to create eight new spaces below grade. In doing this, they will lose one to two spaces up top. Ms. Raymond reiterated the design will also provide space for delivery trucks to park in this congested area. They also feel it is a community benefit to take all the applicant’s needs and keep it on their property. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if moving the trash enclosure to it proposed spot would not require a variance. Ms. Seminick replied the Environment Health Department design preference is to not have Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2016 5 enclosures and are more supportive of a fenced area with an electrified perimeter which discourages bears from approaching a trash enclosure rather than a physical deterrent. Currently, bears who break into enclosures receive an award which is Environmental Health wants to avoid. She stated they can have up to a six ft fence and would allow them to accomplish their trash storage needs with a fenced enclosure. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the demolition of the wall as it currently exists triggers the need for the variation request. Ms. Seminick pointed out the existing setbacks. She displayed a layout of the current walls and stated for all the improvements within the five ft setback, any new or replaced improvements that do not meet the dimensional requirements require a dimensional variance. She added setbacks are on a plane and with the subgrade garage located almost to the property line in some places, a dimensional variance would be required for those portions up to the property line. She stated the variation is necessary for the subgrade garage and the car lift in addition to the walls on the surface. Ms. Phelan added trash enclosure allows for certain encroachments into the setback. Mr. Walterscheid asked how are they proposing to excavate to lot line. Ms. Raymond replied they obtain an encroachment and shore up the excavation. She added there would be a one sided pour against the shoring. She added they felt since this will be where no one sees it, they would take it to where the existing walls are located. Mr. Walterscheid asked how deep they are digging on the uphill side. Ms. Raymond believes the garage itself will be seven ft tall and with 14 in of structure plus slab underneath. Mr. Mesirow asked what change applicant expects to prevent a Referendum 1 vote. Mr. Bendon stated he discussed this subject with Mr. Phillip Supino, Principal Long Range Planner, who has been working on the most recent changes. Mr. Bendon believes the original intent was to capture real, true variances impacting the community and should be voted on by the community. There are any number of more routine things captured in view planes. For this property, the view plane hits the property at about two ft tall. Practically anything done on this property will trigger a view plane review. For example, under the current code, if they raise a railing, it would trigger a Referendum 1 vote. The applicant’s perception of where the changes to the code is that Council is sympathetic to the day-to-day changes that should not trigger a vote. The applicant hopes to avoid coming back to P&Z in three to four months to go over the same application. Ms. Seminick added per the City’s Attorney if P&Z elects to approve the project a condition can be included in the resolution to address it if the code changes which would exclude the application from a Referendum 1 vote. Mr. Supino stated they can’t definitively state the application would meet the exemption under the new code and would still require some level of staff review to ensure the standards are met. The new code is currently scheduled to be in place sometime late January. Ms. Phelan added some language could be added to the resolution, but it’s not necessary because the application would then just go through an administrative process. Mr. Mesirow stated part two is the challenging for him to consider. Although he understands why they want 12 spaces, based on code it does not feel like reasonable use. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2016 6 Ms. Raymond stated in response to Mr. Mesirow’s concerns for practical use, they discussed with the property owners the challenges when they can’t park anywhere near their apartment. This is especially challenging when they are trying to carry groceries or deal with children in the car. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked Staff how the code helps to address subgrade setbacks. Ms. Seminick stated setbacks are on a vertical plane to keep improvements away from the property lines. Ms. Phelan stated originally they were put in place to ensure sufficient areas were maintained around a structure for maintenance purposes. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the preservation continues underground. Ms. Phelan stated with construction it does continue below ground to protect from improper soil nails and utility encroachments. Mr. Bendon stated they want to be respectful of property lines and utilities. Ms. Raymond stated there will be no soil nails used and the shoring will go straight down. Mr. McNellis asked for an example of a recent variance granted because he can’t see how anything would get passed based on the criteria. Ms. Phelan stated they do not typically receive requests for setback variances. She stated there was a request for a webbed fence on a property near the golf course to prevent balls hitting their home. Mr. McNellis asked if not having the fence denied of reasonable use of the property to which Ms. Phelan answered no. Mr. Bendon recalled the fence at the community garden. The City wanted to increase the height from six ft to eight ft. Mr. Gerber stated he was not aware this would be so complex when he started working on it three years ago. He doesn’t feel this impacts the community negatively in any way. Mr. McNellis stated he does not disagree with him. Mr. Goode then opened to public. There were none appearing so he closed this portion of the hearing. Mr. Goode then opened for commissioner discussion. Mr. Mesirow stated it seems to be a reasonable request until you look at the criteria. Although the applicant has made valid points regarding the operational and safety issues, he can’t question existing policy. He does question the reasonable use of one car per household and does not feel he can grant them six more parking spaces under the circumstances. Upon looking at the site today and hearing more regarding the view planes, he feels there are opportunities to ensure the existing six spaces could be used solely by the residents. Mr. Bendon asked to clarify the one space per unit requirement is a minimum standard, not a maximum. There can be more than one space per unit, but not less. In response, Mr. Mesirow asked it then becomes subjective, which he does not feel he can make that determination. He feels he needs to evaluate if this is a reasonable use of that which was set forth. He does not feel it is an unreasonable ask for the community or the applicant. Ms. Tygre has no problem with what the applicant is trying to accomplish and feels there should be as much parking on a site as possible. But she can’t figure out a way to justify it based on existing code. The view plane is not a problem for her. The below grade encroachments are acceptable as well as long as they do not plan to exceed their property line. As the others have pointed out, the code does not allow those variations unless the application meets the criteria. She would like to be able to approve. Mr. McNellis stated the request is reasonable and it pains him to look at the code criteria. He understands Staff’s recommendation and feels their hands are tied. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2016 7 Mr. Walterscheid noted an application P&Z reviewed and denied a couple of years ago where an applicant requested a variation regarding the use of subgrade space within the setback. even though the footing. While he has no problem with the request, he doesn’t feel they can justify the criteria. Mr. McKnight would like to approve it, but has been unable to determine a way to justify it. He believes there is a hardship and understands the benefit to the community and property owners. Mr. Gerber asked why the commission can’t just approve it if they do not have any issues. Mr. McNellis stated P&Z has the ability to approve it, but the board needs to ensure the integrity of the code. Mr. McKnight agreed and as a citizen doesn’t want to see any board going around the code. Ms. McNicholas Kury noted they need to meet all three criteria. If the code stated if only one was required, the application would probably have a lot of support. She added the board is having discussion to see if there is a compelling argument to find for the other two criteria. Mr. Mesirow added the board must interpret the existing code. Mr. Bendon asked if there are other methods for the applicant to lessen the hurdle for P&Z to make the decision. He understands the hurdle P&Z faces. Mr. Goode was hoping there would be more site constraints. Ms. Phelan agrees this is an inconvenience for the owners, but not necessarily a hardship. Mr. Mesirow asked if a fence or gate in the front would ensure only the residents are using the spaces. Ms. Seminick noted gates are not permitted per the current code. Mr. McNellis feels this is a flawed section of the code. The criteria for denying reasonable use is too wide. He agrees with the applicant. Mr. Mesirow stated for every time they see something that appears as unreasonable, there was a reason for it being created. Mr. McNellis wanted to make the distinction the board has be ability to throw the criteria out the window and approve it, otherwise they wouldn’t be here. Mr. Bendon noted there is a latitude prescribed into their responsibilities that allows them to look at such things as hardships and reasonable solutions to be made in behalf of the community. Ms. Phelan stated the board does need to make a basis of their findings upon the review criteria. Mr. Walterscheid noted the applicant is asking to increase a nonconformity and build within the setback, regardless of the purpose and how they intend to do it. He added for similar applications reviewed in the past, the board would vote no. He feels the reason the town went with Referendum 1 was the boards in years past had given applicants the ability to move forward. In his opinion, it is very clear the boards hands are tied at this time. Ms. Tygre asked if there would be any benefit for the applicant to delay this application to determine if future code changes may allow for an approval. Mr. Bendon felt a delay may help if there was feedback and a target work on. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2016 8 Mr. Mesirow asked the Applicant if there was another proposal they may bring to P&Z that did not encroach into the setback. Mr. Bendon stated it would be pretty impactful to completely pull out of the setbacks. Mr. Bendon noted in this context it would be most beneficial to table than to receive a denial. Ms. Tygre motioned to table the application to a date uncertain. Ms. Phelan stated the application will remain active for a year before it is considered abandoned. They will need to re-notice for alternative public hearing in the future. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the code changes to permit the application, would they resubmit. Ms. Phelan answered if the code changes and it benefits them, they may withdraw the application or request it to be reviewed under the changed code. She added they can still use their application under the existing code if the new changes do not provide benefit to them. Mr. McKnight seconded the motion. Mr. Goode requested a roll call. Roll Call: Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; and Mr. Goode, yes; for a total seven Yes votes and zero No votes (7-0). The motion passed. Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. Public Hearing – 404 Park Ave – Growth Management, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits and Dimensional Variance Reviews Mr. Goode opened the public hearing and asked if notice had been properly provided. Mr. McKnight stated he lives on Park Ave and will need to recuse himself and then left the hearing. Mr. Ben Anderson, Community Development Planner, introduced the applicant, Mr. Peter Fornell of Fat City LLC and the representative of BendonAdams LLC. He then identified the reviews in consideration. 1. Growth Management (GMQS) - Affordable Housing 2. Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits 3. Dimensional variance with the trash enclosure Mr. Anderson noted the property is currently subject to a Planned Development (PD) overlay. In August, 2016, Council approved a conditional rescinding of the PD (Ordinance 20, Series 2016). It is conditioned on the following: a) 100% Affordable housing project being built onsite and a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is issued b) The project is reviewed by the land use code but is not subject to future PD review The project is subject to the underlying zoning of the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zoned district in addition to the review criteria. He then reviewed the dimensional limits as follows. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2016 9  Proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 1.5. He noted in RMF, the FAR is established is based on the gross lot area rather than the net lot area. As a result, the maximum floor area allowed on this property is approximately 26,756 sf. The application is proposing an amount below the maximum.  Maximum height allowed as 32 ft based on the unit density proposed.  Setbacks on all yards is five ft. Mr. Anderson then discussed the proposed application.  Two three-story buildings  Buildings include  28 deed restricted affordable housing units  Mix of one, two and three bedroom units  27 of the units are proposed as Category 3 and 4 ownership units  One resident occupied unit  28 subgrade parking spaces in a garage As proposed to the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) with a structure described above, the application is seeking the issuance of 64 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) credits. Mr. Anderson then displayed and described the site plan noting the property sits at the junction of Park Ave and Park Cir. The primary building is L-shaped and another standalone building is separated by a courtyard. Within the courtyard, there is a small pool and common amenities proposed. The subgrade garage is accessed by one curb cut off of Park Ave. He then pointed to the location of the trash enclosure. He then displayed 3D renderings, one from Park Ave and one from Park Cir to show the relationship of the project to the site. Mr. Anderson discussed the land use reviews. a) GMQS b) Certificate of Affordable Housing credits c) Dimensional variance for the trash enclosure Growth Management There are a number of criteria for this review and Staff finds the review criteria were clearly met or not applicable to the project with two exceptions. a) Growth Management – Impact to public infrastructure – parking Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2016 10 Subject to code, the project would be need to provide 43 parking spaces. Because of the existing parking conditions on site, there is a carry forward of a 15 parking space deficit. As proposed with the 28 below grade spaces, the project is compliant with the land use code. Staff contends because of the nature of the neighborhood having very little on-street parking and proposed pedestrian improvements, there will be less available parking in the future. Additionally, there are no areas proposed for visitor parking, loading or deliveries. While the project does meet the code requirements, Staff is concerned for the overall impacts to the parking conditions in the neighborhood. Currently with the 14 units on-site, they would need 22 spaces. At any point in time, there is probably 22 spaces on the property and the adjacent right-of-way (ROW). If you carve out code compliant parking spaces, there really are only seven spaces. The remaining spaces spill into the public ROW. He then described the sub-grade space noting the tight configuration as well as the proposed hanging storage systems above each parking space. He stated the Parking Department raised questions about the neighborhood conditions and the absence of on-street parking. Staff received an updated site plan and slightly reconfigured project after Thanksgiving. This included the proposed relationship with the ROW, sidewalk improvements, buffer strips, and the garage access point. Staff has not had a great deal of time to review this, but there has been discussion about attempting to squeeze in parking spaces in the ROW. Staff would like to see the parking restudied in an attempt to carve out additional parking spaces in the ROW. b) Affordable Housing Criteria - Proposed unit size reduction, relation to APCHA recommendation Mr. Anderson stated the proposal meets APCHA’s guidelines except for the request for a unit size reduction. He stated APCHA has minimum unit sizes based on the number of bedrooms:  One-bedroom should be 700 sf  Two-bedroom should be 900 sf  Three-bedroom should be 1,200 sf He noted all 27 units are below the minimum sf requirement. On average, each unit is nearly 17% below the minimum unit size with a range between 5 -20%. Across the entire project, the size is nearly 4,400 sf below the what its size would be if the minimums were applied. He stated APCHA does allow a reduction up to 20% of the unit size if additional criteria are met including significant storage, above average natural light, flexible layouts and additional site amenities. APCHA’s own guidelines encourage higher density. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2016 11 Staff is in agreement with some items such as efficiency of the location, access to transit including bike and pedestrian facilities, and having no portion of the units are located below grade. He also noted the design includes no internal staircases. He stated the APCHA Board and Staff has recommended approval of the project. Staff is concerned with the unit sizes and having this trend become the norm. They also recognize and support the proposed project amenities. Issuance of Affordable Housing Credits Mr. Anderson stated essentially if the project meets the growth management requirements and the project is not being used to mitigate another project, then it meets the criteria. Dimensional Variance Request Mr. Anderson stated the initial application of the project proposed the trash in the subgrade space. After meeting with the development review committee and the Environment Health Department (EH), it became clear the subgrade space was not feasible. The applicant has since proposed a new location for the trash enclosure which requires a variance. The location of the trash enclosures comes up in the discussion on setbacks which prohibits trash enclosures in the street facing yard. He reviewed the criteria for granting a variance as listed on p 94 of the agenda packet. Staff’s perspective on the specified location of the trash enclosure is to some degree a self-created hardship. The initial design of project including the trash enclosure in the subgrade space and then determining it could not be located there has led to the impractical location as shown in the current application. Mr. Anderson stated the applicant has met with the EH regarding the workability requirements. He stated it is his understanding City Council has asked many applicants on other projects to minimize the visual impact of the trash enclosures and to remove them from the streetscape. Staff believes the current placement of the enclosure is in a prominent location. He then provided elevations to demonstrate the location of the enclosure. As currently designed, the enclosure would be at street grade and access would be from the back for the residents. Staff recognizes the challenges of the bench along the street. Staff recommends continued study of the trash enclosure so it is not in the street facing yard. Perhaps the applicant could consider a design reconfiguration of the project. There is potential for other areas on the site to accommodate the trash enclosure with a redesign. Staff is excited for a project to add more to the affordable housing stock and feels this will be a quality project. Staff is concerned with the parking and would like to see some on-street parking made available Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2016 12 and a reduction of the visual impact of trash enclosure. Staff recommends continuation for further study of the two issues. Mr. Goode asked if the commissioners had any questions for Staff. Ms. Tygre asked to confirm there is only one trash enclosure on the property to which Mr. Anderson replied yes and stated the Applicant can better explain the configuration of the current enclosure. He added what they are proposing has been cleared by EH. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked for additional information regarding the placement of the trash enclosure. Mr. Anderson stated for a project of this size, the applicant negotiates with the EH to identify the access, size, type needed for the project. Typically for a project of this size require larger dumpsters that need to be at grade to be picked up and rolled away. Ms. Phelan stated ideally trash utilities are off the alley. For areas without an alley, the code tries to minimize the appearance of the trash facilities. Mr. Mesirow asked how much if at all should the current situation have any impact on the visual of the dumpster. Mr. Anderson replied Staff concurs the proposal is a significant improvement over the existing conditions. Currently, a dumpster sits in the ROW. Mr. Mesirow asked in regards to parking, are 28 spaces required to match the number of units or is part of the number carried forward by the deficiency. Mr. Anderson stated based on the unit configuration and the number of bedrooms, there should be 43 parking spaces. Because it is outside the infill area and they are carrying forward the deficiency, they need 28 spaces. Mr. Goode asked if one of the proposed areas for relocating the trash enclosure was also on the street. Mr. Anderson stated if it was sitting behind the street facing front façade, it would technically be in the side yard. Mr. Mesirow asked if this would reduce the number of units and Mr. Anderson replied potentially. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked how the front façade is determined on a corner lot. Mr. Anderson stated this can be a disadvantage for a corner lot and noted where the front façade is located based on the Residential Design Standards (RDS). He added if the trash enclosure were to be moved, then it may be necessary for a variance with the current garage door placement. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Ms. Sara Adams, Bendon Adams, introduced the owner and developer, Mr. Peter Fornell, and Mr. Chris Bendon, BendonAdams. She also introduced the team members present at the hearing.  Mr. Josh Rice, Woody Creek Engineering  Mr. Steven May, Forum Phi  Mr. Sam Baucum, Bluegreen Ms. Adams noted this has been a collaborative, thoughtful process to design the 100 % affordable housing project. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2016 13 Mr. Fornell discussed his vision for the project. He stated the affordable housing certificate program was a code amendment he introduced five to five and one half years ago and has been very well received. He moved here 35 years ago and raised his family in affordable housing. He feels lucky to be able to contribute back to the community. Mr. Fornell then reviewed his past projects here in Aspen.  301 Hyman Ave – First affordable housing project he did with the initial code amendment. There have been no turnovers of units at this location which he feels speaks to the quality and satisfaction of the units.  518 Main St – He built 11 units at this location. Both this property and the 301 Hyman Ave location received a 20% reduction in FAR.  Airport Business Center – This project is an approval that was 10 years old and would have never been built had it not been for City Council allowing the units to be built for certificate production. He is also proud to have added these units to the inventory. Mr. Fornell stated to date he has put 37 families in residential owned units in town. Of the 37, 36 are first time homeowners. He spoke to how has become friends with the owners. When he works with the buyers, they have to fit thru a pin hole financially to be able to purchase one of these units. In a number of the purchases, he has helped them with extensions for them to secure their loans. In a number of circumstances, the owners have had to sell their vehicle in order to qualify for the loan. He added they started with 30 units, and could only design to 29 parking spaces so they dropped the project to 29 units to ensure every owner has a parking space. After consulting with engineering, they lost another parking space, so they dropped another unit. He believes the affordable housing program is important to allow these projects to happen. He is excited to build this project with the same quality and livability provided in the first three projects. Ms. Adams displayed a proposed view from Park Cir. She then covered existing site conditions. Currently there are three, two and one story buildings. The current parking is haphazard and spills into the ROW. Ms. Adams then discussed their approach to the project stating Mr. Fornell wanted the property to remain affordable housing in the future even though free market residential and single family homes would be allowed by the code. He liked the location of the property and wanted to make it his next project. He also wanted the project to meet the code so they asked City Council to remove the PD. City Council agreed if they came back with 100% affordable housing, they would remove the PD. Then the team developed their own internal parameters for the project. They imagined units they would want to live in which includes the following items.  Every unit has a parking space  Livable units with the ability to have a queen bed in the bedroom with two nightstands.  Bike and ski storage  Ample windows  No internal stair cases taking up valuable unit space  Every bedroom has a closet  Every unit has a coat closet at the entry Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2016 14 She then displayed photos identifying the neighborhood context and stated they also wanted to optimize density while demonstrating compatibility with mass, scale and character of the neighborhood. They feel the design compliments what is happening in the neighborhood. She then reviewed some details of the project.  28 units  13 one bedroom units  2 two bedroom units  13 three bedroom units  3 stories in two buildings  One curb cut  Bike racks  Interior courtyard designed as a communal area with a grill, fire pit, plantings and benches  Subgrade garage with hanging storage over each assigned parking space  Bike repair station  Ski rack and storage Ms. Adams then displayed and discussed the layouts of the first, second, third floors. She noted all but two units have a deck and the number of hallways and stairs have been minimalized. Ms. Adams stated they are asking for a reduction in unit size of an average of 17%. However, if the hanging storage in the garage is counted, the average drops to 13%. They are still debating if the hanging storage counts or not. She then discussed the six review criteria for a reduction request. 1. Extra storage - Within the unit and in the garage 2. Above average natural light – windows provide for each unit 3. Efficient layout - limited hallways and no interior stairs within the units 4. Available amenities with a pool – onsite pool, located near parks and trails, close to bus stops and town 5. Unit location - All units are above grade 6. Possibility the project can achieve a higher density of deed restricted units with the reduction She then walked through the layout of the worst case unit scenario. The unit is on the third floor and has the highest reduction of all the units of 19.9%. It is a three-bedroom unit with about 961 sf. The unit has a washer and dryer, two full bathrooms, and a deck. When they heard Staff was concerned with the on-street parking, they met with the Transportation Department. The applicant suggested adding a Car-To-Go spot but were informed the program does not have a car to place on the property. After further discussion, they identified a mobility package including a membership to WeCycle and Car-To-Go for each unit for one year. Ms. Adams stated they have had numerous meetings with the Engineering Department and EH. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2016 15 In regards to the Growth Management, they are requesting 64 affordable housing credits. They are also requesting to place the trash enclosure in the front yard. She added this would not be in a setback, just the front yard. She then described their analysis of the of trash location. She provided pictures of where the dumpster is currently placed which is not even on the property. For the new development, they looked at the topography including the benches stepping down the property. EH told them the dumpster needs to be easily rolled out to the street which limits it to two locations on the property. They then looked at utilizing the existing curb cut which would allow them to roll the unit to the street. They also worked with EH to design a chute system where the residents can access at-grade bear proofed drawers for depositing trash, recycling and composting. She stated EH was excited with the resulting design. She displayed renderings to show how the design of the enclosure makes it blend into the other building. They will work with EH to ensure the doors are secure and are willing to look at any suggested changes from P&Z. She pointed out the challenges at the other potential location on the property and stated the EH did not feel this was the best option for the dumpster. They are looking into additional options for blending the enclosure and continue to work with the EH on the design. They feel there is a hardship on the site with half the property street facing. Mr. Bendon then discussed parking for the project. He wanted to address Staff’s concern of the extent of the public parking. He reiterated that Mr. Anderson had stated the project is code compliant. Mr. Fornell does not want or need to negotiate on the project. He just wants a project that meets the code and does not want the PD process taking two years with different variance requests. Mr. Bendon stated both he and Ms. Adams has worked a long time in the community and the requirement for public parking is a new one. He stated there is not a public parking requirement and they have never heard this come up before, although it may be a legitimate concern for Staff. Mr. Bendon continued stating the project is very close to town and one of closer areas to the infill area. He then compared this project to the recently approved Poppies project which has seven units and six parking spaces. It is a similar project, but a longer walk to downtown. Mr. Bendon stated this project is a perfect location for affordable housing. They researched the current building and how it was constructed. It appears they received a permit and when they went for their certificate of occupancy (CO), the City discovered half the building was in the ROW. They ended up moving the street to go around the building. Mr. Bendon stated they looked into providing parking on the street. This area is a high traffic area with Park Cir having the most traffic. They researched providing parking on Park Cir and confirmed the property belongs to the City. If they added parking along Park Cir, they would have to eliminate a ramp for accessibility. If the access were to be moved to the front, it would eliminate the grass buffer and require the sidewalk to be narrowed below what the City requires for a standard sidewalk. This effort would result in one to two parking spaces. These changes would also require an engineering variance. He stated they also looked along Park Ave. He noted the Engineering Department is currently looking at modifying the intersection to address some issues. They are currently proposing this side as their access to the project. There is a 50 ft set off from the intersection that needs to be maintained. This change would require an engineering variance and net one parking space. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2016 16 He stated they would be happy to work with Engineering, but wanted to reiterate this is not their property and not a codified requirement. He stated this may be an interdepartmental squabble, but they don’t want to be subject to the effects of the internal squabble. Mr. Bendon stated they have two comments on the resolution. 1. They would like have the ability to administratively enlarge the units if space is available 2. They currently have a mix of category three and four units and would like to be able to administratively change the four’s to three’s if it makes sense for the applicant. In closing, they feel they have brought a great project to a great site. He reiterated Mr. Fornell’s history with affordable housing projects. He has housed locals and is proud of his accomplishments. The project received a unanimous approval from APCHA. Mr. Goode asked the commissioners if they were interested in extending the meeting. Mr. Goode asked the audience how many wanted to comment. Approximately four people responded. Mr. McNellis and Ms. Tygre felt it was important to allow the public to comment at this meeting. Ms. Tygre move to continue the meeting until 7:15 pm and was seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury. All in favor, motion passes. Mr. Goode then asked for public comment, asking them to keep their comments to three minutes and to focus on comments, not questions. Mr. Frank Reynolds, 301 W Hyman Ave, purchased one of Mr. Fornell’s first units. He stated everyone has been happy and Mr. Fornell is always there if needed. He stated it was life changing for him and he is happy to be able to be there. Ms. Caroline Middleham, 518 W Main St, bought a two-bedroom unit with her family. She stated it has been amazing to be close to work and town. If this had not been available, they probably would have left the valley. Ms. Cindy Houben, Midland Park resident, stated she and Mr. Fornell served on the Midland Park HOA together and she understands his intent. In regards to unit size, if you have adequate storage for at least 600 sf for a one-bedroom, you would be fine. She believes there are about seven units slightly below that number. She stated parking spillover is a concern, because it happens now. She asked if at the next meeting if there could be an illustration from Midland Park side. She feels landscaping seems a bit sparse on the sided adjoining Midland Park. She stated the sidewalks will be a great improvement from the current conditions. She is concerned about lighting from their side and doesn’t see any overhangs or pitches to shield the lighting. She would also like to see a height comparison to existing structure so they know what they will be looking at. Ms. Judy Colburn, Midland Park resident, is excited for this to be redeveloped. She wanted to know how the applicant derived the mix of units. She asked what the minimum number of units that can be placed Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2016 17 here to make it doable, because she believes the size of the units is a strong livability factor. She noted perhaps the three-bedroom units could be dropped to two-bedroom units and reduce the number of parking spaces. She noted there is no street or guest parking. She would also like to see a 3D model of the building. Someone from the audience asked if P&Z would make a decision at tonight’s meeting and Mr. Goode believed they would have to continue the hearing because there has been no commissioner discussion. Ms. Heidi Hoffman, Midland Park resident, would like to see more break-up of the building mass from the north and east sides. She feels the livability factor would be increased with more articulation. Mr. Goode then closed this portion of the hearing and asked the commissioners if they wanted to start their discussions. Mr. Bendon stated they wanted to respond to the public comment in that they focused on a project that complies with the city standards even if the neighbors do not necessarily like the results. Again, their goal was to not have to negotiate the project out excessively to a two-year exercise. He also wanted to point out that it is important for Mr. Fornell and the viability of the project to aim for a decision if at all possible at tonight’s hearing. Mr. Goode asked for questions of the applicant. Mr. Mesirow asked about the sense of car ownership for previous owners. Mr. Fornell stated often times, many have one or none. He stated the issue of cars has come up for his previous projects and it’s never been an issue once the project is finished. He feels they have a history of success. Mr. Mesirow asked if there were two street spaces available, would they go back to 30 units. Mr. Bendon did not believe those would count toward their unit count. Ms. McNicholas Kury noted they had pointed to two possible locations for the trash enclosure, but only discussed one and wanted to hear why the second location was not feasible. Ms. Adams replied it is not because of the steep slopes and the ADA ramp. EH requires the dumpsters to be wheeled out to a flat surface which is not achievable without increasing the ROW which is generally not acceptable. They feel the proposed location works best with the grade because it is the flattest location. Mr. Fornell stated they hired SGM to perform a traffic study for the two streets of the project and the trip generations on Park Cir are 10:1 higher than those of Park Ave. Park Cir is also on a bus stop and there are five entrances to five condominiums complexes with over 60 units on this short section. He feels Park Cir is dramatically more problematic than Park Ave. Ms. Adams stated they asked EH where they would place the trash if there was not building and they pointed to the proposed location. Ms. Phelan pointed out EH stated there are other potential locations for the trash. Ms. Tygre asked how the residents could opt-out of the car share program after a year. Ms. Adams replied it would be built into the HOA agreement at $15 per month for both programs and they could opt-out after one year. Mr. Fornell stated their hope is the residents will settle into the programs. He stated the average HOA dues for his three developments is about $225 per month. The average HOA dues for a City of Aspen built project is about $450 per month. He builds the units to be economical in nature. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2016 18 Ms. McNicholas Kury moved to continue to 7:30pm. Mr. Fornell asked if it was possible to reach a decision at the meeting because it is an affordable housing project on a tight budget and schedule and he would like to start construction in the spring. Mr. Mesirow asked the other commissioners if they wanted to continue with the hearing at tonight’s hearing. Mr. Goode expressed he would like more time because it is a huge project although if there was a motion on the floor right now he would vote in favor of it. He stated he can see Ms. Tygre’s point as well. Mr. Goode asked Staff what date the hearing would be continued to and Ms. Phelan replied January 17th. Mr. Mesirow seconded Ms. McNicholas Kury’s motion to continue the hearing until 7:30 pm. All in favor except Ms. Tygre, motion carries. Ms. McNicholas stated she approves of the parking and feels they meet the code. She revisited the three standards and recommends the applicant continue to further study the design of the trash enclosure. This does not necessarily mean relocating the enclosure and may be how it interacts with the streetscape. With regards to if this project makes reasonable use of the parcel, she feels it does and the applicant’s language reducing another unit at the expense of a family that might need it to redesign the building for trash is a bit unreasonable. She is willing to grant the variance based on circumstance number two. With number three, she does not think this variance confers on the applicant any additional special privilege. In summation, she would ask for a continuance to ask for a redesign of the trash enclosure for purposes of minimizing its implication on the streetscape. Ms. Tygre did not wish contribute comment at this time. Mr. McNellis finds few faults with application. On the trash standpoint, he agrees with the design brought forward by the applicant. He thought they could possibly look at placing it on the side closer to the back, but doesn’t think the neighbors want to see it. He does not believe there is an ideal location for it and this is as good as it gets. He would like to see more articulation on back side and feels could be addressed with materials. He likes they are meeting the code and is in support of the application. Mr. Goode does not feel an alley is always the best spot for trash pickup and he does not have an issue with the proposed trash location. He feels additional study could be done to make in more in line with what the City wants. He thinks 28 parking spaces is a good number for the number of units. He has lived in the area and doesn’t think parking is that challenging. Mr. Mesirow feels the number of parking spaces is legitimate. He also agrees given the options for the location of the trash, the proposed location is reasonable. He also feels materiality could help it blend in a bit. He feels this project would be a significant improvement over what is there now. He thinks it is awesome this project will serve the community. He would vote yes. Mr. McNellis stated he does not see why they wouldn’t call a vote at tonight’s meeting. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked Mr. McNellis if he could provide additional direction to the applicant. He noted the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) would create study groups to work with the applicant Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2016 19 on variation of materiality to move forward as a condition of approval. Mr. Bendon stated they would accept this condition. Ms. Adams suggested adding a statement covering the applicant will minimize the visibility from the street thru landscaping and material changes. She added they would be comfortable having this reviewed by Staff. Ms. Tygre asked about the side facing Midland Park and Mr. McNellis felt this should be added as well. Mr. Bendon stated this would be fine. Mr. Anderson stated in regards to the commissioner’s statements of flexibility in the unit number and sizes, Staff feels to some degree this is in section one. He noted additional language can be added if needed. Ms. Adams responded they would be comfortable with additional language. She suggested adding “The ability to increase the net livable area of the unit sizes administratively”. Mr. Anderson stated they would be happy to add language on the configuration of the credits between categories three and four to allow for flexibility. Staff feels APCHA needs to approve this and P&Z agreed. Mr. McNellis would also like to have appropriate landscaping to screen the facade wrapped in to the condition. The applicant agreed to this addition. Mr. Mesirow moved to approve Resolution 11, Series 2016 with proposed revisions. Mr. McNellis seconded the motion. Mr. Goode requested a roll call. Roll Call: Mr. Mesirow, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; and Mr. Goode, yes; for a total five Yes votes and zero No votes (5- 0). The motion passed. Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. Mr. Goode closed the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager