Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20170103Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 1 Mr. Keith Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order for January 3, 2017 at 4:30 PM with members Brian McNellis, Skippy Mesirow, Ryan Walterscheid, Spencer McKnight and Keith Goode. Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jasmine Tygre, and Jesse Morris were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; James True, Andrea Bryan, Jennifer Phelan, Jessica Garrow, Phillip Supino, and Justin Barker. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Mesirow wished everyone a happy new year. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan stated a letter addressed to the board had been submitted regarding 404 Park Ave. She provided a copy to each board member (Exhibit: Public Comment A). She noted there is a working lunch scheduled for January 17th and she will send out an email where this will be located. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES Mr. McNellis motioned to approve the minutes of December 13th. Mr. Walterscheid seconded the motion. All in favor, motion approved. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing – 427 Rio Grande Pl (Aspen City Offices) – Major Public Project Review Mr. Goode asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Bryan, Assistant City Attorney, replied it appears adequate (Exhibit M). Mr. Goode then opened the public hearing and turned the floor over to Staff. Mr. Justin Barker, Senior Planner, then reviewed application for the new city office building. He stated the expected agenda for the hearing tonight would include an overview from both Staff and the applicant, initial public comment and initial P&Z discussion and comment. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 2 He then displayed an image of the site and reviewed the current site conditions noting it includes all or portions of three lots.  Lot four is the smallest lot and includes the Rio Grande building  Lot two which includes Galena Plaza, the underground parking garage, Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) offices and the new expansion to the library  Lot one is the largest lot and includes everything from the Rio Grande right-of-way (ROW) and the Roaring Fork River and a portion of the surface parking lots just south of the Rio Grande ROW and Mill St. Only a portion of this lot is part of the proposed project. The proposed development combines lots two and four along with a small portion of lot one, demolishes the existing ACRA offices and constructs the new City office building. There is also a proposal to redevelop the interior of Galena Plaza and the front entry to make it more accessible and the Galena Plaza landscape to accommodate the new development. He stated this application is being reviewed as a major public project. The City is eligible to utilize this process as an alternative review in line with a state statute requirement which a combined process as a two-step review process. This will not come back to P&Z for a final decision so all aspects of their typical reviews will be done at one review. He also noted this project is not eligible for the 60-day review limit. 1. P&Z providing a recommendation to City Council 2. City Council makes the final decision He then discussed the four areas of reviews and what the applicant is proposing. 1. Subdivision  Lots two, four and a portion of one will be merged for a total of 75,053 sf  A view corridor approximately 75 ft wide which follows the Galena St ROW and extends the entire distance from north to south on the lot to preserve the views is included  A redeveloped staircase will be in the view corridor 2. Planned Development (PD) combined project and detail review  This is zoned Public (PUB) which has no underlying dimensions so they will be established in this review  The applicant is requesting flexibility for the new structure gross sf to be increased up to 10% which would make the new value of approximately 41,300 sf. This would not increase other dimensions such as height or setbacks, but would allow them to fill in the interior spaces if necessary. This would increase the total gross sf to 185,561 sf which includes the parking garage and the Rio Grande building as well.  This review does not establish floor area calculations which can be challenging on a sloped lot so it is being reviewed for an establish gross sf for the entire project. He stated this is similar to what was done with Aspen Valley Hospital.  There were a number of issues identified in the DRC review a. The Parks Department is concerned for the number of trees to be removed and wants to see more preserved if possible b. There is no identified snow storage on property Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 3 c. The Engineering Department has asked for additional information regarding the stormwater and bioretention areas. d. The Engineering Department has also noted the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) is eight trips short of the requirement based on the development and requests further discussion. e. The Engineering Department has noted a couple of design guidelines that have not been met in terms of the sidewalks widths and the Complete Street improvements related to Mill St. f. The Environmental Health Department (EH) has concerns with trash locations. The current proposal has the trash pickup through the alley behind the Library. Both EH and the Fire Department do not support this design and have requested the applicant review having the trash access off the revised surface parking area. g. The Fire District has concerns related to the parking garage access. Currently the northwest portion is accessed from a surface parking lot and the new development may have implications. They have requested further discussion to ensure adequate safety and fire access to garage. 3. Commercial Design combined conceptual and final reviews  Staff would like to see more second floor height variation, particularly on the Rio Grande side of the building. Staff feels there is adequate variation on the Galena Plaza side.  Staff is concerned with the materiality. The current proposal includes brick, stone tiles and metal. Staff feels this is a transitional area from the Commercial Core to the River Approach area and Staff would lie to see more river-based or industrial-based materials incorporated. This is a prominent location to showcase Aspen’s unique topography and surrounding environment. A couple of recent projects Staff suggest to look at for inspiration include the Rio Grande restrooms and the Aspen Sanitation District building. 4. Growth Management review  Essential public facility – Applicant is requesting 37,443 sf or 41,300 sf with the additional 10% requested. He noted there is no annual limitation on this allotment so there is availability in the 2016 year based on the submission date of the application.  P&Z is tasked to determine the actual generation for the employees of the site. There is a reference in the code of 5.1 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) for this type of development in the PUB zone district. He added this is similar to the Aspen Police Department in how they calculated the actual employees which Staff feels is an appropriate method. He noted there are 14 FTEs related to the existing ACRA offices which can be counted as a credit.  The applicant is proposing 100 FTEs (actual generation determined by P&Z) with an increase of 86 FTEs.  The proposed mitigation is at 60% (51.6 FTEs) which will be mitigated through existing City housing that has not previously been used for mitigation.  He noted City Council will determine the required mitigation, but P&Z needs to look at the actual generation. He then reviewed the discussion points for P&Z. Subdivision 1. Proposed lot combination Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 4 2. Proposed view corridor PD 1. Established and proposed dimensions including the requested 10% increase 2. Multiple site planning issues raised from the DRC meeting 3. The overall design of the building including both conceptual and final reviews Growth Management 1. Allotments 2. Employee Generation He concluded stating Staff recommends continuing to allow the commission time to discuss and provide initial comments for the applicant to respond to at the next meeting. Mr. Goode asked for questions of Staff. Mr. Goode asked how they calculated 100 employees. Mr. Barker stated it was based off an actual count of the number of employees that would be moved into this building based on projections including the current total for the departments plus expected growth to be housed here going into 2030. Mr. Goode asked with no underlying height restrictions, they could have proposed higher heights. Mr. Barker stated they can propose any height, but the applicant compared their building to surrounding buildings. He added they did provide the heights of surrounding buildings, noting it is a broad range including the Community Bank, County Courthouse, the new County building and the County Library. He stated the proposed building height falls within the range of neighboring buildings. Mr. Mesirow asked what buildings the employees would be relocated from to this building. Mr. Barker stated he could look into it for the next meeting. Mr. McNellis asked how this project came to be in recent history. He believed the focus was reversed by City Council to look at the existing City Hall for the location for expansion of City offices instead of the location under review at tonight’s hearing. Mr. Barker replied the applicant has a presentation covering the history. Mr. Mesirow asked for the zoning of the new Mill St building. Mr. Barker replied it is a bit unique and zoned as Mixed Use. Mr. Mesirow asked for a chart identifying what would be allowable in regards to height and FAR for the surrounding properties based on its zoning. Mr. Goode turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Charles Cunniffe, Charles Cunniffe Architects, introduced the applicant team.  Rich Pavcek, Charles Cunniffe Architects  Darla Callaway, Design Workshop  Jim Kehoe, Charles Cunniffe Architects  Reed Langhofer, Charles Cunniffe Architects  Leslie Lamont, Lamont Planning Services Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 5  Richard Goulding, Civil Engineer for the project  Seth Saul, MV5  Jack Wheeler, City Project Manager  Jeff Pendarvis, City Property Manager Mr. Cunniffe then reviewed the history of the project as described in the application submittal (pp 62-65 in the agenda packet). 2000 – The citizens and staff acknowledged the City space needs were a problem and initiated work on the Civic Master Plan. 2001 – The City purchased the Zupancis property. 2006 – The Aspen Civic Master Plan published after five years of work based on input from a citizen’s group appointed by City Council. It states in recent years, both the City of Aspen and Pitkin County have remodeled and renovated the interior of their primary office buildings continually creating small offices for staff. In some cases, staff is working out of what used to be closets. At the same time, both the City and County moved staff to other locations based on the lack of space. This creates inefficiencies internally regarding customer service. The plan also states the City of Aspen’s space limitation requires a long term solution to ensure the quality of service. 2014-2015 – The City began researching a long term location solution and selected a design team to work on the Civic Master Plan. The City Capital Asset Department worked to identify what was needed for each department and the relationships between departments. They initially identified between eight and 12 scenario combinations. They conducted at least 20 informational public meetings and stakeholder input meetings since 2014. 2016 - From their efforts, four scenarios were identified and then Council narrowed those down to two. One with the armory and Galena and the other moving everything to Galena. City Council initially pursued the Galena one roof option and then reverted back to keeping the armory building as City offices with a smaller building at Galena. The team then put together the design being presented now. The Master Plan identified the following for the Galena site.  Creating great people places  Current meeting space is inadequate and doesn’t reflect the importance of the decisions being made in City Hall.  A long-term solution to ensure the quality of service.  The Galena Plaza is under-utilized and deemed appropriate for meeting space.  Create a greatly improved pedestrian way from Main St to Galena St, down to Rio Grande Park. Mr. Cunniffe provided a slide showing a corridor from Aspen Mountain to the river and noted it is a great opportunity to connect the mountain to the John Denver Sanctuary at the river. The idea is to utilize Galena St as a pedestrian corridor. He noted the steering committee and the City of Aspen Staff have been involved in the development since the beginning. They have looked at Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 6 sustainable design for the building. He stated the public and City Council have been involved in every step of the process from August 2014 to present. In regards to the FTE calculation, he commented a lot of the building is public meeting space, which isn’t the same as office space. He stated the office spaces are quite a bit smaller than what is considered standard office space. Ms. Darla Callaway then reviewed the landscape design provided slides describing the proposed project area, existing buildings, and other projects under construction. She then provided a slide of the existing and proposed offices from Galena Plaza level and stated the plaza would knit all the civic uses together. The new city office building at this level is one story above the plaza level and serves primarily as a pedestrian entry. The proposed design extends the plaza out further. The new building will connect to the existing Rio Grande building with the existing entries. There will be a new Galena staircase larger than the existing staircase. It will not be covered, but will be snow melted. Going down to the Rio Grande Pl level, this will be three stories above the roadway. The building entry on this side is designed as a front entry facing the park. The proposed entry is about two and a half ft above the existing roadway and will have both a staircase and a ramp leading to the entry. The existing parking lot on the corner will be used as short term parking. They also want to maintain the on-street parking currently available. They are proposing the restaurant remain in its current location. The design team is looking at curb extensions to shorten the distances pedestrians would be in the crossing of Rio Grande Pl. She provided a slide of the corridor, noting it is about an 80 ft wide corridor responding to public input. She provided a view of the plaza today and a slide with the proposed one story in the same view. She noted of the proposed entry from Rio Grande Pl, there is about a two ft increase in grade. They are looking at using the area in front as a stormwater filtration zone. They are also planning to include bike racks and typical urban design features typically available around a public building. Mr. Pavcek then reviewed the building design including the orientation of the building, layouts as well as the elevations and massing. He noted the whole design backs up to existing parking garage. He stated the basement level is one level below the street and will include mechanical and storage. This may be one area they may consider expanding the interior sf without a change in mass. The main level faces Rio Grande Pl and includes the current parking garage entrance, a main lobby area providing access to the other levels, and mostly office space with some storage, and showers. The existing garage entrance and restaurant remains unchanged. The middle level will be on the same level where the existing uncovered parking spaces in the garage exist today. There is a secondary entrance on this level from garage. There will be a new internal corridor to connect to the Rio Grande building. This level includes office space as well. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 7 The Galena plaza level will include a main entrance from the plaza, a meeting room identified as a replacement for the existing Sister Cites meeting room. This will serve as Council Chambers when the current City Hall is being refurbished. There is also a new public meeting room to replace the meeting room in the Rio Grande building. This meeting room could be used for public use for both indoor and outdoor functions. He also pointed out the location of the expanded staircase. Mr. Pavcek then provided slides depicting the building elevations from all directions, noting the height will be kept at or below the height of the surrounding buildings. He also pointed out the portion of the building on the plaza level has been set back from the edge of the portion of the building below it. He also identified the area that wraps around the outside of the building on the Rio Grande Pl side of the building. On the south elevation, he pointed out the height matches the library. Mr. Cunniffe stated the plaza itself which is the garage roof, will be extended almost 80 ft toward the Rio Grande Park to allow for a greater connection of the plaza with the park. The stairs will also be considerably wider. Mr. Goode asked for questions of the applicant. Mr. Walterscheid asked them to describe the worst case in height. Mr. Pavcek stated the proposed height is where the stairs are located on the plaza level entrance. He added this is to historic grade which is below the current street level, so the perceived height from grade at this location is about 44.8 ft. Mr. Walterscheid noted this portion of the building appears to be set back a bit from the perimeter and Mr. Pavcek agreed and stated it is inside from the other building elements. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the height on the Rio Grande side represents the parapet wall noting Staff is requesting variation in this area. Mr. Cunniffe agreed and stated there may be an opportunity to vary the height somewhat and will look into it if directed by P&Z. Mr. McNellis asked Ms. Callaway to speak to what information was captured from the public regarding the existing Galena Plaza. She responded the primary public comment heard was to open up the view. In terms of activation, they did not hear much. Part of the design was already established with the library renovation. They feel by bringing the city office here, they expect more people to be utilizing the plaza. Mr. McNellis asked about the amphitheater and she stated it will be maintained as designed by another project and it is planned to become slightly larger. Mr. Mesirow asked if the creation of the view corridor was in response to public comment and if this is currently a view plane to which Mr. Cunniffe responded no, but feels this is an opportunity to protect the natural connection of the mountain to the river. Mr. Goode asked if the design provided for future expansion. Mr. Cunniffe responded the building is planned for 2065 and noted the facilities master plan identified about 33,000 sf for growth. He stated the next phase will be looking at the armory to determine if the space there can be more functional. He thought some of the meeting space could be converted to office space if necessary. Mr. Mesirow asked Staff if they designed for year 2065, why was appropriate to use the 2030. Mr. Barker stated they had not heard the year 2065 used before so they have been evaluating base on the year 2030. Mr. Cunniffe added the 2065 was a year within the relocation project. The master plan was a 25 to 30-year projection. He stated they could also look at remodeling or enlarging the Rio Grande building which is currently 6,800 sf now and the holding capacity of the site is approximately 20,000 sf. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 8 Mr. McNellis asked from a programming standpoint, were any other uses proposed for Rio Grande space and wondered if a retail or food space could be possible on the plaza level. Mr. Cunniffe stated right now they are subject to the current location and were limited to what the ask is for today. This could change in the future. This was tested in the public meetings and the majority of people did not want a restaurant at this location. The design does not preclude it for the future. Mr. Mesirow asked about the applicant’s request to possibly utilize 10% additional space. Mr. Pavcek responded it is mostly a margin to address situations so they don’t need to come back to ask for more sf. Mr. Mesirow asked if they would be open to limiting where the 10% would be. Mr. Cunniffe stated one issue they face is that the building will be built and then temporarily occupied until the armory renovation is completed which may take four years. They are asking for flexibility to allow for possible changes in the future. The plan is to build as an office building which may need to have its offices moved around. Mr. Goode asked if Staff has any issues with the 10% request and Mr. Barker replied they want to be careful how it is worded going forward to include appropriate approvals going forward and suggested specific language be added to ensure changes in height or massing would require another review. Mr. Mesirow asked if the assumption is the 10% would be underground or in other areas. Mr. Cunniffe stated they can’t predict it at this point, but want to be prepared. Mr. McKnight asked about how they designed the exterior and selected the materials. Mr. Cunniffe stated the brick identified is representational right now. They have a preference for a more lineal, contemporary brick material that may be stone. Their intent was to show where different materials may occur, but it is still in the study phase. They would like to hear from P&Z, but want to consider durable materials. They also feel some element of metal or steel would be appropriate as well. He pointed out the Obermeyer building which is primarily brick. He reiterated they are open to input, but the placement of glass and windows supports the interior layout. He added the building is intended to be LEED and WELL. Mr. Mesirow asked what level they are trying to design to and Mr. Cunniffe responded hopefully gold, but nothing less than silver. Mr. Mesirow stated he likes the extension of the green space, but asked if there were broader discussions regarding activation. Ms. Callaway stated they tested a couple of areas with the public.  Should the new city office retain a restaurant space which was not favored by the respondents  Should city offices have a coffee shop which had slightly more favorable response Mr. Goode then opened for public comment. Ms. Toni Kronberg handed out a copy of Ordinance 46, Series 2006 and a copy of a newspaper article for the record (Exhibit O). She read from the ordinance and believes it requires that any applications on this property must be judged by the master plan. She also stated the newspaper article points out the parking lots were purchased with the 7th penny transportation tax money and any change in use must go to a vote. She feels over the years, the City has tried to put large buildings in this area and there have been three referendums to prevent the City from constructing the buildings. She also believes P&Z previously prevented the Police Department from utilizing a small area for parking their vehicles. She believed this is cherished area and the citizens want an open area with possible seating to view the park. She stated she was going to email the Civic Master Plan to all the board members and noted a City Hall was not one of the uses recommended for the parking lots. The allowable uses include performing arts, Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 9 SEI or affordable housing. She asked if story poles and a site visit could be accommodated. She is also investigating public noticing for this project and the community outreach. Mr. Goode then closed this portion of the hearing. Mr. McNellis asked Staff to respond to the public comment. Ms. Phelan stated the City Attorneys may have a different opinion concerning the 7th penny and stated Staff will respond in more detail. She added the Civic Master Plan includes information regarding the edge on the north side of Galena Plaza can be used for a range of civic use of which a city hall is a civic use. It also states if something does not fit in perfectly with the master plan, there are core principles the boards need to determine if something different needs to happen. She stated there are many sections which discuss the uses that may occur with the area. Mr. Barker noted Staff’s response to the five sections of the Civic Master Plan and their findings is included on pp 26 & 27 of the packet. Mr. Mesirow asked if any substantive changes were being made to the parking structure to which Mr. Barker replied no and the only change was the spaces currently open will be enclosed. Mr. Mesirow asked Staff to confirm if this is relevant or not and if so, how should it be considered. Mr. Cunniffe stated he served on the master plan committee and noted it was discussed to utilize the area for city offices. He stated Galena Plaza was the main focus and how to bring life to it. He reiterated the Civic Center is not a park. Mr. Goode opened for discussion. Mr. Goode stated he is agreement with Staff regarding the variation on the north side. He asked if story poles could be placed. Mr. Cunniffe stated they could but it may not appear relevant to the plaza. Mr. McNellis feels a site visit would be worthwhile and others agreed. Mr. McKnight likes the overall design including the view path. His biggest concern is about the design and materials. He would like to see something special and feels the look presented is a bit institutional. Perhaps breaking it up may help but he recognizes it is a transitional area and feels it could almost appear as two different buildings. He feels P&Z can come to an agreement on the mitigation. Mr. Mesirow agrees regarding material and would like the building to express warmth and be inviting. He believes Staff recommendations regarding the materials makes sense. He also feels it would be good to add something to activate the plaza space. Mr. Mesirow asked other commissioners about the affordable housing, noting his concern. Mr. McKnight likes the simplicity of their approach. Mr. Mesirow feels the City should set an example of what they expect to put in there. Mr. Goode asked if there was an audit of the review for the library. Ms. Phelan stated they actually did a review of the existing employees and a layout of the proposed library identifying where offices and employees would be located in a graphical representation. Mr. Pendarvis noted the City’s 505 program implemented by Council to develop housing for City employees. Currently, the inventory has about 45 units and is actively growing. He stated they constantly mitigate for employee generation. He stated they have sufficient credits for this project and a surplus for future projects. He added the other city locations have already been mitigated. Mr. Mesirow and Mr. McKnight want to ensure history and perception are addressed. Mr. Pendarvis noted APCHA issues the credits and audits the inventory. APCHA is a joint department between the City and County and acts independently. Mr. Barker stated APCHA will meet regarding this project prior to the next P&Z meeting. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 10 Mr. Wheeler reiterated they are in the housing business and have funds to increase housing every year. They are not saying this because it is the City, but noted how this board and other regulatory agencies treated the County applications, for example, for essential public facilities and asked to be treated equally. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Wheeler to draw a similarity between this proposal and other nonpublic uses. Mr. Wheeler feels they are addressing the code requirements. Mr. Walterscheid asked when discussing flexibility, it may be helpful to know how the employees were allocated such as the number of desks or seats. He also understands the current discussion regarding how credits are allowed and would like to understand Staff’s and the City’s thoughts. Ms. Phelan stated this can be vetted more thoroughly in the next memo. Mr. Mesirow asked to have information regarding how the percentage of mitigation is related. Mr. Goode asked for an update on progress from the other departmental reviews. Mr. McNellis would like to see how the character can be pushed a bit more. He likes the building but feels there are things to be done to push the design envelope along with the landscape. Mr. Cunniffe agrees, but stated they are in a town that often compromises based on some voices. He noted they heard frequently from the public it should be an exemplary, sustainable building. Mr. Mesirow stated some of coolest buildings he has seen ties the historical and modern look together, noting one across from Wrigley Field. He feels there is a great amount of history in town to draw from. Mr. Walterscheid feels the proposed building blends in well with surrounding buildings and is okay regarding mass and height. Mr. McNellis likes how they opened it up visually and widened the stairs. Mr. Cunniffe reminded P&Z the green space wraps around the building and they want entice circulation around the building as a destination. Mr. McKnight motioned to continue the hearing until January 17, 2017 and was seconded by Mr. Mesirow. All in favor, motioned passed. Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) – Land Use Code (LUC) Coordination Process Update Ms. Garrow, Community Development Director, stated they have included all the draft ordinances related to the moratorium and the coordination of the AACP into the land use code. They want to focus on affordable housing mitigation, second tier commercial spaces and parking. They have a check-in on the commercial design guidelines scheduled for January 17th. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 11 She stated Staff has been working on some development scenarios based on the proposed code amendments to see what impacts may occur. They are still working through this, but wanted to share them with P&Z. In terms of affordable housing mitigation, currently the code requires 60% mitigation of the net new FTEs generated by commercial or lodging development. There has been discussion to change the rate to 40% for second tier commercial spaces and 80% of prime commercial spaces to create an incentive for second tier spaces. As they ran through scenarios, they discovered the incentive is negligible. In most cases, the required mitigation actually increases. At this time, maintaining the 60% for all spaces makes the most sense. She then asked for P&Z’s feedback as listed in question one on p 247 of the packet. Mr. Mesirow noted he is not in favor of lowering the incentive if it is found to be negligible. Mr. Mesirow asked if the 60% is tied to the workforce housing in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and Ms. Garrow responded it came about from the 1993 AACP. Before that, it was about 30%. The goal in 1993 was to house 60% of the workforce in the upper valley which created a rationale for the code. She noted the current AACP does not have this goal. Mr. Mesirow asked with the possible increase of units occupied by non-working individuals, how should this be managed to handle this change in reality. Ms. Garrow replied this is one of the arguments to increase it to 80%. She stated as they looked at the scenarios, the increase in conjunction with the potential of not getting credit for existing spaces makes any redevelopment or remodel unlikely. She stated 60% is probably the sweet spot. Mr. Walterscheid asked what the current level is and are we close to 60% of employees living in Aspen. Ms. Garrow responded based on the research compiled by the Housing Department, the 60% goal will not be met in the near future so they are focused on managing the existing stock and ensuring any new development meets the needs. Mr. Supino stated there are often policies that are not met, but the value of the policy is more a legal standpoint. Ms. Garrow noted a lot of fees are actually a percentage of the required amount as to not be punitive. Ms. Garrow noted they ran the Butchers Block building through the changes and if you assume a redevelopment of the site and maxing the floor area;  At 60% for all the spaces, the mitigation is about $860,000 if adding 3.84 FTEs, and  with the 40% vs 80%, the mitigation goes down to 2.2 FTEs or just under $500,000. She stated this results in less affordable housing. They also ran scenarios of remodeling the old Daily News building: For a remodel adding just under 400 sf of net leasable.  At 60% is $249,000 with just over 1 FTE, and  with the 40% and 80%, it’s increased by about $100,000 because it generates about 1.5 FTE. In this scenario, more housing would result. If it was a complete redevelopment, there would be less housing. In conclusion, she stated the proposed changes do not help meet the housing goals and does encourage second tier spaces in most scenarios. At this point, Staff is recommending to not move forward. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 12 The commissioners stated they were in favor of keeping it at 60%. Ms. Garrow stated the third question in the memo asks about the ability to establish housing credits. Council wants to see the commercial zone districts focus on commercial spaces to create more opportunities for second tier spaces for locally serving businesses and to not incentivize the creation of housing. Mr. Supino added it is important to consider this in light of the reduced FAR available for affordable housing in commercial and mixed use projects which is proposed to be capped at 0.75 total for affordable housing. Ms. Garrow stated this asks should a builder be able to build affordable housing and sell the credits to another developer. Council supports it, but not in the Commercial Core (CC), C1 or down by Clarks Market. This states they want affordable housing, but to not push out commercial uses. Ms. Garrow stated Council backed off having no housing, but they don’t want to encourage additional affordable housing. Mr. Goode likes the messiness of having people living in the commercial areas. He asked if it was feasible for a developer to do this. Ms. Garrow noted Mr. Hunt found it feasible at 517 E Hopkins Ave partly because he has so many other mitigation needs. He converted the second floor space to affordable housing. Mr. Walterscheid is in favor of employees living downtown and would be in favor of affordable housing downtown that follows a traditional live/work arrangement. He would also encourage RO, but understands the complications. Ms. Garrow asked with limiting all buildings to two stories, would P&Z be in favor of the second floor for affordable housing as credits or actual housing. Mr. McNellis understands the factors and how we arrived at this question. There are differences between those who want affordable housing and those purchasing free market residential. He feels housing adds vitality, especially affordable housing. He cautioned there are many corners cut during the construction of affordable housing and wants the architecture downtown to be paramount. He would like a standard for construction to be set. Mr. Walterscheid agrees with his concerns. Ms. Garrow noted Staff has the same concerns regarding the level of quality but recognizes this is more of a responsibility of APCHA. Mr. Mesirow stated he would be in support of continuing to allow credits. Mr. Walterscheid stated he would be in favor of no credits downtown, but not capping affordable housing. He would be in favor of an entire floor becoming housing. The other commissioners agreed with no cap and no credits. Ms. Garrow then discussed mitigating for commercial space (p 247 of the packet). Currently the code allows for a redevelopment to receive credit for existing commercial space. Council has expressed interest in removing this for the affordable housing noting if a building did not previously mitigate for its sf, it’s placed a burden on the affordable housing program that needs to be recognized. For new development triggering demolition should mitigate for the net new and anything not previously mitigated. Ms. Garrow reminded them demolition is triggered at 40.1%. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 13 After running through the scenarios, Staff found if a building has not previously mitigated, the applicant will do anything to not trigger demolition, sometimes to detrimental results. She added anything built pre-1985 will fall into this situation.  In the Butchers Block example, there are portions of the building with six ft ceilings. This has never been mitigated. At 60%, the difference is $2.5 million or 11 FTEs.  At 517 E Hopkins Ave, the difference would be $6.8 million.  For 100 E Main St, the difference is $3.1 million or 4.1 FTEs for an increase of 225 sf Staff has heard from the consultants and representatives of the development community that this is the most significant impact. Staff is not sure it is a good policy. Mr. Supino noted this will capture a lot of historic buildings which will probably need signification mitigation, especially if they haven’t mitigated since 1985. Mr. Mesirow understands the intent, but for certain situations, asked if the trigger could be set to 80%. Ms. Garrow asked for ideas to allow for older historic buildings to be upgraded. Mr. Mesirow suggested mitigation to be set based on sf. Mr. Supino stated you can cap the overall rate or set the triggers for mitigation. Mr. McNellis feels anything over 40% creates that many more truckloads, workers and need for affordable housing. He likes what Mr. Mesirow’s suggested adjusting the trigger to be higher. Mr. Walterscheid stated if a developer knows they trigger the 40%, then they will demolish 100%. However, he noted the massive fees generated will be passed along to the lessees and a second tier space becomes very expensive. He feels the fee is too high. Mr. Supino noted a consultant concluded having the policy would incentivize remodel over scrape and replace. Staff plans to review this with Council. Ms. Garrow noted this will have huge impacts when a building has existing affordable housing. She noted the building next to Casa Tua has existing affordable housing units so they would be looking at mitigating approximately 52 FTEs which makes redevelopment totally infeasible. Ms. Garrow pointed out the Golden Horn building because much of it is located on public ROW so it is not probable for this to be redeveloped. This property would have numbers similar to the Butchers Block Building. Mr. Mesirow feels the scenarios draw out the actual cost to the community for a remodel or a redevelopment. He feels for redevelopment the mitigation should be the current rate. Mr. McKnight suggested adding a set of criteria to be met to allow for demolition greater than the 40% when it is deemed necessary for the building to be structurally sound, for safety or other similar necessities. This would give P&Z the option to allow for it as necessary. Ms. Garrow noted Staff would investigate possible exemption scenarios to address specified situations. Mr. Walterscheid suggested taking the percentage of demolition and applying it toward the credit. He added this calculation is already required. He noted there are certain things that don’t count toward Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 14 demolition such as below grade spaces and glazing. He believes roofing may need to be exempted. He noted there are cases when a developer is not planning to exceed the demolition percentage, but upon initiating the demo, the need to demo more is uncovered. He believes the intent may also need to play into it. Mr. Goode motioned to continue the meeting for seven minutes and was seconded by Mr. Mesirow. All in favor, motion approved. Mr. Goode want to touch on number six, noting he would support second tier spaces as a means to support small and locally supporting businesses. He feels the fees are preventing small businesses as well. Mr. McKnight is in favor of it and believes there needs to be a stricter line, provide for fees to be waived and add in restrictions for franchises. He feels City Council has false hopes in regards to what can be done. Designing smaller spaces and making alley spaces available is the right idea, but it may not provide what they are looking to provide for smaller businesses. Mr. Goode noted the City of Golden has done a lot to incentivize local people and businesses. He likes the idea of limiting chains, but feels it will lower property values and could take 20 years to impact the situation. He also feels defining locally serving needs to be less grey. Mr. McKnight believes currently there is not a lot of space for new businesses to go and this may help open up space if there is an incentive to do so. Mr. Walterscheid believes there are a number of basement and second floor spaces already existing and wonders what is expected to happen with these changes. He asked what the requirements would be for second tier space other than it is not on the ground floor. Ms. Garrow replied it is everything except ground floor, street level, prime space. They are currently proposing 30% of the overall space be second tier space which can be met utilizing basement or second floor space. Mr. Walterscheid asked why wouldn’t this happen already. She noted Mr. Hunt is building one story buildings and using the basement space as storage and no new retail space. With the proposed changes, the basement space would have to provide the second tier business space. Mr. Supino added the changes would prevent a one story on slab development that only provides the necessary affordable housing along with the business. Ms. Garrow noted P&Z is supportive, but with additional incentives and teeth. Mr. McKnight moved to continue the meeting for elections and was seconded by Mr. Mesirow. All in favor, motion approved. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair for 2017 Mr. McKnight motioned to nominate Mr. Mesirow for chair and was seconded by Mr. Goode. All in favor, motion approved. Mr. McNellis nominated Mr. Walterscheid as vice-chair and was seconded by Mr. Goode. All in favor, motion approved. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 3, 2017 Page 15 Mr. Goode then closed the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager