Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20170321 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING March 21, 2017 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff Review upcoming meeting schedule C. Public IV. MINUTES A. Draft January 17th Meeting Minutes B. Draft January 24th Meeting Minutes C. Draft January 31st Meeting Minutes D. Draft February 2nd Meeting Minutes E. Draft February 21st Meeting Minutes V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 433 W Bleeker St - Residential Design Standard Variation Review VII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 8, Series 2017 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legaJ notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 1 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order for January 17, 2017 at 4:30 PM with members Ryan Walterscheid, Jasmine Tygre, Rally Dupps, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jesse Morris, Keith Goode and Skippy Mesirow. Brian McNellis and Spencer McKnight 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 welcomed Mr. Dupps to the commission. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked for follow up to a questioned raised by Ms. Tygre a couple of weeks prior regarding if all the fractional shares of a condominium were sold, such as what has happened recently happened at the Dancing Bear, does this turn it into a residence. Ms. Tygre added this is not what was contemplated originally by the City Council and P&Z. She believes this is something to think about going forward. Ms. Phelan wanted to note some items for P&Z to think about: 1. She believes there is a cap on the maximum size of a lodge unit and would impact this today. 2. The City is looking at possibly eliminating free market residences downtown. 3. Last year there were quite a few conversations with this development on how or if the floor could be white-boxed. Staff was adamant about their position and ended up stating they had to complete certain items before their Certificate of Occupancy (CO) would be granted for the rest of the building. Right now their only other tool to follow up is auditing to ensure the unit is not being used in excess of the allowances and limitations of a lodge unit. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan wanted to remind P&Z of the special meeting next Tuesday, January 24th. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES Mr. Walterscheid motioned to approve the minutes of December 20th, 2016. Mr. Goode seconded the motion. All in favor, motion approved. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing – 331 – 338 Midland Park (Aspen Hills Condominiums) Convert to Affordable Housing Mr. Mesirow opened the hearing and asked if any members in the audience were in attendance for this hearing. He then explained he hearing would be continued. He added if they wanted to enter public comment, he would allow time. He also encouraged them to attend the next hearing. Ms. Phelan stated the hearing is scheduled to be continued until Tuesday, January 24th. The applicant still needs to provide information to Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA). Someone asked if they plan to replace all the sewer lines and Ms. Phelan responded she was not sure. Mr. Mesirow noted the commission had received two letters via email earlier in the day. One from Mr. Tom Griffiths and one from Ms. Judith Kolberg. Ms. Phelan added the letters will be entered into the memo for the next meeting. Ms. Bryan, Assistant City Attorney, noted she had reviewed the public notice and found it to be adequate. asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Bryan replied she reviewed it and it appears adequate (Exhibit M). Mr. Goode then opened the public hearing and turned the floor over to Staff. Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to continue the hearing to January 24th, seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor, motion approved. Public Hearing – 427 Rio Grande Pl (Aspen City Offices) – Major Public Project Review Mr. Mesirow opened the continued hearing and turned the floor over to Staff. Mr. Justin Barker, Senior Planner, noted this is the second meeting for this application and then provided a summary of what was presented at the previous meeting. The project includes three lots, two full lots and a portion of a third, much larger lot which includes the Rio Grande Park, Recycling Center, and John Denver Sanctuary. He provided a slide outline the proposed project. The applicant proposes the following. 1. Combining the two smaller lots with a portion of the third lot. 2. Demolishing the existing Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) offices 3. Create a new office building 4. Redevelop the Galena Plaza landscape 5. Renovate the interior of Rio Grande building He noted this is a two-step review process. P&Z will make a recommendation to City Council who will then the final decision. P&Z will not see the application a second time. He then reviewed the concerns identified at the previous meeting. P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 3 Rio Grande façade · More height variation · Additional ground floor detailing to create a pedestrian friendly environment He then displayed elevations of original and revised design (p 21 of Agenda), noting the changed areas. Galena façade He stated this was not mentioned at the previous meeting, but Staff has concerns about the main entry point. He provided a slide of the elevations of the original and revised designs (p 22 of Agenda). The two main areas of change including the reduced glazing and wrapped window on the southern portion where the meeting room is located and the main entrance pushed further away on the right portion of the façade. Staff feels this may be confusing to identify the main entrance and feels it should be highlighted more and easy to locate. They also recommend returning the glazing where they placed doors for the meeting room so people will not accidently be stepping into the meeting room. Design of landscaping He noted P&Z had requested the applicant to look into ways to activate the area more and make it more inviting. He stated the only changes was to the north portion of the plaza area. The zig zag entrance was redesigned to be more streamlined and wraps around the building more intuitively (p 23 of Agenda). Staff is supportive of this change. Design – Materials Mr. Barker stated P&Z had requested the applicant to consider materials that are more river or industrial in style to highlight the transition between the downtown into the park and river area and respond to the topography a bit more. He provided a slide of the buildings that had been identified as inspiration including the Rio Grande bathrooms and the Sanitation affordable housing. He stated no new materials submitted in this submission so Staff recommends continuing to look at this and incorporate some other materials into the design. Growth Management Mr. Barker stated there are two pieces to this review. 1. Allotment from the 2016 Growth Management Year – The design is shown as 37,471 sf as essential public facility. The applicant has requested a 10% flexibility which would increase the project to 41,300 sf. He added the recommendation should state the original amount or to allow for the increase. 2. Mitigation – There are 14 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) located within the ACRA offices that would serve as a credit for the new employee generation. The applicant is proposing 100 FTEs to be housed in the development. He stated P&Z is responsible for determining if the number is appropriate or should be different. The overall difference is 86 FTEs and the applicant is proposing to mitigate at the traditional 60% rate which is common for commercial development within town. The applicant would utilize previously built employee housing that has not already been used for mitigation. He stated City Council would determine the actual mitigation amount, but the commission is encouraged to provide a recommendation. He added P&Z had requested additional information on how the mitigation rate might stack up with the current code. The applicant has provided a couple of different evaluations. The applicant is proposing the areas P3 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 4 that will actually house employees on the main ground floor level and the middle level and not the most upper level which is all meeting space or the basement floor which is all mechanical, storage and server space. Staff feels this is an appropriate approach, particularly for the upper floor which is designated to serve the general public and any employees using the space would already be housed elsewhere. The applicant provided diagrams to detail the actual sf of the different areas identified to house the employees. The shaded areas reserved for employees is 16,937 sf and does not include circulation elements and common areas for public use. Using the code calculation method for public facilities in the public zone district equates to about 76 FTEs. The applicant is proposing a much higher number. The clerk noted Mr. True then left the meeting at approximately 4:50 pm. Mr. Barker reviewed the discussion points. Subdivision · Combining of the lots with the view corridor Planned Development · Dimensions for the PD which includes the requested 10% increase · A few site planning issues remain to be worked out with referral agencies and they have been incorporated into resolution as items to worked out before Council makes a final decision. Commercial Design · Overall conceptual and final design elements Growth Management · Request for allotments · Proposed employee generation number Staff’s overall recommends approval with the outlined conditions within the draft resolution. Mr. Mesirow asked for questions of Staff. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked how many employees will not be housed in the building. Mr. Barker was not sure and felt the applicant may be able to respond better. Ms. Phelan stated there is roughly 300 employees for the city. Mr. Morris asked if the 3rd floor was repurposed with more offices, would this trigger review to consider the additional FTEs. Ms. Phelan suggested adding this as a condition to the resolution. Mr. Goode asked if the power plant AKA old art museum is located in lot 1. Ms. Leslie Lamont, Planner for the applicant, responded the property only goes to the middle of the river. Mr. Barker it is just beyond the boundary of the lot. Mr. Morris asked if this approach common to request certain areas to be excluded because it will not house employees. Mr. Barker noted it is unique situation and why public facilities are always evaluated P4 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 5 on a case by case basis. This methodology using actual employee generation was used with the police department, hospital, and the library. Mr. Mesirow asked for a non-public application, is there a zone district or project where the calculation for employment generation is not based on the entire space. Mr. Barker could not recall one. Ms. Phelan added this specific review to be able to do an individual review for growth management is for essential public facilities. These are the type of projects that utilize a site specific review instead of a generation rate. Mr. Mesirow then asked why this is so for a non-public development. Ms. Phelan did not know why, but the code is written this way based on a number of studies. Mr. Mesirow asked if the outstanding concerns from other reviewing agencies had been resolved. Mr. Barker believes they are still discussing this with the departments. Mr. Mesirow doesn’t see many of Staff’s concerns addressed and asked why Staff has changed their opinion on approval. Mr. Barker stated in the last meeting, Staff had recommended a continuation to allow for further discussion on the concepts and allow for a site visit. He stated Staff had concerns related to the design. Some have been addressed and some will carry forward for further refinement. Staff believes the applicant has made efforts to respond. Mr. Dupps asked if essential public facilities including the police, the hospital have flexibility in the FTE requirement and possibly utilize a weighted scale. Mr. Barker stated the code includes a recommended generation rate of 5.1 FTEs per thousand sf of net leasable area. Ms. Phelan added this is geared toward office uses in a public zone district. Mr. Barker stated this was used for comparison purposes but are still reviewed case by case. Ms. Tygre noted if Staff finds there is still work to be done to refine some aspects, what happens if they pass it on with a recommendation for certain improvements, but they don’t like what they did. Ms. McNicholas Kury is unclear where the requested 10% additional would go. Mr. Barker feels this needs to be carefully included in the resolution. Staff suggests a note to be included requiring the 10% require at least an administrative review. If the 10% changed the overall massing, it should have a board review. As of right now, the additional 10% would be in the subgrade space and not impact the mass of the building. Mr. Mesirow asked if the change to the curvature of the wall modified the sf and Mr. Barker replied not in a significant way, perhaps 20-25 sf. Ms. Tygre asked if redesign of elevator and staircase part of this approval. Mr. Charles Cunniffe stated the elevator and staircase allowing access to the garage is not part of the approval. Mr. Mesirow 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 P5 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 6 · Richard Goulding, Civil Engineer for the project · Rob Taylor, MV5 · Seth Saul, MV5 · Jack Wheeler, City Project Manager · Jeff Pendarvis, City Property Manager Mr. Cunniffe wanted to remind everyone this is an essential public facility and the City constantly builds housing for its employees. He stated this project will replace all the lost rental space with permanently owned offices and improve the existing facilities in order to offer better public service. He then reviewed the history and progress of the project including its initial beginnings in 2000 and more recent direction from Council. Ms. Darla Callaway pointed to the areas of focus for the site visit earlier in the day reviewing the existing conditions. She then reviewed the changes to site plan since last meeting including: · A new staircase · The main entry has changed in attempt to make access more direct and visible · The plaza now continues around the building · Rio Grande building includes interior improvements only · Detached sidewalks along Rio Grande Pl to address the need for green space between the curb and the sidewalk for stormwater and to move pedestrians off the roadway. Because of the grade changes between the street and the building entry of 2 ft, there were unable to detach the sidewalk so it was necessary to eliminate the on street parking on Rio Grande Pl to accommodate the green strip required by the Engineering Department. She pointed out the parking locations available for visitors. She pointed the parking that was eliminated. Mr. Goode asked if you stand at the railing on the edge, how high is this from the ground below. Mr. Pavcek replied two stories. Mr. Pavcek then reviewed the layouts for each level, noting not much has changed since the last meeting. Basement level – below street level and houses the mechanical and storage Rio Grande level (Main Level) – Main entrance to the building and also the existing entrance to the parking garage. Middle level · Main change was a change to the curve of the wall · Floor plan has not changed much · New connection to the existing Rio Grande building · Looking into to moving trash enclosure to accommodate access requirements for Environmental Health Department and the Fire Department. Upper level (Galena Plaza) · Lobby altered to engage the access to the plaza P6 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 7 · Corner of building was cut to provide more outdoor space · Grand staircase has remained the same Mr. Pavcek reviewed the proposed form and materials. Since the last meeting they have made minor changes. He pointed to areas previously shown as brick that will now be ledge stacked stone. An area previously shown as zinc has been changed to copper. The glass corner marking the entry has been extended down to the entry level to enhance the entrance. They reduced the amount of glass on the Galena Plaza level and added detail to the columns supporting the canopy. They continue to study the area to improve it. He then provided renderings with the new materials. He noted the railing has been stepped back to show a break in mass as it meets the building. They are also working with the Parks Department on where trees should be located. On the Galena Plaza level, they moved the window on the south side to the corner on the west. He pointed to the channel glass circulation tower which will bring light into the building and will enhance the entry. Mr. Cunniffe noted they want the landscape to enhance the entrance. Mr. Pavcek feel the proposed materials are more appropriate for the river corridor area. Mr. Pavcek reviewed the elevations noting the height has not been increased. He added the proposed heights are in context with surrounding buildings. North elevation · Changed solid line to include transparent railing to break up mass. · Railing to be pulled back with plantings in front of it. Mr. Mesirow asked for questions of the applicant. Mr. Dupps asked them to speak to more about the entrance to the building. Mr. Cunniffe knows they continue to work with staff to strengthen the experience of the entrance. They may consider bringing out the sf a bit to showcase the entrance. They may also modify the position of the lobby and staircase to make the lobbies more prominent. They want the stairs to be a beacon to the entrance from afar and have the landscaping guide to the doors once you are closer to the building. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked the applicant to review the entrances to the garage. Mr. Pavcek stated every level accesses the garage and pointed out where they are located on the floor plans. Mr. Cunniffe discussed the timeline showing the overall progress going back 17 years. Ms. Tygre asked how far the canopy extends out into Galena Plaza. Mr. Pavcek responded about 12 ft. Mr. Cunniffe noted they may suggest pulling entrance portion of the façade out further. Ms. Tygre asked what color is planned for the curve wall. Mr. Cunniffe replied it is mostly glass and could be grey or another metal color. Mr. Pavcek stated there is glass to help with the LEED certification. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the programming for the location had been solidified. Mr. Wheeler stated no, but the first three to five years will house the departments currently located in city hall while it is refurbished. P7 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 8 Ms. Tygre asked where the housing is located to satisfy the requirements. Mr. Pendarvis noted 23 units located at Water Place. He stated these units and have not been utilized for their credit. The City has a bank of credits with APCHA. Mr. Pendarvis noted this is a separate fund from the 150 fund used by APCHA to build housing. Mr. Mesirow asked if the units are dedicated specifically for employees or would others have an opportunity. Mr. Pendarvis replied the units built with the 505 fund are used only by employees. This fund was established by Council to construct housing specifically for City employees. Currently, they are developing eight new units at the new police station. Units are constantly being build or acquired for City staff. Mr. Cunniffe noted APCHA is supportive of the application. Mr. Mesirow asked if Staff had followed up on his request from the previous meeting to identify which departments currently working in rented space will be moving to the new offices. Mr. Barker replied the programming has not been finalized regarding which departments will be housed in the new building, but current rented properties include the Mill St building, Mountain Rescue building, Yellow Brick building and the Housing departments. Mr. Barker added there is not great documentation on which buildings have been mitigated in the past, but it is likely the Mountain Rescue building, Mill St building would be possibilities. Mr. Goode voiced concern about light from the windows. Mr. Pendarvis stated the offices are typically open 8 AM to 5 PM and should not be on into the night. Mr. Mesirow feels at the last meeting P&Z asked them to swing for the fence in regards to the façade and activation of the space around the building. He appreciates the move to stone and copper, but feels their efforts fell a bit flat. Mr. Cunniffe stated to this point Council has directed the design team to stay conservative in their efforts regarding the size and look of the building. He asked P&Z for suggestions and recommendations on what they could incorporate in the project. Mr. Pendarvis added they were told to keep it modest and humble. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked about the staircase flowing toward the river. Ms. Callaway replied the stairs funnel down to the river but are 2.5 times larger than the existing stairs. She feels it is important to keep in mind the land uses on the site and to remember the scale of the plaza as well as the programming for the plaza. The outdoor amphitheater is appropriate for this space and they want to provide for areas for sitting in the space as well. The stair form opens from Main St. down to the park. Mr. Cunniffe wants to emphasize the Galena St ROW from the mountain to the river. Mr. Walterscheid asked them to speak to renewable energy sources or materiality as it applies for the certifications. Mr. Cunniffe replied they are not too far into this process but are keeping in their minds as the design the building. There are two sides of the building which do not provide for natural light so it puts a lot of pressure on allowing for light using other means. They have been looking at passive mechanical techniques, proper air handling, good lighting and a sense of space. The team is still trying to figure out the program of the building so they need to include flexibility in the systems. They want to utilize recycled materials and LED lighting. Ms. Callaway added they are planning the stormwater collection and infiltration in efforts to store the water onsite or filter it appropriately. They want to maximize the green space and utilize regional materials. Mr. Walterscheid asked if they would be offsetting snowmelt. Mr. Cunniffe stated they are considering geothermal for those systems. P8 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 9 Mr. Mesirow asked them to speak to the progress with the other departments. Mr. Cunniffe they are in discussion with all the necessary departments, specifically addressing the DRC comments. Mr. Cunniffe noted the Fire department is interested in maintaining access from Mill St and they are working with the Engineering and Fire Departments. At this point, they are down to figuring out details. Mr. Dupps stated he recently toured Google’s office in Venice Italy and wanted to know if there has been discussion regarding the design of meeting spaces and offices. Mr. Cunniffe noted the Facebook offices which have 1,100 employees and not a single closed office. He feels it is a cultural thing and needs to be worked through to allow for the most efficient workspace, while satisfying privacy needs for the HR, Manager and Attorney offices. Mr. Mesirow then closed this portion of the hearing and opened for public comment. Mr. John Wilkinson, President of the Pitkin County Library Board of Trustees, stated they met with the team last week and wanted to share the following comments regarding the proposal. 1. Programing of the plaza area a. Just completed $14 million library expansion and renovation with the idea the outside space would be used year-round for events. b. They have over a 100 events a year utilizing the meeting rooms 2. Recommend working with Library to make the outdoor space viable 3. Concerned with the wall facing the library and feels it does not engage with the library meeting room. They would prefer it matches or coordinates with the library. He noted the team has been responsive in meeting with the Library Board and wants to continue to be involved. He noted as a reference, the library is now 38,700 sf in size. Ms. Toni Kronberg, asked the applicant to show a slide of the current Galena Plaza and pointed out some green chimneys and then asked for the proposed Galena Plaza. Mr. Mesirow noted the poles on the site visit indicated the location of the building. Ms. Kronberg stated the application presented is incomplete and the board will not be doing justice to Council if they approve it tonight. She feels the board needs to wait until they have all the referral comments under control. She noted in the resolution, it addresses renovating the Rio Grande Building. She has not seen any drawings of the renovations. At the last meeting she brought up four referendums she took to preserve the Rio Grande parcel as it is now including the Recycle Center, Aspen Art Museum, Visitor Center, Trees in parking lot. She agrees the City needs more office space. She is not cool the board has hours on this application and she only gets three minutes. She does not feel this is part of the outreach or taking testimony that should be reflected in the minutes. She stated the Civic Master Plan is a regulatory document and it is the board’s responsibility to approve the uses in the document. The uses for the surface parking lots are either SCI, neighborhood commercial, or a performing arts center. There was a vote in 1998 where voters approved the funding and issuance of bonds and approval of the land for the parking garage and the surface parking lots. The application before the board states an SPA granted this project and then it went away. She believes it didn’t happen this way. She believes an entitlement that Council and Mayor Stirling in 1988 that approved the parking garage and entitled this and to change the uses requires an amendment. She doesn’t understand why there has not been amendment with the new building. The new building is not in the spirit of the Aspen Area Community Plan and doesn’t adhere to the CMP. She noted the Aspen Art Museum is smaller in height than the new City office building. Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. Kronberg to clarify her main contention with the building. She replied it is the land use which is not consistent with the CMP which she believes states what is allowed on this property. She feels the vote P9 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 10 to issue bonds and an approved SPA. Mr. Mesirow thanked her. She asked them to look at the scale and massing and should be aware this building is 17 ft taller than what is allowed. Mr. Mesirow informed her that her time was up and she stated Michael Brown came before the board regarding the Gorsuch property stating just because someone has lived here forever, you need to factor that into the decision to approve it. Mr. Mesirow then thanked her for her time and her work on this. Ms. Kronberg added the public posting does not accurately convey to the public what is happening. She complained she was only provided three minutes. Mr. Mesirow responded that she was allowed seven minutes. She thanked Mr. Mesirow and then apologized for being sarcastic. Mr. Mesirow then closed this portion of the hearing. Mr. Cunniffe stated he sat on the CMP committee from 2000-2006 and future city offices was considered for this property. Ms. Phelan stated they would scan the timeline handout from Mr. Cunniffe as exhibit O. Mr. Pendarvis stated the timeline handed out predated the election in November 2015 where the public affirmed building city offices at the proposed location. Mr. Mesirow opened for commissioner discussion. Mr. Walterscheid wanted to state the board allows for three to five minutes for public comment. He stated the applicant submitted 500 pages and they took 30 minutes. If a member of the public wants the board to review everything, he would prefer it be submitted beforehand to Ms. Phelan or Ms. Klob who will deliver it to the board members. This will allow them to read through it in reference to the public comment. Otherwise, it doesn’t give the board time to actually have an intelligent response to comments made. He would much rather have a respectful take on what just happened if there was a bit more respect to the volunteer board members. He understands Ms. Kronberg put a lot of time and effort to what she does, but if she wants the board to respond in an intelligent and meaningful way, please give the board more time to digest the information. He told Ms. Kronberg he has no clue what she is referencing. Moving forward, if she wants the board and possibly Council to respond, then it is best if she submits materials prior to the meeting. Ms. Kronberg stated she appreciates his comments and totally agrees with him. Mr. Goode feels if the board drafts a resolution, they need to include the additional 10% underground. He can’t remember a project where they allowed additional growth without parameters. He recognizes why they want to have the opportunity for an additional space for the entrance so perhaps this can be qualified as to be used on the entrance or underground as a condition. In regards to employee housing, Mr. Goode feels the 100 – 17 people is the appropriate amount. Mr. Goode suggested every 10 years and audit is conducted on employee generation to address the flexible programming and future changes. He believes this was done with the library. Mr. Mesirow asked why he feels the 100 is appropriate rather than handling it like a nonpublic project. Mr. Goode noted there is space such as the meeting rooms in the current City Hall that will not generate employees, but is necessary. Ms. McNicholas wondered if there should be some accommodation for employees that are permanently housed. She feels there is a lot of space not being utilized. Ms. Tygre wished they had the report from APCHA and is reluctant to make a decision without it. She believes she cannot make a decision without all the information. Mr. Morris asked if they received a memo on their P10 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 11 intent and Ms. Tygre responded the meeting is planned for tomorrow. Mr. Cunniffe stated Ms. Cindy Christensen has a recommendation. Mr. Mesirow feels there are other buildings in other zone districts with public space and the number meets the recommendation. He feels this appears to be somewhat of a double standard. Mr. Goode stated they did the same thing for the library. Mr. Morris stated this was the approach used for the Police Station and the Fire Department. Mr. Goode asked if it is appropriate to mitigate for the space where the fire trucks are parked. Mr. Morris stated he felt uncomfortable as well but finds there has been a precedence set for other municipal buildings for this standard. Mr. Dupps stated when he served on the APCHA board they reviewed the Pitkin County building to be remodeled and they basically did the same thing declaring it was an essential public service and not really the same as a commercial building. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated it is her understanding they are trying to make a comparison to an FTE calculation based on the use. Mr. Mesirow stated while he appreciates the applicant states now it will be 100 employees, the building will be used for a long time and he initially felt the City should set an example by mitigating for the full number per the regulations. After hearing from Mr. Pendarvis regarding the how the units are deeded, he feels it is a reasonable approach. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if it would be more appropriate to require an audit at four years when both buildings are fully functional. Mr. Morris asked Staff if P&Z could include a term. Ms. Phelan suggested if the board wanted to include a condition for an audit, she recommended it stating at the request of APCHA and noted it is usually within three years of issuing a Certificate of Occupancy (CO). She continued stating she feels the City Council Chambers and the Sister Cities Room are different than a typical office building because they are used for public gatherings similar to the meeting room in the library where the County Commissioners are meeting. She suggested they could add a condition noting if the functions of the rooms change in the future, they would need to go through a land use review. Mr. Morris feels some flexibility should be given in space to allow for design of the entrance and asked how this could be done within the resolution. Ms. Phelan suggested the board make a recommendation noting their concerns for how the 10% buffer would be used and identify their expectations. Mr. Mesirow asked the board if they had any concerns regarding materiality. Mr. Walterscheid feels they are moving in right direction and they should make a recommendation to Council who has the final decision. Mr. Walterscheid feels it is okay if the building is not brick since it is not in the core. In response to the comments regarding the request for additional space, he feels as long as it is in under the roofline and within the footprint, it would be appropriate. In terms of housing, Mr. Walterscheid would be in favor of including a clause specifying if the use changed on the upper level changes then a review would be necessary. He stated non-unit space is not typically counted in regular commercial space so he does not have a problem with the review requirement and the audit. Mr. Cunniffe stated if they had more latitude with the entry, they could shoot for the moon. He added if they provided this message to Council, it would be helpful. Mr. Goode feels they should communicate to Council they would like to see something fabulous and it’s an opportunity to showcase Aspen’s architecture. Mr. Walterscheid agrees, but notes Council wants to be considerate of a balance. Mr. Cunniffe noted they received feedback from the community to make it exemplary and forward-thinking. Mr. Dupps feels this is an opportunity to place the entry such that it forces engagement of the Galena Plaza space. Mr. Mesirow added it should activate the space and serve as inspiration to be a part of the community. P11 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 12 Ms. Tygre is concerned with the consolidated review process. She gets the sense Staff and applicant want to push this forward with conditions and feels it is irresponsible. She wants to make sure the conditions are met regarding the entrance and feels the board will not have the opportunity to ensure they are appropriately addressed. She would prefer to not push the resolution through at this time because the building is too important and big. She senses the other commissioners feel the same way. Mr. Mesirow asked the other commissioners if they felt the same way. Mr. Walterscheid feels that way to some extent, noting P&Z will have a level of commentary and Council will have a different set of commentary. He knows P&Z will not have the final voice for this application but hears Council voice frustration they can’t be the final voice on other applications. He hears both sides and feels P&Z needs to respect Council has the final voice in this situation. Ms. Tygre feels the details of the entrance are in the purview of P&Z. Mr. Walterscheid agrees, but feels we can give them parameters to allow the application to move along. If it involves moving the door out four ft, he doesn’t feel the application needs to come back for it. Ms. Tygre is still not sure her concerns can be met. She finds it troublesome between the difference between public and private. Although public buildings are different, she doesn’t feel the review process should be different between a public entity and a private developer. She feels this building is taller and more FAR than other surrounding buildings. Mr. Cunniffe noted a 57,000 sf building was approved by the public in 2015 and this building is quite a bit smaller. Ms. Tygre stated she is concerned with this particular process and building, which may just be here opinion. Mr. Morris noted the other members may not be comfortable as well, but specifics need to be identified. He feels if they can address their concerns with language, then they can move the application forward. If not, then they can’t. Mr. Mesirow asked for the boards concerns. Mr. Morris noted the following. 1. Having APCHA conduct an audit 2. If the use or programming in the top rooms change, a review is triggered 3. Limiting of 10% growth within the existing building envelope specific to the entrance. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated the allowed something similar to Mr. Fornell’s project. Mr. Mesirow feels strongly they should mitigate to the entire number of employees generated and use the 505 structures for mitigation as an example. This would be 179 employees times 60%. Mr. Goode feels this is a bit strange because the City is in the business of building employee housing. Mr. Dupps noted the City is currently building in three locations. Mr. Wheeler feels the City is providing a lot of sf to replace the Rio Grande Room programming for the town and if it is taken out, there is no need for mitigation. The programming is strictly for public benefit and the board should consider this. He noted the 505 fund continues to allow for more structures. Mr. Cunniffe added what makes a public building great is public space. Mr. Goode sees Mr. Mesirow’s point to ensure the project is standard, but believes it is an apples and oranges comparison. Mr. Goode feels they have to allow the applicant the flexibility to make adjustments on the final concrete details. Mr. Cunniffe stated they may not fully define the details until they go through the permit process. Mr. Mesirow asked the board if they felt comfortable identifying conditions for the allowing the 10% and mitigation to which most members expressed they were in agreement. Mr. Mesirow then asked if there were other conditions to be addressed. Ms. Tygre asked to see something more regarding the entrance on the plaza. She is also concerned about the width of the façade. P12 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 13 Ms. McNicholas stated she is concerned with the programming. Recently Pitkin County separated their offices for a remodel effort and she stated customers are really upset because they don’t know where to go and can’t find anything. She doesn’t support the City’s decision to split up the departments, but feels the City should be thoughtful regarding how the citizens are able to interact with the departments. She asked why the City is placing HR and Finance in the most visible building and above public parking. Mr. Mesirow noted there is consensus to move the application forward. Ms. McNicholas Kury believes the audit should happen at a meaningful time such as when both buildings are completed. Mr. Mesirow is still concerned how the programming looks in 2035 and does it warrant subsequent audits. Ms. Bryan suggested the board identify specific conditions to be included for the chair to review and sign in the resolution. Mr. Mesirow identified the following conditions. 1. If any common or public space changes use, any employees must be mitigated 2. A two-stage audit, one when the building is initially opened and another at a later date to ensure the employees have been mitigated. Ms. McNicholas Kury clarified her suggestion for the second audit once the City has completed all remodeling and construction. Ms. Phelan suggested stating APCHA may request subsequent audits after the initial audit. Mr. Mesirow suggested at CO and then plus three years and other reviews as APCHA feels is necessary. Ms. Phelan noted it is up to APCHA when they want to conduct audits. Mr. Mesirow wants to ensure one is conducted within 10 years. Other conditions suggested by Staff and board members: 1) Allow for a 10% buffer as long as it does not increase height, mass or scale and remains within the footprint to be approved administratively 2) Request the entry to be designed prior to final council approval and to be designed with more prominence 3) Mr. Goode and Mr. Morris suggested the building should be a beacon both architecturally and visually and Ms. McNicholas wants the building to celebrate the area as a civic campus. 4) The City should cooperate with the County Library regarding the programming of the plaza. Mr. Wheeler stated they have been working with the County and the Library board for the past eight years on the plan for the plaza and he is not sure Mr. Wilkinson is aware of this work. 5) Any change in use requires full mitigation of the employees in the space. 6) Audits to be conducted at CO, three years and thirteen years and as APCHA sees fit Ms. McNicholas Kury moves to approve Resolution 2, Series with the conditions noted and seconded by Mr. Walterscheid. Mr. Mesirow requested a roll call. Roll Call: Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Morris, yes; Ms. Tygre, no; Mr. Dupps, yes, Mr. Mesirow, yes; and for a total six Yes votes and one No votes (6-1). The motion passed. Mr. Mesirow then closed the hearing. P13 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 14 OTHER BUSINESS Resolution endorsing Council adoption of new Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines Mr. Mesirow turned the floor over to Staff. Ms. Garrow, Community Development Director, reviewed the timing for Council to adopting the modified standards and guidelines. She anticipates they will be adopted Monday. She noted a resolution from P&Z is not required for Council to adopt them, but it is from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Staff would like for both boards to be treated equally so they are requesting P&Z to adopt a resolution as well. She added individual comments can be accepted until Friday morning. Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to extend the meeting to 7:30 PM and was seconded by Mr. Mesirow. All in favor, motion passed. Ms. Kronberg requested to comment and Mr. Mesirow explained this was a work session and public comment was not allowed. He suggested she submit her comments to Council. Mr. Barker presented the new standards and guidelines noting it has been before the board three times prior to this meeting. He stated Staff incorporated a number of comments received at the prior meetings. He stated the memo outlines the most recent changes and HPC is comfortable with the content. He then reviewed the changes. Mr. Walterscheid asked for the difference between a standard and guideline. Ms. Garrow replied standards are required and guidelines are encouraged. Ms. Garrow noted the draft resolution states P&Z is supportive of the changes suggested. Ms. Garrow responded to Ms. McNicholas Kury’s request for clarification on split levels and public amenities being prevented on subgrade corners. Mr. Barker added HPC was concerned with the diminished integrity of subgrade spaces and changes were made to limit the locations without disallowing it as an option. Ms. Garrow noted the changes only impact new subgrade spaces. The board then asked question regarding roof top decks. Mr. Barker stated noted Council wanted to discourage them, but not totally eliminate them. Ms. Garrow stated they will be allowed as the roof of a first floor. Mr. Mesirow feels there should be more information provided to the public to inform them where public amenity spaces exist whether on the building or available via other wayfinding methods. Ms. Garrow asked if the commission support replacing of existing and new courtyards on corners and they replied yes. Mr. Walterscheid asked about the maximum depth of a courtyard and Mr. Barker stated it should be the approximation of one story of 10 ft. Mr. Supino noted Council wanted a number and not just describe it as one story. P14 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 15 Mr. Morris asked about the process for the potential changes to the rezoning overlay and parking code. Ms. Garrow noted P&Z provided comments at the previous P&Z meeting and once Council adopts the changes, Staff is planning some outreach and will work with both boards. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the below grade will count towards the building height and Ms. Garrow replied it will not. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there was a sf limit on a courtyard and Ms. Garrow stated if it is a public amenity, it doesn’t count. Mr. Barker noted item 5.3 identifies how wide the courtyard can be. Mr. Walterscheid then asked about the FAR and Ms. Garrow noted in Ordinance 29, a ratio of 2.25:1 has been specified to account for FAR exposure. Mr. Mesirow thanked Staff for their efforts and other commissioners agreed. Ms. Garrow noted the feedback from P&Z has been really helpful and was well received by Council. Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to approve Resolution 3, Series 2017 and was seconded. Mr. Mesirow requested a roll call. Roll Call: Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Morris, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; and Mr. Mesirow, yes; for a total seven Yes votes and zero No votes (7-0). The motion passed. Ms. Garrow reviewed the schedule and stated she will email a schedule to the board. Mr. Mesirow then closed the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P15 IV.A. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 24, 2017 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order for January 24, 2017 at 4:30 PM with members Ryan Walterscheid, Jasmine Tygre and Skippy Mesirow present. Brian McNellis, Jesse Morris, Keith Goode, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Spencer McKnight and Rally Dupps were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Andrea Bryan, Jennifer Phelan, Ben Anderson and Sara Nadolny. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES The draft January 3rd meeting minutes were not reviewed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing – 1411 Crystal Lake Rd – Special Review; Top of Slope Determination Because there was no quorum, Mr. Mesirow opened and continued the hearing until January 31, 2016. Public Hearing – 331 – 338 Midland Ave (Aspen Hills Condos) – Affordable Housing Project Review Because there was no quorum, Mr. Mesirow opened and continued the hearing until January 31, 2016. OTHER BUSINESS None. Mr. Mesirow then closed the meeting. Cindy Klob P16 IV.B. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 24, 2017 City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P17 IV.B. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 1 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order for January 31, 2017 at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, Brian McNellis, Ryan Walterscheid, Jesse Morris, and Skippy Mesirow. Spencer McKnight arrived late to the meeting. Kelly McNicholas Kury and Rally Dupps were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Andrea Bryan, Jessica Garrow, Ben Anderson and Sara Nadolny. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Morris stated the members should always respond to Ms. Klob to let her know if they will be attending the next hearing or not. Mr. Mesirow wanted it on record that Mr. McKnight reached him after the hearing to let him know he was ill and reached out as expeditiously as he could. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Garrow stated all the moratorium ordinances were approved as of the previous night except for view planes which has been continued to March for final discussion. The Planning Staff will be in touch with P&Z regarding training sessions before their rollout on March 17th. Ms. Klob introduced Nicole Henning as the City’s new Deputy Clerk. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES Mr. McNellis motioned to approve the minutes of January 3rd, 2017. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. All in favor, motion approved. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing – 1411 Crystal Lake Rd – Special Review; Top of Slope Determination Mr. Mesirow opened the hearing. Ms. Bryan stated the public notices had been reviewed and were found to be in order. P18 IV.C. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 2 Mr. Anderson, Planner, then reviewed the application for a special review stream margin for an alternative top of slope determination. He stated stream margins are typically handled administratively unless there is some point of disagreement. Mr. Mesirow noted Mr. McKnight’s arrival at 4:38 pm. Mr. Anderson continued by displaying a map of the site noting the existing structure which sits next to the river, had been built in 1971. He pointed out the red lines on the map representing the existing stream margin review area and the established top of slope adopted as part of a plat by an ordinance effective in 2002. He stated this house was built prior to the establishment of the top of slope and stream margin review criteria. As the applicant considers redevelopment of the property, the established top of slope will make future redevelopment difficult, if not impossible. The applicant is pursuing an alternative top of slope and the stream margin review will occur later as an administrative review. The review considers the following. · Preserve the slope bank integrity as the property relates to the river and its tributaries · Protection of riparian vegetation ecosystems · Minimizing visual impacts of development from the river corridor · Observe the 100-year flood plain and other hydraulic aspects The top of slope establishes a setback for the building envelope and the 45-degree progressive height plane. He stated the applicant hired an engineering consultant who worked with the City Engineering Department to identify an alternative top of slope. He noted where a section of the proposed top of slope intersected with an existing deck, the line was placed 15 ft parallel from the deck to establish an appropriate setback. He closed stating the proposed alternative top of slope is supported by Engineering, brings clarity to a future stream margin review and allows for the redevelopment of the property by ensuring the development will be no closer to the river. He stated Staff recommends approval. Mr. Mesirow asked for questions of staff. Ms. Tygre feels the application is reasonable but doesn’t understand how they can adjust when nothing physically has changed on the site. Mr. Anderson replied the set of criteria used when the top of slope was originally identified was restrictive in some instances. He stated the process did not necessarily consider site specific constraints. Ms. Tygre asked how P&Z can evaluate a proposed change at this time. Ms. Garrow stated the mapped top of slope does not reflect the site conditions for the property. The process to determine the alternative or real top of slope requires a review of the site by Parks, Engineering and a licensed engineer to ensure the line reflects the site conditions. This did not happen in the original process. Particularly in the Crystal Lake area, the top of slope is not very accurate based on the site conditions. Mr. McNellis asked how this impacts adjacent properties. Mr. Anderson stated it potentially opens a can of worms. As Engineering reviews these properties, they consider the relationship to adjacent properties. If the top of slope is adjusted for this property, it may establish a starting point for adjacent properties, but would not fully move the top of slope. P19 IV.C. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 3 Mr. McNellis asked if this is a project for the Engineering Department. Ms. Garrow stated they have wanted to address this for past two to three years, but the code does not allow for it. They are hoping Council will push this forward as a priority. Currently, any change requires this review. Mr. Mesirow asked how the top of slope impacts the flood plain and visual criteria. Mr. Anderson replied they do not know what future development is planned at this time, but noted the following: Visual impact – Top of Slope will be used for designing future development Relationships to River – This was part of Engineering’s analysis including the 100-year flood plain, median high water mark, riparian vegetation, slope qualities and the existing development. Mr. Mesirow asked why it is appropriate to establish a new top of slope including the existing development instead of the actual top of slope. Mr. Anderson feels it is a combination of the two considerations including the relationship of the existing development to the river. He described the conditions of the site and feels it is intuitive where development should occur. Mr. McNellis asked if the 15 ft from existing deck meets the 45-degree criteria. Mr. Anderson stated the 45-degree line essentially defines a three-dimensional building envelope the applicant will need to design to this new line. Staff has not seen any designs at this time, but it will become part of the stream margin review. Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Glenn Horn, Davis Horn Inc, introduced himself as representing the applicant. He also introduced Luis Menendez as the architect for the applicant. He stated the applicant was reluctant to start a design of the house without first having the top of slope clearly identified because a stream margin review requires a lot of design work. Mr. Horn stated they knew the mapped top of slope was inaccurate and it is not unusual based on how it was originally identified by the City. It was an ambitious project started in the 1990’s and it really only serves as an indicator in his experience. Mr. Horn then described how they hired Mr. Gary Beach, an environmental specialist and wetlands expert, to set flags where he felt top of slope should be located. The City Engineers visited the site three times with Mr. Beach to adjust the flags. He agrees with staff that this part of the code needs modification. He noted the adjusted top of slope was not set about 15 ft from deck to make the house compliant with setback, but it just happened to be where the engineers agreed the location of the line. This is where the vegetation changes and where the site begins to roll over and level out. Mr. Mesirow asked if there were questions of applicant. There was none so he closed this portion of the hearing. Mr. Mesirow asked for public comment and the was none, so he closed this portion of the hearing. Mr. Mesirow then opened for commissioner discussion. Ms. Tygre stated based on the recommendation of staff and engineering, she feels it should be approved knowing it is a site specific. She does not see any negative consequence of the approval. Mr. P20 IV.C. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 4 Goode agreed and feels it would be good for Council to allow staff to review this portion of code for possible updates. Other members agreed to this as well. Mr. Goode motioned to approve Resolution 4, Series 2017 and was seconded by Ms. Tygre. Mr. Mesirow requested a roll call. Roll called: Mr. Goode, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Morris, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; and Mr. McKnight; yes; for a total of seven yes to zero no (7-0). Motion approved. Public Hearing – 331 – 338 Midland Ave (Aspen Hills Condos) – Affordable Housing Project Review Mr. Walterscheid stated his office is working on a project next to this one and he wanted to state he is not financially involved in this project and does not feel he needs to recuse himself from the hearing. Mr. Mesirow then opened the hearing and turned the floor over to Staff. Ms. Sara Nadolny, Planner, noted she handed out Exhibit M which had been previously emailed to the commissioners which includes three letters received from citizens who live near the application site. She also handed out a new version of the draft resolution which had been finalized the day prior to the hearing with minor changes that she will review. She then introduced the applicant team. · Chris Bendon, BendonAdams · Bill Boehringer, Applicant Representative She then introduced representatives from the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA). · Mike Kosdrosky, APCHA Director · Phil Vaughn, Phil Long Construction Management Inc She noted the applicant is requesting reviews related to affordable housing including the following and P&Z will be the final review for all the items. · Affordable housing · Certificates of affordable housing credit · Growth management · Parking variance Ms. Nadolny then pointed out the location of the site and added it is within the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district. The building was constructed in 1965 and condominiumized in 1969. The building contains six two-bedroom units and two one-bedroom units. The units range in size from 807 to 866 sf. Each unit owner has performed various updates to their units so they are all unique. There are several existing nonconformities including: 1. Parking area allowing for a second car parked in tandem belonging to the Midland Park Condo Association (p 57 of the packet) 2. Trash/recycling area also located in an area belonging to the Midland Park Condo Association (p 57 of the packet) 3. A walkway on the south side of the building located offsite P21 IV.C. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 5 The applicant proposes to make all the two one-bedroom units into two-bedroom units and convert all eight free market units into affordable housing in exchange for 18 certificates of affordable housing credit. The application discusses memorializing the nonconformities which was one of the changes to the draft resolution. In regards to affordable housing, the applicant is proposing to convert the building into the affordable housing stock and meets the review criteria in a couple of ways. · 50% of each unit is located above grade · The units are the result of mitigation for another project · Affordable housing is compatible with the surrounding uses APCHA typically requires a two-bedroom unit to be a minimum of 900 sf. This was discussed at APCHA’s June 18th meeting and they submitted a recommendation of approval for the one-bedroom to two- bedrooms as well as all units to affordable housing. In 2016, APCHA adopted new guidelines for marketability standards (Exhibit I) for converting older free market housing stock to affordable housing. Generally, most of the requirements were met. A more invasive engineering report was not provided. APCHA contracted with Mr. Phil Vaughn to provide a complete investigation of additional work necessary based on the current condition. APHCA has provided a referral of the application as a conditional approval requiring the applicant to enter an agreement with APCHA to address the issues raised in the various reports. Staff is also recommending a conditional approval based on the conditions that the City will not accept any applications for a building permit until an agreement with APCHA is in place. The applicant must also obtain a building permit for the work necessary to upgrade the units to meet the conditions of APCHA’s supplemental guidance address the items identified from the reports and a letter of completion for each unit. In regards to parking, Ms. Nadolny stated the code requires the lesser of two spaces per unit or one space per bedroom. There are currently 14 bedrooms onsite, so the requirement would be for 14 parking spaces. Tandem parking does not count towards fulfilling a parking requirement in a multi- family development. This recognizes eight onsite spaces as legitimate for the site. The applicant is looking to add two new bedrooms which triggers a requirement for two new spaces for a total of 10 spaces onsite. The applicant is requesting a variance for the additional parking requirement citing there is no reasonable way to add them onsite. She then reviewed the two criteria to be met to grant the variance. She stated the need for the additional onsite parking is driven by the applicant’s intent to add two bedrooms. Staff feels this is a self-created hardship and denial of the variance will not cause unnecessary hardship nor would it render the property unusable or undeveloped. Staff cannot make the finding as related to the variance request. Ms. Nadolny then discussed affordable housing credits. Currently, there are 14 bedrooms which calculates to 17 certificates of affordable housing credits. The applicant is proposing 16 bedrooms which would increase the certificates to 18. APCHA has recommended to approve all as two-bedroom units with 18 housing credits at a category three rate. Staff is recommending approval of 17 credits which reflects what exists currently on site for reasons previously identified by Staff. Ms. Nadolny discussed the other areas of nonconformity. Trash/recycle – it is currently undersized per today’s Environmental Health code and is not located on the site. Staff recommends the trash be brought into compliance and Environmental Health can P22 IV.C. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 6 approve the appropriate size for this development. Staff also recommends the trash and mail pedestal be brought on site or an easement put in place. Rear Setback – Staff believes this is an issue to be addressed when the site is redeveloped. This nonconformity can be maintained unless the building is demolished. South walkway – Staff recommends this be moved on site or an access easement should be obtained. Tandem parking – Staff recommends this be discontinued unless an agreement is put in place between the owner of the site and the applicant. Ms. Nadolny next reviewed the modifications in section four of the draft resolution. Staff is recommending a conditional approval of the application. Mr. Mesirow asked for questions of Staff. Mr. Goode asked if they do not convert the one-bedroom units to two-bedroom units, would the existing parking remain as is. Ms. Nadolny confirmed this is accurate and the existing deficit would be allowed to continue. Ms. Garrow stated Staff believes the code allows the deficit to be maintained, but by adding bedrooms, the deficit would increase. Mr. Mesirow asked how the number of spaces required is calculated and Ms. Nadolny replied two per unit or one per bedroom. Ms. Tygre asked how the deed restrictions will be maintained. Ms. Garrow replied it would be in- perpetuity. The 50-year deed restrictions are a holdover from the 1980’s. This would be a new project subject to current requirements for an in-perpetuity deed restriction. Ms. Tygre asked if there are physical changes proposed to the existing building. Ms. Nadolny stated there are a number of changes required to bring up areas such as safety standards. This would be included as a condition of the approval. They are not proposing any changes to the footprint. Mr. Mesirow asked Staff to explain the requirements and responsibilities of the applicant at the onset, once the project has been completed and how is it managed going forward. Ms. Garrow asked Mr. Kosdrosky to speak to this question. Ms. Garrow stated essentially there is additional information to be provided and the conditions of approval include an agreement the owner would enter with APCHA to ensure all the requirements are met. Next, it would go to the Building Department would confirm the conditions have been met prior to providing a certificate of occupancy (CO). Once the CO has been provided, the credits are given. Mr. Mesirow asked what happens in 15 years when the building needs to be torn down. Mr. Kosdrosky stated they would prefer more than 15 years of service for the building. He added they have been working with the applicant and noted it is the first conversion project of this kind. The land use code allows for this, but APCHA is catching up with a process to evaluate projects of this type whether they are conversions or buy downs for housing credits. APCHA Staff recommended to their board to approve this project on strict conditions. Mr. Kosdrosky further explained the APCHA’s progress in preparing for this type of scenario. He explained Mr. Vaughn was hired as a third-party consultant to evaluate the property. He is confident they have a good game plan for addressing a lot of the issues that have been identified. APCHA feels the property needs to be in good condition and this is a high bar to meet. The P23 IV.C. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 7 structure needs to have a respectable remaining useful life. If the applicant or developer does not replace certain components, money is placed in a reserve fund to replace them in due time. He added there are still a lot of unknowns but believes the conditions are sufficiently noted to satisfactorily say the application can move forward. If the application goes through their entire process, they will guarantee they have a good product. They do not want to burden future owners with additional costs. Mr. Mesirow believes it will be a home run if this property can be place in the housing inventory. He asked what are the expectations for the longevity and how is this arranged. Mr. Kosdrosky is not sure if this would be codified. Mr. Bendon added their presentation may answer some of these questions. Mr. McKnight announced he had just double checked and he confirmed he owns property too close to the project and needs to recuse himself. Mr. McKnight then left the hearing (5:40 pm). Mr. Mesirow asked if APCHA is comfortable with the parking variance and Mr. Kosdrosky replied it is not their domain. Mr. Morris asked if the development agreement being developed could serve as a template for future situations is based off the Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) investing standard. Mr. Kosdrosky replied in some respects. Mr. Morris noted this is a good standard to use. Mr. Morris noted if the commissioners are looking for some indications of the terms, he suggested they review Exhibit K. Mr. Kosdrosky noted they have not started the agreement and wanted to wait until it was known the applicant made it past this hearing. Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Bendon introduced Mr. Bill Boehringer, WEB2 Capital LLC, who is representing the owners. Mr. Bendon stated properties similar to this one have served as affordable housing needs. These properties are also becoming attractive to second home owners. The building is already condominiumized and two units already serve as second homes. He stated this is the first project to go through this process to receive credits, but it is not the first property to go into an affordable housing conversion. He identified a neighboring project that was converted for mitigation of development elsewhere. Displaying pictures of the structure, Mr. Bendon noted it is vintage of the area. It is a simple building that was probably built quickly. He then displayed pictures of neighboring structures and current parking including a view down Midland. He noted all the units are identical townhome styles with two- bedrooms. He stated there are two units that have been converted to one-bedrooms. One was done with a building permit and they have not been able to locate the building permit for the other unit. He then pointed out the location of the units. Some have been upgraded extensively and some have not. He then provided pictures of the landscaping around units. Mr. Bendon noted about half have upgraded the egress window. He then reviewed the net livable space noting the size for a two bedroom is pretty large and APCHA is happy with the sizes. He stated size of unit two is low because there is space above the stair was turned into storage. Mr. Bendon then reviewed the requirements which would eventually be placed in an agreement between APCHA and the developer. P24 IV.C. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 8 · Additional reports to be completed after an invasive investigation is conducted · Complete of a package of outstanding issues including a budget · Satisfy APCHA requirements · APCHA’s out of pocket expenses for the third-party consultant will be reimbursed by the applicant · Established agreeable technical specifications · Permit will not be issued by the City until the upgrades have been completed. · APCHA approvals for items such as appliances · Building Permits as necessary to obtain a CO or Letters of Completion (LOCs) · A list of upgrades to happen in the future with sufficient capital reserve · Redo the association documents · Finalize capital reserve study · Enter into a development agreement · APCHA Board is okay with the units being rental or for sale through a lottery · Development Agreement will be set up to allow APCHA a reasonable right to not accept the units Mr. Bendon then reviewed the existing conditions with parking and trash. He pointed out a strip of land between the site and the right-of-way(ROW). He stated there are two parcels and it looks like they were severed from the Aspen Hills property and transferred to Pitkin County for ROW purposes. The County then developed Midland Park who now has a claim to the parcels. Pitkin County has informed the applicant they have a claim to the strip of land and are willing to sell it to the applicant. The City Engineering Department also informed the applicant their items are in their ROW. Mr. Bendon stated there is some effort to be done to untangle this situation to identify the owner of the parcels. They do not believe they own the strip but feel it is between the site and the ROW. The ROW contains the second strip of parking, trash containers and dumpsters. They have met with Midland Park representatives to inquire about obtaining an easement. He noted resolutions will be required to clean it up. They could push everything on to their property but it would impact trees and the grade of the site. Mr. Bendon noted the property line on the south is right along the existing deck. He stated they have discussed with the neighbor, Aspen View and may result in a lot line adjustment, an easement or a change to how they access this property. They intend to resolve this issue. Mr. Bendon then discussed he parking situation and were hoping to have credit for converting the one- bedroom units with two-bedrooms. Secondly, they hoped to achieve a variance for affordable housing. The believe this situation qualifies for a variance based on its previous build condition and to keep another car off the streets. He mentioned they have ideas for a second phase to build affordable housing to be built on an open area of the property in the future. Mr. Boehringer stated parking would be placed under the newer building. Mr. Bendon closed stating this is a great opportunity to have additional affordable housing in town with minimal construction and rescues a property from second home opportunity. Mr. Mesirow asked if there were questions for the applicant. P25 IV.C. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 9 Mr. Morris asked if on street parking permits a mitigation opportunity in this zone. Mr. Garrow replied it that option is not currently allowed to resolve private parking requirements. Mr. Walterscheid asked about the current ownership to which Mr. Bendon replied it is all individual owners. He then asked if units were available for rent to which Ms. Garrow replied you can with an additional restriction to ensure it remains affordable. Mr. Bendon stated it is more complex because of the individual owners. He stated there are three owners that have a desire to be rehoused in the building because they can’t find another similar property to rent. Mr. Boehringer noted he has contracts to purchase all eight units. One would prefer to own instead of rent until she leaves. Three will remain until they leave. He added he wants to keep the majority as rentals. Mr. Mesirow asked if the one person’s property value will be altered by this change. Mr. Boehringer noted the compensation will be based on deed restriction. Mr. Mesirow asked how the reserve fund will be set up. Mr. Boehringer stated whoever owns the property will contribute to the capital reserve. Mr. Bendon stated this is a similar requirement APCHA is requiring adequate capital reserves to fund upkeep of properties. Mr. Mesirow asked what happens if the applicant can’t obtain the ROW. Ms. Garrow confirmed the tandem parking would not be allowed. Ms. Nadolny stated this condition is included in Section four of the draft resolution which requires nonconformities to be brought into compliance or discontinued. Mr. Walterscheid asked how the plan to rehabilitate the interiors and will it be a specification agreed to by APCHA. Mr. Boehringer stated the three owners may sell back to APCHA so those units will need to be updated to a minimal set of standards. The other units have been upgraded to a level which exceeds APCHA ‘s requirements. A minimal level of consistency with required for all the units. Mr. Walterscheid asked if they will gut the units to ensure all the utilities and finishes are consistent. Mr. Boehringer stated they will do what they need to do. Some updates will remain as is if inspected and found acceptable. Ms. Garrow added Mr. Kanipe has been working with APCHA regarding areas of safety. Mr. Walterscheid asked how they will handle situations where residents may not have access to areas beyond the deck for egress purposes. Mr. Bendon stated they haven’t got there yet. Mr. Bendon added they don’t have to bring the building up to current code, but will address life and safety issues. Mr. Vaughn stated there is a clear roadmap in the report he provided in regards to the studies and efforts required to mechanical, electrical, plumbing, civil and safety issues identified. The work identified in the report is comprehensive and will require acceptance from APCHA and the City Building department. He feels the process is very well vetted and provides appropriate mechanisms to protect the applicant, APCHA and the City. Mr. Mesirow asked what the broad scope of use for the property. Mr. Bendon feels if the property is taken care of appropriately, it should be there in perpetuity. Mr. Mesirow asked if they have a target for how long the applicant should be responsible for the continuing longevity of the building in terms of years. Mr. Bendon stated the fund will be set up initially to address pieces depending on where they are at in their life cycle. Moving forward the owners will continue to contribute to the funds as necessary. Mr. Boehringer stated the initial set up will be more robust than one that would be set up for a brand-new building. They will work with a third-party expert and APCHA to identify the projection of areas to maintain. APCHA will approve of the capital reserve P26 IV.C. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 10 fund. Mr. Kosdrosky stated in their supplemental guidance identifies a life of not less than 30 years for a structure. Mr. Goode asked Staff how the value is set for an existing building. Ms. Garrow stated the credits are sold on the free market and the City does not manage the selling price. They have codified a cash-in-lieu rates. Mr. Mesirow then opened for public comment and noted the emails submitted by the public. Mr. Peter Fornell. He supports the project. He understands P&Z’s concerns with adopting a 50-year-old building but feels the Building Department will enforce the international building code for multifamily units. He asked that no more than 30% of developer choice units and all those selected must adhere to the same requirements. Ms. Judy Goldberg, Midland Park Resident and Board Member. She wrote a memo two weeks ago. She stated some issues in the memo might be addressed. She noted there is a draft licensing agreement with the applicant. It seems because it has been a free market, it has been granted two spaces per bedroom. The tandem parking does not impact them. If P&Z does not allow it to happen, she anticipates parking issues on Midland Ave. In regards to the possible expansion on the north side, she feels it will impact Midland Park. She wants to make sure any new development goes thru a formal review. She is not sure how an HOA will work with three owners and five rentals. Ms. Cindy Houben, Midland Park Resident. She likes the City is trying preserve affordable housing units in the core area. She is concerned about traffic and parking and would not like to see the variance approved for the extra two parking spaces and would prefer the tandem parking continue. She does not believe any future development on this site should be allowed any Planned Development or parking variances. She would also prefer no access to the site from Midland Park because they use the area for parking. Mr. Mesirow closed public comment and then allowed the applicant to respond. Mr. Boehringer stated home owner’s association (HOA) would require each unit to contribute equally based on ownership. They will work with APCHA to identify how the voting would work. Mr. Bendon wanted to respond to Mr. Fornell’s comments regarding developer’s choice noting Mr. Boehringer has been working with APCHA regarding these issues. Mr. Boehringer stated they have met with APCHA four times and it has always been understood the eight owners would not agree to sell if only one held out. They have been working with APCHA to provide housing to the three owners that have been there for decades. In doing so, they agreed with APCHA any future development would be affordable housing which they feel is a fair compromise. Mr. Bendon also stated in regards to any future development, they understand they would be subject to code applicable at the time. Ms. Nadolny wanted to ensure the board stays focused on the application before them and not any future items. Staff recognizes parking is an issue in this neighborhood. She also wanted to clarify Staff is not saying the tandem parking must go away, but could continue if an agreement and easement could be reached between the applicable parties. Staff wants an easement or agreement to be in place. She also wanted to reiterate the capital reserve topic is not an issue for discussion for P&Z because APCHA has the authority to deal with it, not P&Z. P27 IV.C. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 11 Mr. Mesirow opened for commissioner’s discussion. Ms. Tygre feels converting this property to affordable housing is worth a tremendous amount to the community. She commends the applicant for their efforts. Her only concern is the parking. She noted this area does not have many sidewalks but also recognizes this is not the applicant’s responsibility. She recognizes the number of bedrooms impacts the credits to be obtained and not the parking as much. She agrees with Staff’s recommendation maintaining the units as is to avoid the additional parking requirements. Mr. Morris agrees with Ms. Tygre but is stuck on the parking issue for a different reason. He is aware of many middle-aged couples looking for a two-bedroom units so he would prefer to allow for the second bedroom which triggers the parking question. Mr. Mesirow feels having the second bedroom is of value to the housing inventory. He was initially concerned with the parking issue but is happy to hear the adjacent parcel owners are open to working with the applicant on an easement. Ms. Nadolny clarified if the area is found to be a City ROW, Engineering will not agree to an easement for tandem parking. They are anticipating it belongs to a private owner and an agreement can be reached. Mr. Goode agrees with Ms. Tygre and is okay if the one-bedroom units are converted back to two- bedroom units. He hopes the applicant is successful. Mr. Morris stated if there are two-bedroom units, the economics would make it better from a developer’s perspective and make it more likely to happen. Mr. Mesirow stated he is supportive of the two-bedroom approach. Mr. McNellis asked Staff to confirm if the draft resolution grants a parking variance and Ms. Garrow replied it would grant a parking variance for two spaces. Mr. McNellis stated once he heard Midland Park is supportive of the tandem parking, he felt he could support the applicant’s request. Mr. Walterscheid stated he is in general support. He appreciates APCHA’s comments and provides a level of comfort that some of the areas beyond the board’s purview are being addressed. Mr. McNellis asked if there was a possibility of requiring as a condition of approval any future development to deal with the two parking spaces. Mr. Bendon stated they would not accept a future condition and they want any new development to stand on its own. Ms. Garrow stated in theory, the new code would require them to come into compliance with more spaces because it will not allow for any deficits. Mr. Goode motioned to approve Resolution 5, Series 2017 and was seconded by Mr. Mesirow. Mr. Mesirow requested a roll call. Roll Call: Mr. Morris, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; for a total six Yes votes and zero No votes (6-0). The motion passed. Mr. Mesirow then closed the hearing. P28 IV.C. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 17, 2017 12 OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Mesirow then closed the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P29 IV.C. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 2, 2017 1 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order for February 2, 2017 at 4:30 PM with members Skippy Mesirow, Ryan Walterscheid, Brian McNellis, Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, Spencer McKnight and Jesse Morris. Kelly McNicholas Kury arrived late to the meeting. Rally Dupps was not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Andrea Bryan, Jennifer Phelan, Hillary Seminick, and Ben Anderson. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. Tygre noted she agrees with the term “mobility enhancements” and would like it to include better snow removal and dealing with the slush lakes at the bulb-out corners. She feels businesses and residences need to clear the snow and would like to see something added to address these concerns. Mr. Goode noted “Lake Aspen” that develops near Wagner Park. Mr. Mesirow noted Ms. McNicholas Kury arrived at the meeting. Mr. Mesirow feels these concerns speak to a broader infrastructure where it has rained in January. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES There were no draft minutes. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing – 1419 Crystal Lake Rd – Stream Margin and Special Review Mr. Mesirow opened the hearing and turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner, introduced Mr. Mitch Haas at the applicant’s representative. P30 IV.D. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 2, 2017 2 She then stated property is located in the Moderate-Density Residential R15 zone district and within the stream margin review area on the Roaring Fork River. It also has an existing single family home. The applicant is proposing new top of slope designation which requires a special review. The top of slope establishes a protected area where no development beyond native vegetation is permitted. The existing top of slope cuts through the home on the property and the applicant is proposing to shift it towards the river. The proposed top of slope was confirmed on-site by City Engineering Staff in the fall of last year. Based on Engineering’s support of the proposed new designation, Planning Staff then used the proposed top of slope to review the proposed improvements as a part of this project. She then pointed out the location of the proposed top of slope on a site map of the property. Ms. Seminick noted there are a few existing nonconformities on the property including a staircase and a putting green within the 15 ft setback. In addition, a portion of the roof and second story of the home project into the 45-degree progressive height limit as measured from the top of slope extending away from the river. She continued stating in addition to the top of slope designation, the applicant is proposing a few improvements to the existing residence. They would like to change the fenestration, replace the existing siding with more modern materials, relocate the existing deck area, install a patio and spa, remove the nonconforming putting green and stairs. The nonconforming 2nd story portion of structure will not be removed. They also plan to revegetate the area below the 15 ft top of slope boundary in addition to some stormwater improvements. She added the nonconforming portion of the 2nd floor will not be increasing. She finished stating the project is pretty straight forward and Engineering is supportive with relocating the top of slope designation. Staff is recommending approval with conditions as outlined in the draft resolution which are typical for a project like this. Mr. Mesirow asked for questions of staff. Mr. Mesirow asked Staff to confirm if the original setting of the top of slope was done on a larger scope and not specific to this property and Ms. Seminick replied it was originally set by viewing a map as part of a project in 2004. Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, introduced Mr. Matthew Smith, CCY Architects, as the architect and Gyles Thornely, Connect One Design, as the landscape architect for the project. Mr. Haas stated the mapping was done while the house was already there and it seemed clearly the mapping was off. He stated Mr. Smith went on the property with the City Engineering Department and staked out the adjusted top of slope which they used going forward with the proposal. They have also worked with Planning, Parks and Engineering to revise the plans to respond accordingly to their comments. At this time, they have no issues with Staff’s recommendation. Mr. Mesirow asked for questions of the applicant. There were none, so he closed this portion of the hearing. Mr. Mesirow then opened for public comment. There were none, so he closed this portion of the hearing. P31 IV.D. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 2, 2017 3 Mr. Mesirow then opened for commissioner’s discussion. Mr. Goode feels it is pretty clear cut. His only concern is if he owned property and in 5-10 years from now he wanted to redefine his top of slope. What is to prevent him from getting a few dump trucks and making it what he wants it to be. Mr. Morris stated he hoped Staff would catch this. Mr. Goode noted P&Z is seeing three similar applications within the past couple of weeks. Mr. Morris moved to approve Resolution 6, Series 2017 and was seconded by Ms. Tygre. Mr. Mesirow then requested the roll call vote. Mr. McNellis, yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Morris, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; and Mr. Walterscheid, yes for a total of seven Yes votes to zero No votes (7-0), motion carried. Mr. Mesirow then closed the hearing. Public Hearing – 1470 Red Butte Dr – Stream Margin and Special Review Mr. Mesirow opened the hearing and turned the floor over to staff. Mr. Ben Anderson, Planner, introduced the applicant’s representatives including Ms. Christine Shine, Connect One Design, and John Galambos, Galambos Architects. Mr. Anderson described the location of the property as well as the location of the house, river, stream margin review area and the existing top of slope. The existing top of slope cuts through the middle of the house. He stated this property went through a stream margin review in 2001 and a top of slope was determined at that time. A new map established top of slope, but did not reflect site conditions. He stated the applicant is requesting a reconsideration of the top of slope. The City Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed change and adjustments were made based on Engineering’s comments. He identified the nonconforming patio, raised beds and an earthen platform proposed for demolition because they are located in the top of slope setback. Staff is requesting the applicant exercise care for the demolition to protect the quality of the water and vegetation going down to the river. Mr. Anderson reviewed the proposed changes including a new patio and in-ground hot tub. He noted there is also a fair amount of remodel planned for the rear façade of home including reconfiguring the staircase; pushing out a portion of the building; reconfiguring the fenestration, a chimney and gable. He added no additional height is proposed. The height of the chimney is proposed to be reduced and pushed back into the building. He then clarified only the deck form is being pushed forward, not the gable itself. Mr. Anderson closed stating Staff recommends approval. The Engineering Parks Departments also support the application with conditions. Mr. Mesirow asked for questions of Staff. Mr. Goode asked if the Parks Department recommended the deck to not wrap around the NE corner. Mr. Anderson stated since the application was received, drawings have been resubmitted showing the patio ending at the deck edge. This has been included as a condition and acknowledged by the applicant. P32 IV.D. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 2, 2017 4 Mr. Anderson wanted to note he received a phone call from Ms. Margo Pendleton, representing a neighbor to the west at 1500 Red Butte Dr. She stated the owner was concerned of the possibility of trees being removed and screening being undermined. Mr. Anderson responded stating there would be a landscape plan and there are no trees planned for removal. Mr. Mesirow turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. John Galambos, architect for the applicant, stated he designed original home in 2000 and it went through stream margin review at that time. Mr. Gyles Thornely then introduced himself and Ms. Christine Shine from Connect One Design. He stated the process started a year ago and it has been a lengthy and frustrating process. He is grateful to be at this stage and would love to have a reduction in fees or an expedited permit process. Mr. Mesirow asked for questions of the applicant. Mr. Mesirow then opened for public comment. There were none, so he closed this portion of the hearing. Mr. Mesirow then opened for commissioner’s discussion. Ms. Tygre motioned to approve Resolution 7, Series 2017. Ms. McNicholas Kury seconded the motion. Mr. Mesirow requested a roll call. Roll Call: Mr. Goode, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; and Mr. Morris, yes; for a total seven Yes votes and zero No votes (7-0). The motion passed. Mr. Mesirow then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS None. Mr. Mesirow then closed the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P33 IV.D. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2017 1 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order for February 17, 2017 at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Rally Dupps and Skippy Mesirow. Ryan Walterscheid, Brian McNellis, Keith Goode, Spencer McKnight and Jesse Morris were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Andrea Bryan, Jennifer Phelan, Justin Barker and Phillip Supino. Mr. Jim True was present for the second discussion item of the meeting. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. Tygre stated she is very disappointed only four members were present for the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan wanted to follow up on the comment made at the previous meeting regarding the lakes of water forming on the street corners after weather events. She spoke with the Engineering Department and they are currently inventorying locations with problems and she asked the board to email any information to her so she can share it with Engineering. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ms. Phyllis Bronson want to comment on the Gorsuch Haus. She takes decisions made by citizen’s boards very seriously and felt P&Z was misrepresented at the Council meeting regarding the Gorsuch Haus. She does not support the application as currently presented. She believed it was represented to Council the reason for P&Z’s recommendation of denial was due to the chair lift and she knows this is not true. She invited one or all of the six members who voted on the application to show up at the next Council meeting to voice their concerns. Ms. Phelan stated the Gorsuch Haus hearing will be continued on March 6th to March 27th. Mr. Mesirow asked Staff if the P&Z minutes for all related hearings had been included in the materials provided to Council and Ms. Phelan replied all were included. Ms. Bryan noted she spoke with Ms. Bronson prior to tonight’s meeting to let her know the minutes had been provided to Council and the P&Z members are welcome to appear before Council as citizens, but not as representatives of the board. MINUTES February 2nd draft minutes. Ms. Tygre motioned to approve the minutes and was seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury. All in favor, motion approved. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no hearings. P34 IV.E. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2017 2 OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Mesirow turned the floor over to staff. Code Amendment Check-In: Double Basements Mr. Barker, Senior Planner, stated he will be reviewing a code amendment request submitted by Bowden Properties who is represented by Mr. Chris Bendon of BendonAdams. He stated the request is in relationship to the existing double basement code language which was adopted at the end of 2014 to address recent projects that were digging two and three stories up to 40 ft below grade. Council approved an amendment to the code which defined a 15 ft depth limit and a one-story limit on the space below grade and exemptions for additional crawl space for mechanical. He added this only applied to single and duplex developments. One of the challenges discussed during this time was how to handle sloped properties. It was decided to keep it simple at the time, realizing there may be some details to address at a later date. Mr. Barker stated they have been using the adopted code language for two years and they have learned the 15 ft depth limit is clear, easy to understand and to develop around. The portion stating it shall contain no more than one floor level below finished grade has been challenging to properties with a steep slope. It has been a problem when a portion of the finished floor goes below the finish grade on the slope side. To get around this challenge, people have been creating a trenching system around the building in order to drop the finished grade below the upper floor on the uphill side of the building. This has created some negative impacts including additional excavation and a less desirable aesthetic in regards to the development. He stated the applicant is proposing to eliminate the piece of the language which encourages the trenching and maintain the remainder of the code. He stated the new language would state for single family and duplex structures, the interior finished floor level shall be no more than 15 ft below the exterior finished grade. The language for stepped floors and crawlspaces would remain as it currently exists. Mr. Barker states this will eliminate the trenching and the buildings will still be capped by height. It still limits excavation to 15’ and minimizes the excavation. However, Staff is concerned how the interior may be impacted. If the limitation is removed on one floor, there may be attempts to place more floors below grade by reducing the ceiling heights. The benefit of having more floor area below grade is that it doesn’t count towards the development, lessening the affordable housing mitigation related to the development. Staff has asked the applicant to reach out to other architects and designers to see how many floors could be feasibly placed below grade. Mr. Barker asked P&Z for their thoughts regarding the proposed code amendment. Ms. Tygre asked if this change will eliminate the trenching around buildings. Mr. Barker replied the trenching was a result of the initial code amendment. He stated applicants would prefer to not have to the trench but instead have the grade come up to the side of the building. Ms. Tygre asked staff to describe the dimensional limitations of the crawl space. Mr. Barker stated generally there is a 5 ft 6 in height limit. Mr. Barker added it can be as long and wide as the applicant wants it to be. P35 IV.E. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2017 3 Mr. Dupps believes this is an elegant solution to the trenching issue. Mr. Dupps asked Staff to identify the proposed changes to the statements of the code and Mr. Barker replied noting Staff is proposing to eliminate one clause which states it shall contain no more than one floor level below finished grade. Mr. Bendon wanted to clarify the reason for trenching was to allow for the entire floor to be considered above grade all the way around the structure. He stated it also impacts sites where there is only 10 ft slope. He added Pitkin County went thru the same thing and they ended up with a 20 ft max depth. He added their proposal is to keep it as clean as possible to the original intent. Mr. Mesirow asked for the maximum building height and Mr. Barker replied it is generally 25 ft, but depends on the zone district. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked the how many properties would be impacted by this amendment. Mr. Barker noted nearly all the single family and duplex properties have a slope, even if it is a foot. He stated this has generally impacted more of the outlying properties except for the west end lots. Mr. Bendon noted the town lots are on a plane, but not necessarily flat. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Bendon if the applicant wanted to add anything to the discussion. Mr. Bendon stated he is aware other architects experiencing the same issue. Mr. Barker wanted to add Staff asked for feedback in their newsletter on this issue which went out the earlier in the day. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if this will eliminate trenching and further development below to which Mr. Barker replied it is not as likely as the result of the proposed change with the 15 ft limit. Mr. Dupps feels it will be a good solution by reducing excavation and development. Ms. Tygre understands what Staff is proposing and believes it will be fine. Ms. McNicholas Kury agreed with the other commissioners. Mr. Barker asked if the board shares Staff’s similar concerns. Mr. Mesirow feels with the height and depth restrictions, he is not concerned. Ms. McNicholas Kury believes it is possible for Staff’s concerns to be a reality but feels it is an acceptable trade-off. She asked if Staff is considering other changes to address their concerns. Mr. Barker stated not at this time. Mr. Bob Bowden, the applicant, stated there is no gain, but it cleans up unintended consequences. Mr. Bendon added the practicality of getting two floors in 15 ft is physically impossible based on the code. Mr. Dupps agreed. P36 IV.E. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2017 4 Code Amendment Check-In: Formula Business Regulations Mr. Mesirow noted he has been in discussions for a while with the group participating in this effort so he is recusing himself from the discussion. Mr. Mesirow and Ms. Bryan then left the meeting. Mr. Jim True, City Attorney then joined the meeting. Mr. Phillip Supino, Principal Long Range Planner, introduced the group working with the City to formulate the proposed formula business regulations. · Mr. Jeff Conklin, Karp Neu Hanlon PC, representing Mr. Murdock · Mr. Jerry Murdock · Mr. Bill Stirling Mr. Supino then noted to the distributed letter (Exhibit A-2/21 meeting) is a copy of a letter emailed earlier in the day to P&Z received from Mr. Brooke Peterson, Ajax Holdings. Mr. True noted the content had been previously provided to Council. Mr. Supino then provided background for the proposed regulations stating the City was approached by a citizen committee looking to regulate formula businesses in the community. The group has worked with Staff and Council as well as conducted public meetings over the past few months in an attempt to draft the regulations. Council has discussed this in work sessions and approved a policy resolution at the February 13th meeting which is the first step in a code amendment process. He added the policy resolution was included in the agenda packet. Mr. Supino concluded stating P&Z’s role at this time is to review and provide input to Council. Mr. Murdock then provided background on the group’s progress to date. He stated after researching some ideas, he discovered 29 other cities including McCall, Idaho; Sonoma and Nantucket have passed formula retail restrictions. He met with Mr. Paul Taddune who recommended Mr. Conklin who is the chair of Pitkin County P&Z to assist with reviewing the community plan as it relates to the proposed regulations. Former Aspen Mayors, Mr. John Bennett and Mr. Bill Stirling, joined the group as well. Mr. Conklin stated the group started their research by looking at how other communities regulate formula businesses. He noted there are a few different approaches taken ranging from outright bans of formula businesses or chain stores to a conditional use review process. Based on their research and the City’s code and plans, they identified the conditional use review model. In looking at the legislative intent behind the regulations for other communities, it was largely to preserve community character, ensure economic diversity and ensure the long-term economic vitality of the community. With these in mind, he confirmed the same principles are identified in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). He stated another intent of their efforts is to maintain the uniqueness of Aspen. Mr. Conklin then reviewed the conditional use process allowing for permitted and prohibited uses within zone districts based on P&Z’s reviews. They took a similar approach used in other jurisdictions defining formula use as a business having 11 or more establishments within the United States and meets two or more of the defined standardized definitions. This defined use is then categorized within the Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C1) and the Main Street Historic zone districts. After receiving feedback, it seemed a better approach would be to take a snapshot of what currently exists in town, draw a line and apply this moving forward as a ‘No additional harm philosophy’. As drafted, what is exempted can continue by right for all existing buildings, all buildings under construction and all approvals and applications in before the effective date of the ordinance. The exemption would be lost P37 IV.E. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2017 5 and then treated as a conditional use in the event of a few different triggers as listed below. Any new formula retail would need to go through a conditional use review with P&Z. a) Tear down and rebuild a building b) Activity that constitutes demolition c) Expand the net leasable area of a building over a defined threshold d) Remodel the interior of the building which would be considered a gut and remodel Mr. Conklin then reviewed the group’s proposed four conditional use standards as included in the ordinance. Mr. Supino stated Staff’s memo identifies two options for developing the conditional use criteria noting both relate to the AACP. 1) Four criteria identified by Mr. Conklin from the redlined ordinance included in the packet. 2) Exhibit D which includes a more extensive list of use criteria Mr. Supino stated the difference in the two would be the approach in Exhibit D would be for any given project where the regulation applies, the applicant would have to meet three of the four categories and within that, five of the total 13 criteria. The intent is to provide P&Z flexibility with Approach 2) or more simplicity with Approach 1). Ms. McNicholas Kury asked the group to articulate how the chain stores are prohibiting the AACP goals. Mr. Stirling noted if you think of the core as defined by historic buildings, the malls, and a mix of ski style construction from the 1960’s and 1970’s; many shops and buildings are still owned by the locals including some buildings with formula retail. There is a variety of products offered by the retail businesses, but he does not feel enough of them are products locals need, particularly in the formula retail. They believe the formula retail is a symbol of the homogenization of what is happening to downtowns all over the world and the mix of businesses is part of Aspen’s unique brand. He noted about 30% of the first floor downtown commercial spaces are formula retail based on their definition. He feels Galena St is the Rodeo Dr of Aspen and the group does not want Aspen to become an annex of the Cherry Creek Mall. He believes this effort will protect a traditional vision of Aspen and it fits with Council’s efforts to create opportunities for locally owned and locally sold products in nooks and crannies on second floors and basements. He added this will not have an immediate effect, but will over time and sends a salvo across the bow that Aspen is concerned with protecting its heritage. Mr. Murdock stated in addition to the 30% retail, about 60% of the clothing stores are formula retail. He was told there are 21 buildings approved for demolition or complete remodel. One of the developers who owns 16 of these buildings states he requires formula retail to be his anchor tenant because they can pay dramatically higher prices and justify a speculation from investor funds from out-of-state. Mr. Murdock’s group is concerned others will want to copy this business model and Aspen will begin to look like other ski resorts, such as Vail. At the speed at which these transactions are happening, one would have to assume every building approved for demolition and remodel will be displacing local businesses while this occurs and it is likely they will not be able to afford to move back in the building. Mr. Murdock stated as part of their research, they spoke with many of the larger landlords and some of the larger ones said the town can’t afford this much retail and the smaller retail stores will be impacted as more and more chain stores move in. He stated if you look at this from an economic diversity view, the town begins to lose some of its vitality. When they conducted the public outreach in January at the Aspen Institute, a study was mentioned stating a local business provides three times as much to a local economy as a chain store. As a business person, you care about your brand as viewed by our visitors. P38 IV.E. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2017 6 Aspen has a great brand, but it can be lost quickly. He stated the proposed ordinance grandfathers in all existing space and added a lot of the landlords they met with are not objecting this because it’s not going to alter any existing opportunities of the established landlords. It will provide the City Council an additional tool to evaluate if it is locally serving when additional buildings are proposed to be knocked down and formula retail included. He hopes this will have a long term impact to prevent a loss of balance. The fear is that formula retail is the core to speculation. He hopes this ordinance will protect our brand, economic diversity and sense of place. Mr. Supino noted this speaks to the two questions asked of P&Z included in Staff’s memo on page 21 of the packet. 1. Is P&Z supportive of the proposed formula business amendment? 2. Does P&Z have a preference regarding the specific Conditional Review Criteria for formula businesses? a. Four criteria listed in the proposed ordinance b. Thirteen criteria listed in Exhibit D Mr. Supino noted one concern with item 2.b. is that the second category as written, would generally never allow chain stores. The standard would require three out of four categories and five out of thirteen total criteria. This approach is favored by the consultants who have worked on this with Staff. Mr. Conklin added the group is supportive of either approach. Mr. Dupps stated he is most disturbed by the empty spaces and asked Mr. Murdock and Mr. Stirling if their proposal will lead to occupied spaces. Mr. Dupps feels they are vacant because they jack up their rents. Mr. Stirling responded this is one factor. Mr. Murdock added when you have out-of-town money, you can be very patient in waiting for the rents you want. When the money was taken from the investors, a certain return was promised and requires a specified rent amount to support the business model. He hopes this regulation will take a lot of speculation out of the market. Mr. Stirling noted currently rent is $250-$300 per sf. Mr. Dupps asked if this regulation is put in place, would it impact these empty spaces. Ms. Phelan and Mr. Supino noted a statement on item 2.a.iv. declaring remodel or construction of greater than 50% of the net leasable area of the existing building or structure would trigger a loss of exemption. Mr. Supino added there will be additional burden on tenants, applicants and staff to calculate for each building where this is applicable and what constitutes the net leasable area. He stated this is a significant departure to how calculations are currently completed. Mr. Conklin doesn’t think this will change how net leasable area is calculated. The group’s intention was to not trigger a loss of exemption for tenant improvements reasonably necessary for occupying the space. Ms. Phelan feels this threshold should be clarified. Mr. Stirling noted of the buildings with empty spaces at the street level, many have penthouses so they have already made the major part of their investment back giving them time to wait for rents. Mr. Murdock noted the game plan utilizing out-of-town investing is to lease at very high prices, flip it to an insurance company and then move on. He believes long-time locals do not play this game. The new game for the past seven to eight years utilizes a hedge fund to finance projects and then wait for the highest possible lease rate so they can flip it and speculate on the next project. Ms. Tygre believes conditional use criteria are always a bit vague and challenges the board to make a decision on broadly based criteria. She foresees P&Z struggling with site specific situations if not clearly defined. However, she has no problems with the concept of what is being considered. P39 IV.E. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2017 7 Ms. McNicholas Kury stated the standards outlined on page 34 lend to more vagueness than the standards proposed in Exhibit D. She noted the board’s recent efforts in reviewing code amendments and trying to be very specific with the details of the criteria. She favors Exhibit D more at this time. Mr. Stirling asked Ms. Tygre and Ms. McNicholas Kury if it would take the board time to become adjusted to the standards and criteria. Ms. Tygre responded it is a nightmare. Mr. Stirling stated in Sonoma they have had four applications for conditional use and all four have been approved. In San Francisco, about 50% of the applications have been approved for their historic district. He added these decisions are standing up under court challenges as well. Mr. Supino stated Staff’s position is in part in favor of the larger list because the objectives identified are tied directly to the AACP and he feels would stand up better in court. Ms. Tygre stated she would be more comfortable with this approach as a commissioner. She also believes it will be challenged because there is too much money involved. Mr. Murdock noted there will be plenty of opportunity for those to go into the portion of town grandfathered in if they want to avoid the conditional use review. He does not foresee a landslide of applicants coming in to challenge the board since it will primarily involve new buildings. He added some towns have had this in place for 20 years. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked Mr. Murdock his preference in the two options and he responded he is neutral. He wants a solution that is best for Staff, the board and town. He also realizes over time, the code may require adjustments. Mr. Conklin then reviewed their approach to drafting the ordinance. They originally had a longer list of standards and then tried to collapse the list. Although it is not specifically stated, their list is tied to the AACP. Mr. Dupps believes it is similar to the residential design standards (RDS) and is very well done. Mr. Murdock hopes it allows for locally-owned businesses to have opportunities to exist and compete with the formula businesses. He stated he has heard from the developers that all the new buildings want chain businesses and not local businesses because they feel they can afford the rents. Ms. Tygre asked if it is assumed the exemptions for existing buildings remain in place as long as the building remains the same to which Mr. True responded is correct. Mr. Murdock stated it is possible for more for formula retail to come into town. Mr. Dupps asked if the renovation clause should be adjusted to catch those buildings with empty spaces. Mr. Stirling and Mr. Murdock responded it was a great idea and they had not previously thought of it. Mr. Supino asked if other commissioners support a stronger approach to the renovation triggers relative to the loss of exemption. Ms. Tygre feels it should be looked at to prevent loop holes. Mr. Dupps feels it could be similar to the process of receiving affordable credits upon receiving a certificate of occupancy, requiring spaces to be finished. Ms. Tygre feels it is worth thinking about more. Ms. Tygre suggested the portion in Section 2, item B of Resolution 23, Series 2017 identifying the zones such as Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) and non-historic portions of the Mixed Use (MU) where formula businesses should be allowed may require more thought to protect locally serving businesses. Mr. Supino summarized the board’s review stating it supports the conditional use approach of formula retail regulations as a conditional use in zone districts identified in the draft ordinance. The board P40 IV.E. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission February 17, 2017 8 suggested further exploration the loss of exemption criteria. The board supported the approach utilizing the standards listed in Exhibit D over the draft ordinance. Mr. Supino mentioned there is a public meeting on Thursday, February 23rd at the Limelight Hotel from 5:00 pm – 6:30 pm. He added there is a survey and additional information on the City’s public participation website (aspencommunityvoice.com). Ms. Tygre motioned to adjourn the meeting and was seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury. All in favor, the motion was approved and the meeting was adjourned. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P41 IV.E. 433 W. Bleeker – RDS Variance P&Z March 21, 2017 Page 1 of 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sara Nadolny, Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director MEETING DATE: March 21, 2017 RE: 433 W. Bleeker – Residential Design Standard Variation APPLICANT /OWNER: 433 Bleeker KS LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Ryan Doremus, Thunderbowl Architects LOCATION: 433 W. Bleeker St. The property is Lot 2 of the Strandberg Lot Split, as recorded in Plat Book 14, Pg 1. CURRENT ZONING & USE: This is currently a vacant lot located in the Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district. PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family residence on the site. SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family residence on the vacant parcel, and is requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standard 410.030.B.1 – Articulation of Building Mass. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for a Residential Design Standard Variance, noting that a variance is not necessary to creating a code-compliant single-family residence on the site. Figure 1: Location of subject site. BACKGROUND: The subject site is a 6,000 sq. ft. vacant parcel in the west end, located across the street diagonally from Pioneer Park. It is surrounded on either side by two-story single family residences. The City Forester has indicated there are four large trees on the site that are not eligible for removal. These include one Douglas fir on the east side of the property and three spruce trees at the front, eastern edge of the site. No development may encroach into the dripline of the trees. 3rd St. P42 VI.A. 433 W. Bleeker – RDS Variance P&Z March 21, 2017 Page 2 of 5 Figure 2, Left. Large trees at front of the lot as viewed from Bleeker St. Figure 3, Below. Graphic depicting the footprint of the proposed residence and the trees with their driplines measured in circumferences. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission:  Residential Design Standard Variance pursuant to Section 26.410.020(C) of the Land Use Code related to the construction of a single-family residence. A variation to the Residential Design Standard shall be considered at a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission who may approve, approve with conditions or deny the proposal based on the following review standards: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statement in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff’s response to these criteria has been included as Exhibit A to this memo. P&Z is the final review authority in this matter. SUMMARY OF PROJECT: The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story, single-family home on the vacant lot that requires a variance from the following Residential Design Standard:  26.410.030.B(1) Articulation of Building Mass. This is a non-flexible standard requiring review by the P&Z. The intent of this standard is “to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings as viewed from all sides.” The code provides three options to satisfy the requirement, which include: Bleeker St. Alley N P43 VI.A. 433 W. Bleeker – RDS Variance P&Z March 21, 2017 Page 3 of 5 1) Maximum Sidewall Depth – “A principle building shall be no greater than fifty (50) feet in depth as measured from the front most wall of the front façade to the rear wall…” or 2) Off-set with One-Story Ground Level Connector – “A principal building shall provide a portion of its mass as a subordinate one story, ground floor connecting element. The connecting element shall be at least ten (10) feet in length and shall be setback at least five (5) feet from the sidewall on both sides of the building. The connecting element shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet in depth as measured from the front most wall of the front façade to the rear wall…” or 3) Increased Side Setbacks at Rear and Step Down – “A principal building shall provide increased side setbacks at the rear of the building. If the principle building is two stories, it shall step down to one story in the rear. The increased side setbacks and one story step down shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet, as measured from the front-most wall toward the rear wall. The increased side setbacks shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the side setbacks at the front of the building.” The applicant has proposed a structure that measures approximately 73’ 4 ¾" in total length and maintains a two-story height for 61’ of that length. The structure steps down to one story for just over 12’ in length at the rear of the property. A portion of the second story mass is also set back along one side façade. A deck is proposed above this one-story element, facing the alley. The underlying R-6 zoning requires a combined side yard setback of 15’, with a minimum requirement of five feet. The design responds on the structure’s eastern side by increasing the setback of the building in the areas where the trees occur, as seen in Figure 5 below. To accommodate the trees, the development has a 16’ 2 ½” eastern side yard setback, and a 5’ setback on the western side, as depicted in Figure 5, following. Figure 4: Mixed levels of the proposed structure as viewed from above. The grey area represents the building at two-stories, and the black represents the one-story element. W. Bleeker St. Alley N P44 VI.A. 433 W. Bleeker – RDS Variance P&Z March 21, 2017 Page 4 of 5 STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has indicated that the proposed design reflects site-specific constraints created by the four trees that are not eligible for removal, and is requesting a variance from the residential design standard based on the second variance criteria, that a variance is “clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints.” The applicant has proposed a design that most closely meets the standard’s third option (increased side setbacks at rear and step down); however, the standard is not fully met. The standard requires an increased side yard setback of at least five feet and a reduction of the building to one story at a maximum of 45’ of the building’s length. The intent of this standard is “to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings as viewed from all sides.” The proposed structure does not fully step down to one-story until over 61’ of the building’s length, which is over 16’. The design does not follow the requirement for an increased side yard setback until nearly 47’ in length on the structure’s eastern façade, and does not meet this requirement on western façade, where the building follows the minimum setback required by underlining zoning of five feet. The western façade is a large, minimally articulated, two-story wall. Given the proximity of the proposed structure to the neighboring property along the western façade, Staff finds the design would benefit from meeting the increased setback requirement of the standard to provide some relief between the structures. Figure 5: Site plan depicting side yard setbacks and the dripline of the trees, outlined in yellow. N P45 VI.A. 433 W. Bleeker – RDS Variance P&Z March 21, 2017 Page 5 of 5 Furthermore, the structure would appear less massive if it were to step down to one-story at the 45-foot length, as indicated by the dashed line in Figure 6 above. Staff acknowledges the trees do create a somewhat unique condition for development on the site; however, this condition does not preclude the applicant’s ability to fully meet the standard, or one of the other options provided. Despite the “no-development zone” created by the trees, the requested variance is not necessary to the successful development of a code-compliant single-family home on the lot. Staff does not find that the proposed design meets the standard’s intent of reducing the overall mass/bulk of the building from all sides. Staff cannot support the applicant’s request for a variance. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the Residential Design Standard variance request for the property at 433 W. Bleeker St. If a recommendation of denial is proposed, the alternative motion may be used. PROPOSED MOTION (all motions are written in the affirmative): “I move to approve Resolution No. ____, Series of 2017, granting a variation from Residential Design Standard 26.410.030.B.(1), as noted in the application, Exhibit B. ALTERNATIVE MOTION: “I move to deny Resolution No. ___, Series of 2017, finding that the request does not meet the criteria for a variation from the Residential Design Standard.” ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Staff Findings Exhibit B – Application Alley W. Bleeker St. Figure 6: Proposed western facade. There is a five-foot setback between the building and the property line on this side. The neighboring property contains a two-story residence. The dashed line represents the approximate area where the building would be required to step down to one-story, and increase the setback by a least five feet to become compliant with the Residential Design Standard. P46 VI.A. RESOLUTION NO. __ (SERIES OF 2017) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING ONE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT 2 OF THE STRANDBERG LOT SPLIT, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 433 WEST BLEEKER STREET Parcel Identification Number: 273512442002 WHEREAS, 433 Bleeker KS LLC, as owner of 433 W. Bleeker St., submitted a request for a Variation to Residential Design Standards for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is specifically seeking a variation from the standard found at 26.410.030.B(1), Articulation of Building Mass, which is a non-flexible standard and must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the property is located in the R-6 Medium-Density Residential zone district and the Aspen Infill Area; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the request and has provided a recommendation to deny the variation request; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on March 21, 2017; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the one request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution __, Series of 2017, by a ____ to ____ (_ - _) vote, granting a Variation to a Residential Design Standard as identified herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Residential Design Standards Variation Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the variation request from the following Residential Design Standard: P47 VI.A. 26.410.030.B(1) – Articulation of Building Mass. A principal building shall articulate building mass to reduce bulk and mass and create building forms that are similar in scale to those seen in historic Aspen residential buildings. Fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy this standard: 1) Maximum Sidewall Depth. A principal building shall be no greater than fifty (50) feet in depth, as measured from the front-most wall of the front façade to the rear wall. An accessory building that is completely separated from the main building is permitted. Garages, sheds and accessory dwelling units are examples of appropriate uses for an accessory building. 2) Off-set with One-Story Ground Level Connector. A principal building shall provide a portion of its mass as a subordinate one-story, ground floor connecting element. The connecting element shall be at least ten (10) feet in length and shall be setback at least an additional five (5) feet from the sidewall on both sides of the building. The connecting element shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet in depth, as measured from the front-most wall of the front façade to the rear wall. Accessible outdoor space over the connecting element (e.g. a deck) is permitted but may not be covered or enclosed. Any railing for an accessible outdoor space over a connecting element must be the minimum reasonably necessary to provide adequate safety and building code compliance and the railing must be 50% or more transparent. 3) Increased Side Setbacks at Rear and Step Down. A principal building shall provide increased side setbacks at the rear of the building. If the principal building is two stories, it shall step down to one story in the rear. The increased side setbacks and one story step down shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet, as measured from the front-most wall toward the rear wall. The increased side setbacks shall be at least five (5) feet greater than the side setbacks at the front of the building. Chapter 26.410 Residential Design Standards outlines two criteria to allow a variation from a review standard. Only one standard must be found to be met. The standards include: 1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent statements in Section 26.410.040.A.1-3; or 2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. The Planning and Zoning Commission have found the proposal to meet the second criterion, and that the trees on the lot which may not be removed create a site-specific constraint that require a variation from the Residential Design Standard. P48 VI.A. Section 2: Building Permit Application Other than the variation granted, the building permit application shall be compliant with all other standards and requirements of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and all other adopted regulations. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 21st day of March, 2017. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Planning and Zoning Commission _______________________________ ______________________________ Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Skippy Mesirow, Chair ATTEST: _______________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager Exhibit A: Site Plan P49 VI.A. Resolution Exhibit A Site Plan P50VI.A. 1 Exhibit A Staff Findings 26.410.020(D) Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not meet this Section may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use review by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted would: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or Staff Response: The applicant is requesting a variance from the design standard related to the articulation of building mass. The intent of this standard is “to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings as viewed from all sides.” The code provides three options for satisfying the standard. The applicant has presented a design that does not meet any of the three standards. Furthermore, the design makes no attempt to reduce the mass of the building along the western side, as this façade maintains a two-story height nearly the entire length of the building. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Response: The applicant has stated the proposed design is in response to site- specific constraints created by four trees on the site that the City Forester has designated ineligible for removal. These include three trees at the front/eastern side of the site, and one tree mid-way down the eastern side of the site. No development may take place within the dripline of the trees, which is measured by a taking the circumference of the longest branch. Staff does acknowledge that the design of the structure’s eastern facade is influenced by the trees; however, a variance is not the only means by which a single-family home can be constructed on the site. The trees are on the outer edges of the property. The applicant is not deprived of development rights due to the trees, and a reasonably sized single-family home can still be developed on this site without the benefit of a variance. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. P51 VI.A. P52VI.A. P53VI.A. P54VI.A. P55VI.A. P56VI.A. P57VI.A. P58VI.A. P59VI.A. P60VI.A. P61VI.A. P62VI.A. P63VI.A. P64VI.A. P65VI.A. P66VI.A. P67VI.A. P68VI.A. P69VI.A. P70VI.A. P71VI.A. P72VI.A. P73VI.A. P74VI.A. P75VI.A. P76VI.A. P77VI.A.