Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20170117Regular 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. 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 the 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 of 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. 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 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 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 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 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. 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 built 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. 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 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 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. 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 her 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 they 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. 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. 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. 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