Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20170131Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 31, 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. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 31, 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. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 31, 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. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 31, 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 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 31, 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 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 31, 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 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 31, 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 placed 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. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 31, 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. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 31, 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 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 31, 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. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 31, 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. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 31, 2017 12 OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Mesirow then closed the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager