Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20170919Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 19, 2017 1 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the September 19, 2017 meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Ms. Jasmine Tygre, Mr. Ryan Walterscheid, Mr. Rally Dupps and Mr. Mesirow. Mr. Jesse Morris, Mr. Keith Goode, Ms. McNicholas Kury and Mr. Spencer McKnight were not present. Also present from City staff; Ms. Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney, Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director and Mr. Justin Barker, Senior Planner. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS: There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were none. MINUTES Ms. Tygre motioned to approve the June 30th and September 5th minutes and Mr. Mesirow motioned to approve May 23rd minutes. Mr. Walterscheid seconded both motions. All in favor, both motions passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Mesirow noted Mr. McKnight recused himself from tonight’s hearing. PUBLIC HEARINGS – 517 Park Circle – Major Public Project Review Mr. Mesirow asked if public notice was provided and Ms. Bryan confirmed. Mr. Mesirow then opened the hearing and turned the floor over to staff. Mr. Justin Barker, Senior Planner, noted the application is being brought forward by Aspen Housing Partners on behalf of the City of Aspen who owns the property. He then provided background information of the property noting the following. • Lot is sized just under 14, 500 sf • Currently vacant • Zoned as moderate density residential (R-15) with a planned development (PD) overlay • Part of the two lot Wager / Detweiler Subdivision • The other lot contains a single family home • PD overlay limits the to one 3,000 sf single family home with established setbacks Mr. Barker stated the proposal includes rezoning the property to the Affordable Housing/Planned Development (AH/PD) zone district in order to develop 11 affordable housing units consisting of seven one-bedroom units on the lower and upper floors and four two-bedroom units on the main floor. It is a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 19, 2017 2 three-story building with the lower level partially below grade and 11 surface parking spaces on the property. As an affordable housing project being developed by the City, the application is subject to the major public projects review which combines all the applicable land use reviews into one two-step process. P&Z will provide a recommendation to City Council who will make the final decision. The state limitation of a 60-day timeframe for a decision is not applicable for City projects. Mr. Barker stated the AH/PD zone district is to provide protected zones for affordable housing and is intentionally to be scattered about town to provide a mix of housing throughout the community. He provided a map showing several other similar properties nearby. In general, staff is supportive of the rezoning. As part of the AH/PD zone district, all the dimensions are required to be established through the PD review process. He provided a chart of the proposed dimensions as well as those under the current zoning and a similar multi-family zoning. Staff is generally supportive of the proposed dimensions. Staff is concerned with the following areas: • Trash area – Originally proposed as 50 sf and the code requires a minimum of 121.5 sf for 11 units. Amount was revised to 120 sf which is closer. • Parking Mr. Barker noted three of the dimensions that are listed at 10% above or below what is in the current design to accommodate flexibility in the design as it progresses. Staff is comfortable with this. He stated it is important to note the maximum allowable floor area is well below (approximately 2,700 sf) what the AH/PD zone district recommends for a lot of this size. Mr. Barker then discussed the parking stating in terms of the location and number of bedrooms, this bedroom would require 15 parking spaces. With the recent update of the code regarding parking, the total number can be reduced by one space. He added the project has transportation impact credits beyond what is required for the project. The applicant is proposing 11 spaces or one per unit. Based on the density and use of the property, staff is concerned about the proposed number. Staff has outlined three options: 1. Pursue a shared parking agreement with Pitkin County on the Smuggler overflow parking lot off Park Circle. 2. Provide excess Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) improvements above what is already provided in the amount equivalent to the cast-out price of the four parking spaces based on an established per space value of $38,000 for a total of $114,000. 3. Provide a cash-in-lieu for transportation improvements, preferably near the site. Mr. Barker stated the project is subject to an 8040 Greenline review. He noted there are not issues regarding the availability of utilities and services. The one concern staff has is the property is located within the Smuggler Superfund Site. He noted in the 1990’s the City added some additional regulations and requirements that properties located within this area mitigate for or remove potentially toxic soils. A particular methodology has not been provided as of yet so staff recommends it to be included in any development agreement approved as part of the project. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 19, 2017 3 Mr. Barker then discussed the growth management requirements. He said the project is required to receive 11 affordable housing unit allotments, noting for 2017 there is no annual limit for affordable housing making it a tracking concern. Each unit is below the net livable the area size established in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) guidelines. APCHA has the ability to grant reductions and the board did approve the reduction due to the livability of the units with the additional storage, bathrooms for each bedroom, natural light. The categories for the units have not yet been established because this is one of three developments and the mix has yet to be determined. The applicant is proposing the units be rental to start with and perhaps changed down the road. Overall, staff is supportive of the growth management requirements. Mr. Barker stated as a multi-family development this project is subject to residential design standards (RDS). The limited requirements are focused on a strong presence on the street as well as a good interaction with the public realm. The project includes four street-facing entrances for all ground level units as well as multiple windows that exceed the amount required by code. Overall, staff is comfortable with the application meeting the RDS. Mr. Barker noted the applicant is looking to amend the subject lot as a separate PD plat to reflect any new approvals granted including dimensions. This is viewed as a general clean-up item and staff is supportive of it as well. Mr. Barker identified the following discussion points for P&Z. Overall, staff is recommending P&Z recommend approval to Council with the conditions outlined in the resolution. 1. The proposed dimensions for the site including the 10% flexibility on the three dimensions. 2. Overall site planning and building design. 3. Parking Issue. Mr. Mesirow asked for any questions of staff. Mr. Mesirow asked for a recap of the history of the soil mitigation. Mr. Barker believed in 1986 the EPA identified this area as a priority 4 clean-up due to the mine waste located in several properties in the area of Smuggler Mountain. This was generally dealt with and removed from the EPA’s list. The City adopted an Ordinance in 1996 requiring any site potentially containing toxic soils would need to mitigate to ensure the removal of the toxic soils from the site. This includes a process during the building permit review to obtain approval from the environmental health department to ensure the method used to clean the site is appropriate. Mr. Barker added it is an additional process prior to the development. Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Chris Everson, City of Aspen Affordable Housing Project Manager, introduced himself and the other members of the applicant’s team. • Jason Bradshaw, Aspen Housing Partners • Adam Roy, Method 1 Planning and Development Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 19, 2017 4 Mr. Roy then provide background of the project. He provided pictures of the lot pointing out neighboring facilities. The city purchased this property in 2007 with the plan on developing it. Through outreach in 2012 and 2015, it was determined there was a need for additional rental units. This location was identified as a good candidate for affordable rental housing. In 2016, and request for proposal (RFP) was issued and Aspen Housing Partners was selected to develop the project in partnership with the City. Two additional properties; 802 W Main St and 488 Castle Creek Rd, are included the partnership. The financing instrument to be used to help develop this property will be the Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Other properties have utilized LIHTC including the Aspen Country Inn, Truscott and Maroon Creek. A four-month outreach process was initiated including community wide open houses in January, establishing communications with key neighborhood stakeholders and check-ins with Council to update them on the progress and receive adjustments on direction. Over 500 participants at the open houses providing the following feedback. • Fairly strong support of rezoning. • Encouragement to maximize the density. • Programing of the units • Unit size • Ensure adequate storage • One bathroom per bedroom • Need for parking while encouraging An extensive traffic and parking analysis was also conducted of the area. He provided a slide of the outreach activities to date and indicated Council did not change much from a density per unit, but did reduce the bedroom density. Mr. Roy then displayed a site plan for representation. He noted the larger setback to the south where the single-family resident neighbor is located. They have met with the family a number of times in an attempt to minimize any impacts. He noted each of the units has a lot of outdoor space. He stated they also worked a lot with the traffic engineer in the TIA process to establish as many credits as possible towards transportation. The project has a surplus of 42 credits. He stated the size of the trash area has been increased to the suggested sf. He displayed vignettes of the building showing the outdoor amenities. Mr. Roy then displayed floor plans of the different types of units. Each unit has the following: • Access to approximately 100 sf of non-unit storage and lockable bike storage • Its own mud & laundry room • Entry porch or patio • Bathroom for each bedroom Mr. Roy provided a table of the floor area calculations including the flexible percentages. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 19, 2017 5 Elevations were then displayed to show materials and how they established their height restrictions of 32 ft off the rear of the building and 25 ft off the front. The materials are a combination of wood siding, stucco, metal and the stairs are enclosed with a wood lattice rain screen. Mr. Roy stated they conducted a thorough land use pattern analysis that showed numerous multi-family projects in the area, some more dense and some less dense than this project. The pattern indicated the requested rezoning would be appropriate. They also did a comparison chart with other pre-existing multi-family properties in the area and it indicated this project is very close or on par with the average density measurements. Mr. Mesirow asked for any questions of the applicant. Mr. Mesirow asked for additional information of the advantages and disadvantages of using the LIHTC. Mr. Bradshaw replied the affordable housing tax credit program was established with the 1986 tax code to address incentives for developing affordable housing for wage earners at 60% or less of medium income. The 60% or less of medium income compares with the category one and the lower part of category two. The tax program is for rental housing and the 60% is based on the medium income for the county. This allows the City to utilize the credit program to develop housing for these categories and a powerful debt financing tool which minimize the impact to the affordable housing fund and comes with a pretty stringent ongoing property management and maintenance requirement. The state housing authority will audit the property annually and reserves will be set up for the maintenance. This will also have a perpetual deed restriction for affordable housing on these units for the 60% and a local rent schedule for 15 years. Mr. Mesirow asked when the categories will be determined. Mr. Everson replied there will be two additional projects included and about 50% of the combined total number of units (49) proposed will be low income tax credit units. In addition, they are planning to have about 30% category two units and about 20% category three units. They have yet to determine the percentages at each site. They will apply for the tax credits as a consolidation of the three sites and they anticipate the credits will be awarded scattered across the three sites. Mr. Bradshaw noted the categories can be moved around to the different sites as needed. Mr. Everson noted the City conducted outreach as early as 2015 to assist with the use determination. First, the use was determined to be rental and as a result, the LIHTC was a fit. Mr. Dupps referred to p 31 of staff’s memo and asked if the total unit sf included the basement storage. Mr. Bradshaw responded it includes the net livable in the sf. Mr. Dupps asked how APCHA received the sf being less. Mr. Bradshaw replied APCHA noted the layouts provided could possibly be used as a model for livability. Mr. Everson stated APCHA was pleased with the amount of storage provided and that each bedroom has a bathroom. Ms. Tygre asked if the applicant would consider changing the units to for sale units at some point down the road. Mr. Bradshaw replied after 15 years the City can’t remove the affordability deed restriction but they could sell them as affordable condominiums. The City could pay of any remaining debt after 15 years. Ms. Tygre stated she is concerned the deed restrictions remain in place in perpetuity. Mr. Everson replied the deed restrictions will be on the land and the City will put that in place in perpetuity. The Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 19, 2017 6 City’s long term plan includes developing housing at the lumber yard which is a much more sizable piece of property. In the future, the City wants the flexibility to possibly convert some of these properties to for sale units. He noted the City will be bringing funds to the development depending on the tax credits awarded. In order to protect this investment, the City want to be able to step in and buy back any debt if they choose to do so. Mr. Walterscheid asked to speak to what is being done to deal with the traffic impact and the eleven parking spaces. Mr. Roy replied the trip generation impact for this property at peak hours is four trips for rush hour. This project will be generating a total of 46 credits for a surplus of 42 credits including enhancements to the pedestrian realm, the addition of the sidewalk, ADA accessibility across the property, bus stop improvements and others. They are providing private, lockable bike storage on site and other enhancements to encourage the residents to not rely on vehicles. Mr. Everson noted Council spent about a year looking at different mobility options. Two points stuck out for them. One, there is a management program in place to control the enforcement than is possible in other developments. Two, they looked at the proximity of the site to Burlingame Ranch which has .9 parking spaces per bedroom. Mr. Mesirow asked them to speak more to the maximization of the density. Mr. Bradshaw replied for this project, it had to be weighed against adjacent property owners and the conditions surrounding the property. Mr. Mesirow asked the percentage of people from the outreach that wanted to see more density. Mr. Roy did not have the exact number but recalled it being in the double digits and stated it was a fairly recurring comment relative to other comments. Mr. Everson added the users of the affordable housing system were pro-density who don’t live in the neighborhood. At one time, the applicant considered rezoning the property to residential multi-family (RMF) which would allow significant more floor area which would have made onsite parking more of a challenge. Mr. Roy added there are different ways of looking at density including unit count, bedroom count, FTE calculation. Based on careful consideration, it was determined to hold the unit count, but give relief to the number of bodies on the property. Mr. Dupps asked how they intend to respond to staff’s guest parking concern. Mr. Roy replied a conversation needs to start with the county to see if there is a creative way to address this situation. Mr. Everson noted the City is somewhat reluctant to approach the County and they plan to work with City Council on how to utilize the funds for this effort. Mr. Mesirow then opened for public comment. Mr. Mesirow noted the letter received earlier in the day from Jackie Tracy who was generally in support of affordable housing but had significant concerns around the parking shortfall. Mr. Dirk Detweiler lives next door to the project and raised the following concerns: • Main objections to the project are the size, density and the addition traffic and noise associated with the project. • When they developed their property, they had a reasonable expectation something similar would be developed in the neighboring lot. Moreover, the applicant is charged with the presentation of a thoughtful design that would allow the property to be utilized for a high-level of taxpayer value while also addressing concerns of nearby neighbors complimenting the fabric of the existing neighborhood. He does not feel this project meets those requirements. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 19, 2017 7 • He noted the applicant is requesting a rezoning, a 50% waiver of the community development fees, 10% increase of site coverage, 10% reduction of open space to be provided, 10% increase in FAR, a reduction of 3 onsite parking spaces and a waiver of school land dedication fees and parks/TDM/air quality impact fees. • On p 6 of the application regarding the existing property conditions, the property sits on a decommissioned superfund site. He is concerned even minimal excavation will stir up toxic mine waste. • He believes the statement on p 26 of the application noting a small increase in traffic is incorrect. • On p 165 of the TIA report, it shows the 11 units placed under the land use of lodging rather than affordable housing. He believes the placement is incorrect. • He believes there will be three times the number of trips generated if the calculations were correct. • On p 30 the published neighborhood zoning and land use context map shows a quarter mile radius from the center of the proposed development which he believes was partly used in the determination of the multi-family density matrix. His measurement of the area was 950 ft. He wanted to know why single-family was not considered in the matrix. • He noted they found toxic soil on his property when he developed his home and questioned how the applicant plans to remove the toxic soil. The application states it will be done per prescribed standards, but he wants a definition of the standards and who would oversee the process. • He is also concerned about any restrictions on pets and the possible impacts to the wildlife in the area. He doesn’t want his backyard to have the same issues with dog waste as the Smuggler Trail. • He understands the needs for affordable housing, but strongly protests it being shoe horned in a small lot in a congested neighborhood. He feels the project remains too large and too dense. He suggested building a duplex similar to the Snyder project on Midland. He also suggested using pre-fab housing similar to what the Aspen Skiing Company has been considering. Torre, Aspen Resident, stated he was present as a citizen and a member and current President of the Smuggler Racquet Club. He stated the club supports the comments just made by Mr. Detweiler. He noted if it wasn’t an affordable housing project, you would not be seeing anything like this being proposed for this property. He noted he was on Council when the City was negotiating for the property. He remembered it being contemplated for affordable housing but not quite this much. The club feels the density is a little great. While they appreciate the reduction in bedrooms, they would prefer a reduction in the massing and impacts to the neighborhood. They feel this is a little much on this location. He asked the applicant to show the site map. He noted the view from club will be of a three- story building. While the majority of the comments from the members is about the massing, they are concerned about the density. He noted for years the club has accommodated access of a trail through their property and they are a dog friendly club. But they are concerned about the pets. They currently suffer pretty great impacts from the dogs using the park and trail. He asked the board to make a recommendation about limited pet ownership in the units, perhaps on the walk-out units on the first floor. Mr. Mesirow then closed the public comment portion of the hearing and opened for commissioner discussion. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 19, 2017 8 Ms. Tygre is a bit concerned about the parking as well. She is opposed to the current policy telling people they can’t have cars and removing parking spaces. She mentioned a phrase ‘schlep factor’ made by Mr. Chris Bendon which relates to the proximity housing is to a bus stop. She noted people do more than travel to and from work. They shop, buy groceries, and bring home supplies. She believes the availability of the bus from this project makes a big difference in the schlep factor. In this case, if the applicant works to make the bus convenient, she would not be as concerned for the lack of parking spaces. Ms. Tygre noted they often hear from neighbors who would rather see for sale units instead of rental units. In this case, she feels having rental units for at least 15 years is a much greater asset because the management will be a lot tighter. You can evict renters who do not obey the rules. She added the community desperately needs rental units. Mr. Dupps agrees and feels it is a very well-conceived project striking a balance between density and providing accessibility. For him it ticks all the boxes and does not have a problem with the lack of three spaces. He hopes they can work out something with the County. Mr. Mesirow noted the trends on driving a car and ownership are declining. Mr. Walterscheid echoed the points made by Mr. Dupps. He feels it is a well thought out project and does not have any issues with the density. He struggles with the fact the property had been subdivided and PD placed on it to be R-15 and now it will be rezoned to something larger. He noted if you drive down the hill, you encounter higher density residential projects. Ms. Tygre noted properties get rezoned all the time and usually it involves greater density. Mr. Mesirow has no issue with the density but is aware of the need for housing and the lack of available spots to land them. Ms. Tygre want the board to know she stopped by APCHA today to renew her rental application. While there she put in an application for a one-bedroom for sale unit. There was a day left in the bidding process and already more than 60 people had applied. Mr. Walterscheid replied he does not doubt there is a need and is happy to see it be a rental. Mr. Dupps noted he was previously on the APCHA board and rentals were the way to go forward for the management. He likes the possibility this property could be for sale at some time in the future. Mr. Mesirow asked the commissioners if they were comfortable making a recommendation to re- explore more density since there are so few opportunities. Mr. Dupps replied his issue with that would be the parking which he feels is at its maximum. Ms. Tygre and Mr. Walterscheid agreed with Mr. Dupps. Mr. Mesirow just feels there are so few parcels available and the need is so great. Mr. Walterscheid noted there are other housing projects being proposed in this area. Mr. Barker stated if the board was leaning toward making a recommendation, he wanted to note a couple of corrections on the draft resolution. • On p1 of the resolution, it should state the Community Development Department recommends approval with conditions. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission September 19, 2017 9 • On p2, Section 1, it should state an amendment of the subdivision plat. • In Section 4, the size of the trash area should state 120 sf. Mr. Mesirow wanted to note P&Z has consistently a reduction in unit sizes for affordable housing programs. Mr. Dupps made a motion to approve Resolution 12, Series 2017 with the conditions and amendments recommended by staff. Ms. Tygre seconded the motion. Mr. Mesirow requested a roll call. Roll call: Mr. Dupps, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; and Mr. Mesirow, yes; for a total of four (yes) votes and zero (0) not votes. The motion was approved. Mr. Mesirow then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS None. A motion was made to adjourn and seconded. All in favor, motion passed. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager