Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20171003Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 3, 2017 1 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the October 3, 2017 meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Mr. Rally Dupps, Mr. Ryan Walterscheid, Mr. Keith Goode, Mr. Spencer McKnight, Ms. McNicholas Kury and Mr. Mesirow. Ms. Jasmine Tygre and Mr. Jesse Morris and were not present. Also present from City staff; Ms. Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney, Ms. Jessica Garrow, Planning Director and Mr. Justin Barker, Senior Planner. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS: There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were none. MINUTES Mr. Dupps motioned to approve the September 19th minutes and Mr. Walterscheid seconded the motion. All in favor, the motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were none. PUBLIC HEARINGS – 802 W Main St – 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, reviewed the project, noting the following. • Lot is sized just under 9,000 sf • Lot is located on the northwest corner of 7th St and Main St. • Zoned as moderate density residential (R-15) with a single-family residence currently on the property Mr. Barker stated the proposal includes rezoning the property to the Affordable Housing/Planned Development (AH/PD) zone district in order to develop 10 one-bedroom affordable housing units in a L- shaped, two-story building. It will be two buildings connected by circulation acting as one structure. Ten parking spaces will be included on the Main St right-of-way (ROW). Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 3, 2017 2 As an affordable housing project being developed by the City, the application is subject to the major public projects review which consolidates all the applicable land use reviews into one two-step review. P&Z will provide a recommendation to City Council who will make the final decision. Mr. Barker stated the AH/PD zone district exists to support affordable housing intended to be scattered about town to create diversity and provide protection of affordable housing from future development. He provided a map showing three AH/PD zone districts located not far from the property setting a precedence for them to be located within other zone districts. In general, staff is supportive of the rezoning. All the dimensions are required to be established through the PD review process. He provided a table depicting the proposed dimensions as well as those under the current zoning and a similar residential, multi-family zoning. Staff is generally comfortable of the proposed dimensions, except for one issue with the parking. He noted the applicant is proposing following dimensions at ten percent (10%) above or below what the project is designed for to provide flexibility in the permit process. He stated the numbers for items 1 and 2 are pretty far below what the zone district recommends for the lot size, so Staff has no issues. Staff also no issues with items 3 and 4 as well. 1. Maximum Allowable Floor Area (10% higher) 2. Deck Area (10% higher) 3. Site Coverage (10% higher) 4. Minimum Open Space (10% lower) - Mr. Barker then discussed the parking stating there are ten (10) required parking spaces and the applicant is proposing to include ten spaces or one space per unit in the Main St ROW. The ROW proposal isn’t typical of most development. Staff generally requires the parking to be onsite and accessed from the alley as outlined in the Residential Design Guidelines (RDS). Due to the extensive outreach efforts with the project, the applicant is proposing the spaces be located in the ROW. The engineering department has reviewed the application and are comfortable with the proposed parking location. They want to look at the final plan for the orientation of the spaces. Staff would like to include as a condition, keeping the area near the alley would be reserved for potential future parking and have no structure or above ground utilities added to the designated area. Mr. Barker then discussed the growth management requirements. He stated regarding the unit sizes, the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) establishes minimal net livable area for affordable housing units. The proposed unit sizes fall within 1.4% and 10.5% below the established minimum numbers with an average of approximately 6% below. APCHA has yet to review the application and is scheduled to review it on October 18, 2017. He noted there was a similar situation with the application for 517 Park Circle application which had a larger average deficit and APCHA unanimously supported it. APCHA felt that application provided good livability options. Staff anticipates a similar review, but they do not know at this time. Mr. Barker Stated the categories for the units have not yet been established and will be determined through the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) requirement. They anticipate starting the units as rentals with an option to convert them to ownership in the future. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 3, 2017 3 Mr. Barker stated as a multi-family development this project is subject to residential design standards (RDS). The multi-family requirements are fairly limited and focused on creating a good connection between the public and private realm for the building along with a strong street presence. The application provides good street facing entrances, large windows, and meets the standards. While not part of the RDS review, it allows for further review of additional items including materiality and overall design of the buildings. Staff is supportive of the overall form and layout of the building, but is concerned the proposed materials consisting of a composite panel combined with the relative closeness to the historic district. Most of the surrounding structures do have some historic qualities focusing on brick and wood as primary materials. The nearby 7th and Main project incorporates the paneling system as a secondary material and pushed away from the street facing façade. Staff would like to see the prominence of the metal panels reduced. Staff’s other concern relates to the detailing of the building. The upper floor does not include any overhang or covering for the second-story decks. Staff feels it is important to have protection from the weathering and act as a traditional detail typically seen on residential structures. Mr. Barker then reviewed the overall discussion points. Overall, Staff recommends approving the project with the outlined conditions. 1. PD Criteria, particularly the materials and detailing 2. Proposed Parking Condition 3. Location of transformer, if necessary. 4. Retrieving APCHA approval Mr. Mesirow asked for any questions of staff. Mr. Goode asked how many parking spaces would fit in the alley. Mr. Barker replied it is a 90 ft lot width, so technically up to ten spaces would fit. The requirement for an accessible space would limit it to about eight spaces. He noted this does not include any trash or utility structures. Mr. Goode asked where the trash is proposed to be located. Mr. Barker replied it is in the northwest corner of the property along the alley. Mr. Mesirow noted the extensive public outreach for the application and asked if the neighbors are okay if the parking needed to be moved from the proposed location. Mr. Barker noted a lot of the outreach led to it being located in the Main St area. Mr. Mesirow asked this will be considered with all the other transportation related considerations. Ms. Garrow confirmed it would be. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked for the average size of the units. Mr. Barker replied 675 sf. Mr. Mesirow noted the swing went down to 10.5%. Mr. Barker noted the two corner units are 10.5% below, but the others are closer to 1% or 2%. Mr. Mesirow asked if the 10.5% is acceptable based on a net floor value. Mr. Barker replied there is a maximum reduction of 20% that can be granted. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels the 2.5 ft setback is small and asked if there is a standard being overridden by the PD and is it similar to neighboring setbacks. Mr. Barker noted the existing R-15 zoning has a 10 ft Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 3, 2017 4 minimum setback and the residential multi-family zoning has a 5 ft minimum setback. The PD allows for a zero ft setback. She asked why they are requesting it for this project. Mr. Barker believes the applicant is attempting to move the proposed structure away from the north and west property lines. It also allows for a greater density. Increasing the setbacks would probably sacrifice a couple of units. Ms. McNicholas Kury noted in her review of the public comment, she wondered how many persons would be able to inhabit a unit. Mr. Barker replied the occupancy numbers are regulated by the APCHA guidelines. He added the LIHTC may have guidelines as well. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if P&Z needs to weigh in on the plan after 15 years which is documented in the development agreement. Ms. Garrow replied Council will make that decision but P&Z can offer comments for Council to consider. Mr. Jason Bradshaw, Aspen Housing Partners, stated after 15 years as defined by LIHTC, the City would have the right to take over any remaining debt on the properties at this time. The private side of the development would potentially go away. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked for the type of the impact fees as identified in Exhibit B. Mr. Barker replied as a residential project, it is subject to the TDM, parks, air quality and school fees. The applicant is requesting some of the fees be waived. Ms. Garrow noted Council can’t waive the school district fees but can reduce the others. Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Jason Bradshaw, Aspen Housing Partners and Mr. Adam Roy, Method 1 Planning and Development, were present to represent the applicant. Mr. Roy then reviewed the history and background of the property. • 2007, the City purchased the property with the intent of developing affordable housing • 2012, a housing study reported 657 new units would be required over the next ten years • 2015, this property was identified as an opportunity for rental housing and the public outreach results suggested ten one-bedroom units with one parking space would be appropriate. This information was used in an RFP process resulting in a partnership with the City for three properties. Mr. Roy noted LIHTC was previously used in Aspen for the Aspen Country Inn, Truscott and Maroon Creek affordable housing. Mr. Roy then reviewed the public outreach for the project which was initiated in January, 2017 and included regular check-ins with Council. The outreach included the public in general and the neighbors. He noted the efforts for the application on this property was extended another month beyond the other two projects to continue the outreach efforts. A final check-in with Council at the end of May, 2017 established the direction for the design. The big takeaways from the outreach included the following. • Overall, there was good support for the rezoning and development. • This project did have notable opposition from the neighbors. • The transportation impacts, especially the already heavy use of the alley. • Architectural style along with mass, scale and height • Ensure the property’s open space gave some relief to the fairly dense neighborhood Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 3, 2017 5 Mr. Roy then displayed a matrix depicting the progress for the project. They stared with a three-story, 13-unit structure with 15 bedrooms and all the parking on the alley and storage located in an out building. In March, they then reduced the density and relocated the storage in the building and sacrificing a unit to do so. After the April outreach process, they provided four different alternatives. The parking was moved to Main St. The alternatives had different densities, introduced a two-story form, gravitated to a gabled roof with traditional building forms. Council then selected the alternative presented in the application. Mr. Roy then displayed a site plan and pointed out the courtyard as an amenity and the alley side will have amenities that can be relocated if necessary. He noted the improved sidewalks and ample bike storage. Mr. Roy then provided several vignette views from the landscape perspective from multiple views. He then reviewed the floor plans. He noted all the units have a generous entry-area, interior storage, dedicated mud/laundry room, coat closets separate from the bedroom, and open floor plan. In regards to the architectural style, he stated both streetscapes are fairly long, so a flat two-story building had a squatty quality to it. The broken gable forms were added to enhance the quality. Mr. Roy then displayed renderings to show the proposed materials. The goal with the materials selected was to offset the building from the district further to the east. They felt the mass and scale were more important to reference with the neighboring structures. He then provided a table comparing the proposed project with other multi-family structures in the area in an attempt to show the average of the other properties is similar to proposed project. Mr. Mesirow asked for any questions of the applicant. Mr. Mesirow asked in the event the parking configuration needs to be changed, what has been discussed. Mr. Roy stated the goal is to relocate it to where it is today with the understanding if there is a higher need or use in the Main St ROW, the alley is another option. It made sense to locate it as presented, based on the goals of the property. Mr. Mesirow asked if 7th St was considered as an option. Mr. Roy feels this area was already pretty constrained and not an option with it being a primary thoroughfare. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the property adjacent to the West had access from 7th St and Mr. Roy replied it is access off the alley. He noted currently it is an unrefined parallel parking and they are proposing a curb head-in parking. There is some two-hour parking on Main St. He added one option would be to clean up the parking in the whole area. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if they are considering adding the eaves to the deck areas as suggested by Staff. Mr. Roy replied snow shedding will not be an issue and can be handled with snow fences or internal guttering. He believes it is an aesthetic issue since eaves would create shadow lines typical of gabled forms. They do not believe there will be any negative impacts from not having eaves. Mr. Mesirow then opened for public comment. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 3, 2017 6 Mr. Mesirow noted three letters were received. Two were opposed to the application citing congestion and traffic and one letter was overall very supportive noting the depth of the public process. Mr. Herb Klein is a neighbor to the project and has lived in the area since 1987. He noted is not opposed to affordable housing. He stated the reason no one wants parking in the alley is because it’s the only place for the kids to play so everyone is opposed to having more cars in the alley. When the Bavarian housing was proposed as mitigation for the Ritz / St Regis, it included 70 units with no parking. The neighbors were involved in the project and feel the resulting structure is the appropriate mass, scale and density. This is because they reduced the number of units to accommodate onsite parking and reduced the height. He feels this site has constraints. He feels the rezoning is appropriate, but feels the density is too high. He believes the project should not be approved with no onsite parking. He is not aware of any other project that has been allowed to do so. He feels a project should be based on the number of cars you can park on a site to determine the density. He believes this sets a horrible precedent. Main St has a lot of uses including parking for commercial vehicles, pedestrians, and bikes. It is already a constrained area with safety issues. He closed stating the proposed structure is too tall in comparison with surrounding buildings. Mr. Bill Guth is a neighbor to the project. He agrees with Mr. Klein’s points. He feels the parking issue could be resolved with underground parking. He feels the building would be more attractive with a flat roof. Ms. Tess Strokes lives nearby. She pointed out the blind corners on 8th St and noted the children play on the corners as well as the alley. She is concerned with safety and is not comfortable with the density. She did appreciate the outreach though. Mr. Mesirow then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Mesirow asked the applicant to clarify the feedback received from the neighbors during the outreach. Mr. Bradshaw stated the dialogue was geared more towards the home owner associations (HOAs) and some individuals such as Mr. Guth. Mr. Guth responded the applicant made efforts to reach out to the neighbors. Mr. Bill Schaffer is the secretary/treasurer of the West Bleeker Place condominium association and commented the alley is a playground because there isn’t any room for them to play elsewhere. Mr. Mesirow then opened for commissioner discussion. Mr. Goode noted with the Park Ave property, the density was set by the allowable parking onsite. He feels it should considered for this project as well. Mr. McKnight wondered how many units could be built if the parking was on site. Mr. Roy noted the original proposal had ten spaces on the alley and noted they could remove one space because of the other transportation accommodations included with the project. He added its proposed placement was in response to the five to six months of neighborhood outreach. They are accommodating the open courtyard by placing full height storage under the building. Mr. Mesirow would like to communicate to Council that he thinks this project anywhere else makes sense, but given this is happening at the same time as a complete revision of the transportation Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 3, 2017 7 landscape in town and the area could be impacted, he is concerned we are possibly inhibiting a greater community good by making this site inaccessible to the process. He wants to make sure both are being considered at the same time. Mr. Goode does not believe this will be solved at the hearing adding the applicant has completed months of outreach to come to a conclusion on the project. He feels the concerns should be noted to City Council. Mr. Mesirow asked if there are other concerns beyond the potential impact to parking as proposed. Mr. Goode suggested a playground in the area to be considered. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the corner should be memorialized as a park because of its use. She believes having the parking in the ROW instead of in the alley is a trade-off. She doesn’t see a solution that everyone will be happy with. Ms. McNicholas Kury added she does not thine a flat roof will offer the variation desired. She feels this is a very visible. She support staff’s suggestions. Mr. Mesirow believes memorialize a kid friendly zone would be good. Mr. Walterscheid stated since the neighborhood generally wants the parking in the ROW, he suggested putting an easement in place to allow for the parking to be moved should the straight shot move forward and engineering determined it would be best to move the parking. Mr. Walterscheid wondered if children are playing in the alley, perhaps the City should block off the alley. Mr. Roy stated they presented a variety of considerations and believes the Engineering Department is looking into a bike / pedestrian plan for the area. Ms. Trish Aragon, City Engineer, stated they are looking at the neighborhood holistically including parking, circulation, safety, snow storage and others. They are working with the neighbors on a conceptual plan. They looked at options for closing the alley. Ms. Aragon stated Ms. PJ Murray, City Civil Engineer, is the manager for the project. Mr. Walterscheid asked if they have any thoughts regarding the type of parking proposed. Ms. Aragon replied head-in parking is responsible for over 40% of the accidents in town. Most of this type of parking is in the core. She noted it also creates bike safety issues. This area has pedestrian, bike and auto traffic. She is not ready to make a recommendation on the parking until the project to evaluate the area has been completed. Mr. McKnight agrees with the other commissioners and will put his faith behind the public outreach conducted. He agrees with staff and feels the concerns regarding the neighborhood should be noted. Mr. Mesirow stated he is comfortable pushing it forward with the parking concern. He added he is fine with the design, shape and materials as proposed. Mr. Roy noted their comments regarding the materials is quite broad and asked for more detail. Mr. Walterscheid likes the gable form and the proposed materials. He disagrees with staff regarding the overhang and feels it would have to fully extend over the deck area. Other solutions will handle the snow. Ms. Garrow noted staff’s other perspective involves the residential scale, not just snow shedding. She asked P&Z to respond on the design perspective. Mr. Dupps said he agrees with staff and the deck areas need shelter to make them usable. He also feels they should be a bit larger if possible. Most agreed larger would be good. Mr. Dupps agrees with staff regarding the materials and something different may allow it to blend in better with the neighborhood. Mr. Barker noted the overhang can be a Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 3, 2017 8 canopy or awning as well. Mr. Mesirow likes the uncluttered look. Mr. McKnight also agrees with staff and feels it is worth looking into more. He feels having a cover on the decks is a matter of livability. Mr. Goode likes the design as presented but having more space would be nice. He suggested retractable awnings. Ms. McNicholas Kury is concerned memorializing the easement on the alley for potential future parking lessens the neighbor’s stance to keep it free of cars. Mr. Mesirow feels it should all be considered on a broader scale in regards to community value. Mr. Walterscheid noted the property does belong to the city and it is their purview. Mr. Walterscheid noted the other argument would be to state the parking needs to be in the alley. Ms. McNicholas Kury noted they could mitigate with another option allowed by the code. He agreed. Mr. Dupps feels the outreach has been exemplary and feels it is a better solution to place the parking as proposed. Council can review. Ms. McNicholas Kury suggested broadening their recommendation to state an easement or requirement to mitigate as allowed by the code. Ms. Garrow stated if the majority feel strongly about this, then section four should be amended to call out their recommendation for Council to consider an easement for future parking and only for parking and note to be mitigated as code allows. Most agreed with the change. Mr. Walterscheid motioned to approve Resolution 13, Series 2017 with the amendments just discussed. Ms. McNicholas seconded the motion. Mr. Mesirow requested a roll call. Roll call: Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Ms. McNicholas, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. McKnight; yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; for a total of six (6) yes votes and zero (0) no 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