Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20171024Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 1 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the October 24, 2017 meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Mr. Keith Goode, Mr. Spencer McKnight, Ms. Jasmine Tygre, Ms. Kelly McNicholas Kury and Mr. Skippy Mesirow. Mr. Ryan Walterscheid and Mr. Rally Dupps were not present. Also present from City staff; Ms. Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney, Ms. Jessica Garrow, Director of Planning and Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Mesirow wanted to thank Mr. Jesse Morris, who decided to resign, for his positive, wonderful work on the commission. Ms. Tygre feels it is a good time for the City to address the slush pits that form on every corner during the winter. Ms. Garrow will touch base with engineering and let them know for the yearly detailed plans. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Garrow stated the P&Z Commissioners from the Town of Breckenridge will be in town the next week and wanted to see if Aspen’s P&Z would be interested in a meeting with them. She suggested options for the meeting and it was decided a breakfast meeting on Friday, November 3rd would work best. Mr. McKnight and Ms. Tygre agreed they could attend. Ms. Garrow then introduced Mr. Garrett Larimer as the City’s new planner tech for the department. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were none. MINUTES Mr. McKnight motioned to approve the October 3rd minutes and Ms. McNicholas Kury seconded the motion. All in favor, the motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were none. PUBLIC HEARINGS – 488 Castle Creek Rd – Major Public Project Review Mr. Mesirow opened the hearing and noted for the record and audience that he observed parking had been a recurring concern with recent applications before P&Z so he researched parking alternatives. He found some interesting material and will provide information as part of the discussion for the hearing. He added this effort in no way indicates he has an opinion on the application. Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to staff. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 2 Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner, stated this is the final of three projects the City is working on as part of a public\private partnership to create affordable housing within Aspen. She stated significant outreach has been conducted over a six-month period for each of the projects and as part of the refinement, Council indicated the density at the other sites should be reduced and this site should be considered for additional density. Each project was further refined based on the outreach. She noted this project is located on Castle Creek Rd near Aspen Valley Hospital, Castle Ridge affordable housing, Marolt Ranch employee housing, Health and Human Services, hospital housing, and Whitcomb Terrace. The project is also adjacent to the Marolt Open Space and within walking distance of a We- Cycle station and the Castle Creek bus station. She then provided the following details of the project. • 2 lot subdivision • 35,895 sf for both lots • Currently vacant • Zoned R-15A with a Planned Development (PD) overlay • The PD limits the subdivision to three single family residences The applicant is proposing the following. • Rezone the subdivision to Affordable Housing (AH) with a PD overlay • 28 units: 18 1-bedroom units and 10 2-bedroom units • 29 parking spaces including one per unit and one guest parking space • 3-story building with a consolidated 4-story element along the side facing the Marolt housing • 2-story building along the Castle Creek Rd side of building • Bike parking and maintenance areas • On-site storage Ms. Seminick stated the application is part of a Major Public Project Review which is a consolidated review process. She explained the project review dealing with the massing, floor area, height and site programming reviews is combined with a detailed review dealing with landscaping, architectural details and the refined elements of the project. The project also falls in the 8040 Greenline area. Additional reviews include rezoning, growth management, design standards and subdivision. She noted Council has the final decision on the project. She added the 60-day statutory-required review process does not apply to the City’s application. Rezoning Ms. Seminick then discussed the rezoning review. She stated staff finds the application meets the applicable review criteria and supports this request noting the compatibility with surrounding zone districts. She displayed a map showing neighboring properties and their zoning noting extensive AH projects close to the project including Castle Ridge, Water Place, Twin Ridge, Aspen Valley Hospital (AVH) AH and Marolt Ranch employee housing. She pointed out the project is on a transit line and within easy biking distance of the City’s core. She added the AH zoning is scattered throughout town to Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 3 reinforce diverse housing and provide protected areas for affordable housing. She provided another picture of affordable housing locations with the City and the urban growth boundary (UGB). Planned Development Review Ms. Seminick stated this review considers the dimensional requirements of the parcel. She displayed a matrix showing dimensions as proposed, existing and a similar zoning of the Residential Multi-Family zoning (RMF) as shown on p. 16 and 17 of the agenda packet. With regard to this project, the maximum allowable floor area is approximately 22,500 sf. The suggested floor area for a parcel of this size is approximately 28,000 sf. It is also well below the maximum allowable floor area of the RMF zone district. The project is proposing allowable deck area of about 7,000 sf to allow each of the units to have some degree of outdoor space. This amount is also well below the allowable threshold amount allowable. In regards to the maximum height which as measured along the Marolt Employee Housing facing side would 45 ft 8.75 in as measured from a finished elevation. The height along Castle Creek Rd will be 32 ft. The proposed 29 parking spaces is below the 38 spaces required by the RMF zoning. Staff does have concerns with the parking as well as the mass and height of the structure. She noted the applicant has requested 10% flexibility in the floor area, deck area and open space design which is well below the allowable thresholds. Parking Review She stated parking can be set through the PD process, which is a Council decision. Recent code changes to combine and coordinate transportation and parking impacts have been considered by Council. The City has transformed the process to focus on the promotion and expansion of mobility options taking a more comprehensive look at transportation solutions instead of just parking solutions. She stated while the number of spaces may be appropriate for the site, there are still some unmitigated transportation impacts of which staff is concerned. Staff is proposing three options to ensure full mitigation of the transportation impacts. 1. Explore shared parking options with the urban growth boundary or nearby facilities such as the nearby Health and Human Services lot. 2. Provide additional transportation impact improvements such as better pedestrian and bike connectivity facilities. 3. Cash-in-lieu for the required parking Mass and Height Review She stated Staff has concerns regarding the proposed height of the structure on the side facing the Marolt housing. Staff supports measuring from finished grade noting this is a triangular shaped parcel that has not been manipulated since the 1950’s. A lot of fill has been placed on the site likely associated with the construction of Castle Creek Rd so this site has been in its existing condition for almost 70 years. The code typically measures the height from the more restrictive of the finished or natural grade helps prevent over-manipulation of the existing site. The finished grade is used on sites with similar issues including AVH, the Aspen Club, and Lift One Lodge. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 4 She stated staff’s concern is limited to the fourth floor, noting again the site programming is in direct response to the public comment. The applicant has pushed back the four-story element to reduce the appearance of massing from the Castle Creek façade. The project considers a balance of how all three housing projects balance the needs of the community and respond to neighborhood context and feedback received. As units were removed from the other two projects, they were captured in this project. The applicant has taken steps to minimize the fourth-floor impacts, but staff continues to have concerns for this element. If P&Z shares these concerns, there are four options for P&Z to consider as included on p 26 of the agenda packet under staff’s recommendation. Trails and Landscape Review Ms. Seminick noted some of the issues identified in staff’s memo have since been resolved. At this point, the project proposes the following. 1. A multi-modal connection to the Marolt bike path includes a semi-improved path connecting the walk-out units down to the Marolt bike path 2. Methods have been identified to preserve a cottonwood tree staff previously had concerns regarding its preservation and the elimination of a new sidewalk along Castle Creek Rd. 8040 Greenline Review Ms. Seminick stated a very small portion of the property is located above the 8040 Greenline as she pointed to on a site map. Staff finds the application meets the applicable review criteria. Growth Management Review Ms. Seminick noted with affordable housing, there is no annual limit. The unit sizes averaged 7.6% below the minimum net livable area. The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) reviewed the project on October 18th and approved the reduction in net livable for the project. She stated the categories have yet to be identified so the applicant can respond to community need. Because this is a community project, there are no restrictions on what the units be designated. This project is seeking assistance from a tax credit program which would require the units to be rental for the first 15 years and then there is a potential for ownership. Residential Design Standards (RDS) Review Ms. Seminick stated this project is subject to the RDS to ensure street presence and a public-private relationship between the development and the street. She stated the project met all but one of the design standards. It needs a variation for the principal window standard for five of the ground floor units. This is a flexible standard which allows for a variation when the intent is met. She added there are plenty of windows on the street facing façade and the taller and narrower windows are responding to the interior programming which includes mud rooms or kitchens exist. Staff supports the variation to the standard. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 5 Subdivision Review Ms. Seminick stated the applicant would like to merge the existing two lots into one. The new lot conforms with the underlying zoning and dimensions and meets all the criteria for a major subdivision. In closing, she reviewed the main discussion points staff would like for P&Z to address. She stated staff recommends approval with conditions. 1. Dimensions, specifically the height in the four-story element 2. Parking as presented for the project Mr. Mesirow asked for any questions of staff. Mr. Goode asked if Council directed the expansion of the project. Ms. Seminick replied it would be best if the applicant replied to his question. Ms. Garrow stated the applicant team did meet extensively with Council before the application was submitted and there were comments from the neighbors on all three projects which led to modifications to the projects such as reduced bedrooms. Mr. Mesirow asked if the other projects are conditional to this one. Ms. Garrow replied no, but stated the applicant team can respond to the question more appropriately. Ms. Tygre asked staff to explain a multi-modal connection. Ms. Seminick replied this type of connection addresses bikes and pedestrian forms of transportation. As multi-modal path is eight ft in width instead of a standard sidewalk width which is six ft. This allows for two passing uses at differing speeds and widths on the same path. Mr. Mesirow asked if staff’s suggestion to work with AVH is a suggestion or is there something more there already. Ms. Seminick replied it is just a suggestion at this time. Ms. Garrow stated it is similar to staff’s recommendation on the 517 Park Cir project where it was suggested the applicant work with Pitkin County regarding parking. She added Council approved this project last night and noted the language had been expanded to look for expanded parking within the urban growth boundary. Staff is suggesting the same for this project. Mr. Mesirow noted his understanding was the public outreach was well lauded for the other projects but wanted to know if the public outreach for this project was different in any way. Ms. Garrow replied it would be appropriate for the applicant to respond. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked for additional information regarding measuring from the finished grade and the disruption previously mentioned. Ms. Seminick replied the code has two ways to measure height. It is from the finished or natural grade depending on which the way that is most constrictive. In this case, there is a finished condition of a triangular site built up in the middle. The applicant has provided information to identify an interpolated grade showing the more natural condition before it was disturbed based on old aerials or old topo information. The applicant was able to identify the condition prior to the 1950’s which was prior to the construction of the road. Staff feels measuring from the finished grade will ultimately be perceived more important than measuring it based on the property conditions from 1950. Ms. Garrow noted other similar sites that have been disturbed or are greatly sloped have approvals measuring the height from the finished grade. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 6 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, which is a partnership between the City and Aspen Housing Partners. Mr. Roy then reviewed the history and background of the property noting the location and neighboring properties. He had a picture of an existing driveway to the property and noted the bench structure of the property. Additional views of the property were provided showing views of the property from multiple angles. He then displayed the improvement survey as it exists today and pointed out the flat bench and the steep slopes down toward the boundaries of the property. The intent has been to minimize the disturbance of the bench. He then provided a picture of the area and described neighboring properties. Mr. Roy noted the property was acquired by the City in 2007 through the housing fund with the intent of developing affordable housing. In 2012, a broad strategic analysis identified the need for 657 units with the urban growth boundary over the next ten-year period. In response, the City conducted more specific outreach in 2015 including all three properties currently in the process of being developed. The takeaway from this suggested long-term housing of roughly 24 units, primarily one bedroom, dormitory style, one-to-one parking and possibly employer participation. In response to this, the City put out an RFP in 2016 resulting in the selection of Aspen Housing Partners. The property is being developed with Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LITHC) program which reduces the overall capital and operational requirements the City would have to carry by itself. He noted the LITHC is one of the most successful affordable housing programs in the country. The City has used LITHC for other projects including Aspen Country Inn, Truscott and Maroon Creek in part or all. He then displayed a project plan and described the public outreach and noted the time spent on outreach. He noted between the open houses, there was quite a bit of time slated for neighborhood and stakeholder outreach. He wanted to note this because there was not a lot of direct contact with the key stakeholders in the area. There was a little communication and one face-to-face meeting with a neighbor. A few comments were received on the website and a few letters or emails directed to the City that were then forwarded to the project team. He then reviewed the key takeaways from the commentary and the open houses which included over 500 participants overall. • Strong support for rezoning and development • Request to explore potential density increases against the constraints of the site • Review the architectural style which some felt was too modern and progressive for the area • He noted there is a parallel trails project and he noted there were suggestions to coordinate with the group on the consistency with the project and possible trail projects. • Potential life and safety concerns raised regarding traffic and the location of the property on a sweeping curve. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 7 He provided a slide showing the design progression through the five plus month outreach and the check-ins with Council. He then reviewed the iterations of the stories, units, parking as well as mass, scale, coloring and style. They ended up with a 28-unit project, 29 parking spaces with a mix of three and four stories. He then displayed a current site plan and noted the access comes off Castle Creek Rd on grade. There are ten parallel parking spaces along the boundary adjacent to Castle Creek Rd and 19 additional head-in parking next to the building. A key consideration in the design is maintaining the vegetative buffer on the property boundary adjacent to the road. They are proposing to enhance the buffer beyond how it exists today. The parking will be four-five ft below the base of the buffer. He pointed to a sculpted green area for bike parking and some private courtyard patios for the lower level units. Mr. Roy then displayed the floor plans. First, he showed the main level consisting of five one-bedroom units and three two-bedroom units. All units have one bathroom per bedroom, 75 sf of non-unit storage. The second-floor plans have similar dimensions and storage. He displayed typical floor plans showing an open floor plan, ample lighting, lots of windows and outdoor decks and patios. Mr. Roy then displayed elevations, architectural renderings from the different aspects for the project. Mr. Roy then displayed a map showing the use and zoning within the context of the area noting the applicant feels the rezoning is compatible with the area. Mr. Roy then displayed a matrix showing density measures of comparable multifamily properties including the following. He noted the proposed project falls within a reasonable comparison of the projects. • Number of units • Units per acre • Bedrooms per acre • Parking per unit • Parking per bedroom He noted the nearby affordable housing projects and stated this project is more dense than them but less dense than other projects located throughout the city. If you look at total unit count or total sf of the projects, this project is less than them. 1. Marolt seasonal housing 2. Castle Ridge 3. Twin Ridge –located in Pitkin County 4. Water Place He stated the average density in the area is 12.9 units per acre. The projects density is 24 units per acre. If they maintained the 28 units on land the same as those with 12.9, the size of the property would be three times what it is now. In order to make this happen, the project would have to occupy 2.2 acres of what is predominantly open space as a graphic example. Sometimes a denser project lends itself to preserving open space. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 8 Mr. Mesirow asked for any questions of the applicant. Mr. Mesirow feels there are two critical ways to look at density, one is the impact to open space and the environment or units per acre and two, the impact regarding the living conditions or number of units per sf. He then asked if they have numbers on his second method. Mr. Roy responded they have not made this calculation but suspect the unit is smaller and would be more efficient from floor area construction standpoint. He added the goal was to create a balance between a livable environment for the tenants and the environment. Mr. Mesirow feels the information requested would be interesting going forward. Mr. Mesirow asked for more details on the public outreach. He believes all three projects went through the same outreach, but there are a lot of folks attending the hearing suggesting the outreach wasn’t as effective as it was for the other two projects. Mr. Bradshaw stated the same process was pursued for all three sites. He feels one difference experience with the Park Cir and Main St sites versus the Castle Creek Rd site was there were more constructive comments on what they would like to see instead of what was being shown. There were fewer comments on the Castle Creek site and less focused on what would be acceptable and more about a critique of what was shown. Mr. Mesirow asked about the makeup of the those responding. Mr. Roy replied it was a much broader area and comments were received from submitters located all the way up Castle Creek Rd and on to Little Annie’s Rd. There were more breakout meetings with stakeholders on the other projects resulting in changes to the them. The same outreach efforts were made for each of the projects. He suggested it may have been this way because it is a broader area. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if there is a recommended standard for guest parking. Ms. Seminick responded the code does not specify anything. Mr. Mesirow asked if the applicant has any insight into possible parking at AVH or another location. Mr. Bradshaw stated the same topic came up with Park Cir and the applicant is open to reaching out to surrounding locations including hotels or other facilities with excess parking. The applicant is hesitant to guarantee these options are available at this time or for the length of time necessary. Mr. Bradshaw wanted to clarify in the prior hearings may have indicated a predetermined number of units, but this is not the case. They started with an independent view of each of the sites and the changes at each site was based on the public outreach received. Mr. Mesirow then opened for public comment. Mr. Dick Butera, Castle Creek Rd, feels P&Z has protected the natural and manmade treasures safe from the ravages of progress including the Marolt property. He comes before the board with 55 years of experience in developing subdivisions across America. He explained how came to live in the Castle Creek Valley. He feels it is a treasured resource with constant threats, most that were repelled by prior P&Z and County commissioners. He feels threatened by the current proposal and wanted to pose questions to P&Z. He continued stating the City paid $5.4 million 10 year ago for the site which a little over .5 acre usable or 24,000 net usable space. This represented a $2 million profit in 10 months for the previous owner. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 9 1. Density - He said this is equivalent to a density of 51 apartments per acre which would be a record in Pitkin County or anywhere to Denver. 2. Parking - He believes when it is snowing there will not be 28 spaces available. 3. Density – The employee housing units across the road average six units per acre with 1.8 parking spaces per unit. 4. Fill – The applicant has determined there is four to five ft of fil on the site which must be removed below the buildings. The code states you can’t build on fill. 5. County Boundary – The property shares a boundary with the County. The zoning on the County side is one house per 10 acres. He then quoted from the Polices Management Growth Community and Economic Sustainability section of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) stating ‘Urban density should be located within the commercial core of Aspen and appropriate increases in density should only occur if they result in the preservation of land in the proximity of the urban growth boundary through TDRs or other land use tools’. It goes on stating ‘protect the visual quality of neighborhoods by minimizing site coverage, mass and scale’. The applicant is requesting relief in site coverage, FAR, height, parking and the fees. 6. Lease – The lease to the developer is $10 per year for 40 years. The lease also states if the developer is short of capital, the City will put up the difference. He estimates this to $9 million. The City will lend this to the developer at less than two percent for 40 years. 7. Financial Statement – It states the cost will be $14,922,000 for the project which doesn’t include the cost of the land. He feels the cost is $20,322,000 or $725,000 per unit which doesn’t include any cost overruns. He questions why so many units are being placed on this property at such a high cost. Ms. Kristi Ferraro, attorney representing members of the Castle Creek Caucus, stated she reviewed the application on their behalf and has identified several challenges and concerns with the application and staff’s recommendation. They disagree with staff’s findings the review standards have been met. 1. Standards regarding compatibility with the neighborhood – She does not believe staff has considered the Marolt open space, urban growth boundary and rural 10 acre zoning just across the County border. 2. With respect to review standards requiring they support Community Goals – staff mentions the project meets goal related to transportation and housing but does not consider other community goals such as those called in Joe Well’s letter such as concentrating density in the commercial core and maintaining the rural nature of Aspen near the urban growth boundary and its borders with the County. 3. They believe the project is not sensitive to the scale and character of the neighborhood. In closing, they ask P&Z to look very closely at the application to see if it really does meet all the review standards per the land use code. They ask the board to consider all the surrounding areas, full neighborhood context and all the stated community goals. Mr. Mesirow asked if she had any communication from the people she represents as to why they sent her rather than show up at the public outreach meetings. Mr. Butera claimed he did not receive any notice because he lives in the County. He added the nature of his neighbors is that they are not here a lot. Ms. Bryan added her review of the notice for the hearing appears to be proper. Mr. Joe Wells, Castle Creek resident and coordinator of the Castle Creek Caucus, mentioning his letter previously submitted which was included in the agenda packet. He noted he has no problem with Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 10 affordable housing on the site. He is concerned with the height, density and the parking solution. He stated he attended the site visit today. He does not think it is reasonable to dismiss the fact the building is being built on fill just because it’s been there for 70 years. It is obvious it will have greater impact if built on the fill instead of the natural grade. In regards to density, he tried to compare it to several surround affordable housing projects. He used the gross acreage of the sites because he did not have slope reduction information on the other sites. His calculations indicate 34 units per acre. Castle Creek Ridge project is 9.6 units per acre, Twin Ridge project is 3.83 units per acre and the Water Place project is 6.5 units per acre. He is concerned in order to get the amount of parking proposed, the site is being developed right up to the property line with no setbacks. In his letter, he suggested perhaps tenants could be prevented from having cars since it is a rental project. He hopes they pursue opportunities to get some of the parking offsite or other methods to allow for a buffer on the site. Ms. Karen Ryman, Twin Ridge resident for 27 years, wanted to note a couple of items. In regards to shared parking, she knows the neighboring lots have signs posted stating no parking for anyone other than their customers. She stated the hospital claims their parking lots are full. She met on an ambulance program last week which is also sliding in parking. She does not believe the project can rely on parking at neighboring facilities. She is concerned where the snow will be placed because they have to have it hauled away from their project at times. She believes all who live in employee housing have side jobs to be able to live which requires visitors. The project does not allow enough parking for this and many places will have two cars. She does not feel the entrance has good sight lines both ways and will cause additional traffic. She stated she attended the site visit today, noting the planners were there, but no one attended from P&Z. She asked why P&Z members did not attend the site visit, were you working or interested. Mr. Mesirow asked that she not impugn the entire commission for not attending the site visit. She responded the commission is her representatives in her government. Mr. Mesirow responded they take their roles very seriously. Mr. John Wallach, Twin Ridge resident, noted Twin Ridge is single family homes and affordable housing condominiums. He feels the whole project fed to the commission and everyone else has been sugar coated. He attended the first outreach meeting where amount of parking was way out of line and at the next meeting, they reported not much was said at the previous meeting. He does not feel the project allows enough space for snow storage or service vehicle parking or turn around space. He noted one trash company refused to work for Twin Ridge because of they could not turn their trucks around. They now use smaller trucks. He stated parking at the neighboring properties is not an option and believes more people will drive than ride a bus. He also feels the average density is bazaar. The zoning requested is 25-30 times more dense than the zoning approved in 2004. He does not feel it is worth it. Mr. Mesirow then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Mesirow asked the applicant or the staff to clarify the plan for snow removal. Ms. Garrow stated plowing on a private development will be a private agreement. She noted Burlingame is another private location and plowing is dealt with by the HOA. Mr. Roy stated snow storage is an item in the review criteria. He pointed out areas on a site plan designated for snow storage. He added if there was a large snowstorm, like most parking lots in town, there could be some hauling of snow. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 11 Mr. Mesirow asked about for clarification about delivery trucks. Mr. Roy pointed out a designated hammer-head turnaround spot for delivery trucks. Mr. Mesirow then opened for commissioner discussion. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked to look at the broader neighborhood context as it relates to density if easily available. Mr. Mesirow noted P&Z could mentioned for Council to look at further. Ms. Garrow replied staff could look for one to display now while deliberations continued. Mr. Mesirow stated in reviewing this project, it is not inconsistent with the other projects reviewed by the commission and felt comfortable with the other projects. He wished the public outreach would have been more effective. He wondered if folks were out of town. He viewed the feedback from the outreach requesting more density instead of less and now he is hearing for less at this hearing. He would say those that were not at the outreach meetings missed an opportunity. He feels they need to pass on recommendations to Council going forward. Mr. McKnight agreed with him and personally does not have much sympathy for those who are not in town enough to be part of the discussion. Tonight, he feels the commission needs to make recommendations to Council so as much information is available as possible for their decision. He loves the idea of the project and we should do whatever we can to do to find employee housing. He feels regardless of where employee housing is proposed, people are not going to want it there. He added he not unsympathetic to the public comment but struggles identifying the real issues. He understands the parking, but wonders if the density issues are a community or personal issues. Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. Tygre about a City project bordering the County since he has yet to see a project with this since he joined the commission. Ms. Tygre replied the density of the county is not all that close because they are not within 300 ft. She is not sure the best method for defining the neighborhood. She feels Mr. McKnight made a good point. She doesn’t’ recall anyone wanting the Twin Ridge project going in when it was proposed. Mr. Mesirow asked the others if they have a concern with the density. Mr. Goode feels the comment made regarding having the density in the core was a good point but at the same time, doesn’t feel the proposed buildings will be in anyone’s face or the back yard. He feels it is a good project, but is concerned with the negative comments this late in the process. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels there are competing goals for this property and while all valid, how does the City address the 657 unit deficit if we say no to projects that help reach the goals. For her, she feels there are elements to this project that are very good and perhaps it is a good candidate for underground parking. She is not sure if this has been considered for this project. She feels the commission sees these projects a bit late in the game and is not sure how feasible it is to change the project. Mr. Mesirow agrees there are competing needs between housing, density, massing and parking that are fighting with each other. He feels if there are ways to increase the density of parking, it could reclaim land for open space, allow for additional units. He feels there are parking systems readily available that allow for automated, two-layer parking. When he looks at this property from a bird’s eye view, he sees equal land between units and parking spaces which makes the statement the car is as important as the Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 12 worker which he feels is wrong. He suggested passing along alternative parking solutions be considered and what could be done with the reclaimed space is up to Council. Ms. Tygre responded this is a good suggestion. Although she is generally in favor of the project, the main problem is the parking, which impacts the density. When looking at the impacts to the neighborhood, the height is not an issue from Castle Creek Rd. She walks the existing path and does not think the view from the Marolt housing will be that much either. This project will not be anywhere near the supermarket so a car will be needed. Even if parking was available at Health and Human Services or the hospital, she does not feel that would be a good solution either. She feels if the parking can’t be addressed, you can’t have the density in this particular project. She suggested alternative solutions be evaluated such a car-to-go that are specific to this project or parking lifts. She also thinks it’s important to allow space for deliveries. Mr. Mesirow asked if there were any other areas to make recommendation. Ms. Garrow then provided a map of the City zoning in relationship to the Greenline, City boundary and urban growth boundary. She noted in much of the county, it is zoned single family. She added staff will look into providing additional information regarding density to Council for their consideration. Mr. McKnight feels it is time to look into other parking solutions. Parking has been an issue with every project that comes before P&Z. He feels it would be good to get these issues in front Council and to everyone who showed up tonight, he suggested them to do their research and provide the information to Council in advance so they are not hit with it at the meeting. It is challenging to digest the information if it is dropped on them at the hearing. Mr. Mesirow stated there has been a tremendous amount of public outreach for this project and while these projects are never perfect, but input is best received from the public members instead of sending a lawyer. Mr. McKnight also suggested they come in with solutions and not just the complaints. Ms. Garrow noted staff failed to list 8040 Greenline and Subdivision as two of the review, so they need to be added. She continued stating based on P&Z’s conversation, where items in section two are listed to be completed or reviewed by Council, she suggested adding to bullet four or add bullet five to explore alternative parking solutions which could include a subgrade garage, other parking storage, or additional TIA improvements such as car-to-go. She noted based on past conversations with the Transportation department, there is a car-to-go at the hospital and they probably will not want to see one added to this project, but they may be open to adding an additional car at the hospital. Mr. Mesirow would like to see something specific to automated parking solutions added. He asked for a review including, but limited to a car stacker system allowing for double height parking be added to the resolution. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if this effort would be to achieve parking spots on site or to achieve additional density. Mr. Mesirow feels this will evaluate the use of the land. Ms. Garrow suggested using a new bullet (#5) stating to explore alternative parking solutions including a sub-grade garage, parking storage including but not limited to a car stacker system and additional TIA improvements such as car-to-go. Mr. Roy clarified this additional language is a supplement to what is already there with respect to their understanding, the project is parked per code and they have the ability to pay a fee-in-lieu along with other TIA requirements. Ms. Tygre stated she would personally hate to see cash-in-lieu used. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission October 24, 2017 13 Mr. Goode motioned to approve Resolution 14, Series 2017 with the stated amendments. Ms. Tygre seconded the motion. Mr. Mesirow requested a roll call. Roll call: Mr. Goode, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. McKnight; yes; Ms. McNicholas, yes; and Mr. Mesirow, yes; for a total of five (5) 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