Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20171205Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2017 1 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the December 5, 2017 meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Mr. Ryan Walterscheid, Mr. Keith Goode, Mr. Spencer McKnight and Mr. Skippy Mesirow. Mr. Rally Dupps, Ms. Kelly McNicholas Kury and Ms. Jasmine Tygre were not present. Also present from City staff; Mr. James R. True, City Attorney, Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director of Planning, Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner and Mr. Justin Barker, Senior Planner. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Klob commented there will be three openings on the board as of January 2018 and asked the commissioners to encourage people to apply for the positions. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were none. MINUTES Mr. McKnight motioned to approve the November 7th minutes and Mr. Goode seconded the motion. All in favor, the motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Walterscheid stated he would recuse himself from the 700 Ute Ave hearing. PUBLIC HEARINGS – 700 Ute Ave – Aspen Alps – Planned Development Amendment Mr. Mesirow asked if legal notice had been provided to which Mr. True replied it had been submitted. The affidavits were submitted as Exhibit C. Mr. Mesirow then opened the hearing and turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner, stated this detailed review is the last in a three-step process for a project to replace the Aspen Alps 300 building. She then noted the location of the project on the Aspen Alps campus and added it is located in the Lodge (L) zone district. The campus consists of seven free market buildings and functions similarly as The Gant. Units are often rented out to the public. She then provided pictures of the current 300 building and stated it was designed by Fritz Benedict. The building needs to be replaced because it is structurally compromised and suffers from lateral loading. The repair of the building would require extensive geotechnical work at great expense with no Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2017 2 guarantees the repairs would address the issues. The applicant has elected to pursue an amendment to the development approval in order to replace and upgrade the existing building. In an earlier review and approval of the project by Council, two conditions were included with the approval. 1. Add a kitchenette to lock-off unit 309B which has been included in the plan set. 2. The P&Z Commission should consider the materials, fenestration and decks on the street-facing elevation in order for the design to be more cohesive with the rest of the campus and provide a better street orientation. She provided a picture containing the Council approved drawing, the current proposed design with updated materials. The materials will be similar to what already exists including wood siding, stone chimney elements, metal clad windows, transparent railings and a green roof. In addition to the material changes, overhangs were added to the design to add more horizontality and a reference to the Benedict design. The fenestration was also enlarged on both the left and right sides, decks were also added resulting in a reduction of the maximum floor area from 19,804 sf to 19,718 sf or roughly an 86 sf reduction. She noted typically changes to the approved dimensions are not in the Detail Review, but in this case, there is an exception. Council granted the ability to amend the maximum floor area in order to accommodate the new deck areas. They had anticipated an increase, but the applicant was able to achieve a reduction in the overall floor area. All other dimensions of the project fall within the dimensions of the approval ordinance. Ms. Seminick noted there is a typo in the resolutions. Corrected versions were distributed to P&Z in regard to the new floor area change. She noted in Section 3, it should be amended to read 19,781 sf. She stated the project has been in the review process since early 2015 and over the nearly three-year long process, the applicant has continued to work with Staff, P&Z and Council to work towards the final design. She then provided a series of slides demonstrating the evolution of the project. Staff finds the design meets Council’s conditions of approval and therefore recommends approval. Mr. Mesirow asked for any questions of staff. Mr. Mesirow asked if the entrances from the original design are now behind vertical elements. Ms. Seminick then pointed where the entrances are now located. He asked about the access to the balconies and Ms. Seminick replied the balconies have private access. Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services, then introduced the applicant team. • John Corcoran, General Manager of the Aspen Alps • Gilbert Sanchez, Project Architect, Gilbert Sanchez Architect • Jesse Swan, Project Engineer, Sopris Engineering Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2017 3 • Sam Baucum, Bluegreen Landscape Architecture • Tom Todd, Attorney for the Association, Holland & Hart LLP • Pam Cunningham, former Aspen Alps General Manager Mr. Richman noted the applicant team is appreciative of Staff’s support on this project and entirely comfortable with the conditions proposed in the draft resolution. Mr. Richman wanted to note the Aspen Alps has been a part of Aspen for a very long time. This building is over 50 years old as described, needs to be replaced. The vast majority of the units are in a rental pool and available to visitors of Aspen. He also reminded the commission the scope of the current review and the project team is not proposing any departures at this time. Mr. Sanchez then walked though architectural design. He noted in general, Council was happy with the elevations viewed by P&Z, but expressed concerns with the monolithic design and wanted more three- dimensional relief which is more consistent with Benedict’s designs. Mr. Sanchez stated they worked with the owners and reconfigured the layout to allow for the balconies to be added which creates the shadow lines and breaks up the massing. By reshaping the building, they were able to reduce the highest part of the building. Mr. Sanchez then reviewed the material selection including wood siding, stone veneer and board framed concrete. Cable rails will be used to reduce the amount of glass. He displayed an elevation demonstrating the materials and described how the texture, graining and placement of the materials further reduces the monolithic quality. The use of stone, with its lighter color, on the foundation helps the building overall to feel wider. He then displayed elevations for each side of the building. He noted materials on the lawn side will be primarily concrete balconies and glazing. Mr. Mesirow asked for any questions of the applicant. Mr. Goode asked if they still plan to maintain the blue spruce located behind the building. Mr. Sanchez stated they are planning to maintain it along with some cottonwoods. Mr. Mesirow asked what they are doing differently this time to ensure the same geological issues do not happen to the new building. Mr. Sanchez replied the new building will have a substantial concrete foundation lacking in the current building. Mr. Mesirow Skippy asked if they designed for current and future conditions and Mr. Sanchez replied the engineers consider the existing and future conditions. Mr. Mesirow then opened for public comment, which there was none, so he closed this portion of the hearing. Mr. Mesirow then opened for commissioner discussion. Mr. McKnight thinks it looks great. Mr. Goode believes the design is amazing and the project is a great example of everyone working together. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2017 4 Mr. Mesirow feels it has improved over time and likes the wood siding. He particularly likes the addition of the green roof. He is also in favor of the project. Mr. Goode motioned to approve Resolution 16, Series 2017 as amended. Mr. McKnight seconded the motion. Mr. Mesirow requested a roll call. Roll call: Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. McKnight; yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; for a total of three (3) yes votes and zero (0) no votes. The motion was approved. Mr. Mesirow then closed the hearing. PUBLIC HEARINGS – 210 W Main St – Growth Management, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit Mr. Mesirow asked if legal notice had been provided to which Mr. True replied it appears sufficient. The affidavits were submitted as exhibit E. He then opened the hearing and turned the floor over to staff. Mr. Justin Barker, Planner, reviewed the project. The property is a 6,000 sf lot located in a mixed use (MU) zone district and the Main Street Historic District. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) has reviewed the conceptual design and will also be reviewing the final design. Currently, there are six free- market units, one affordable housing unit and one combination commercial\residential unit on the site. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure development and build eight affordable housing units with the intention of establishing credits for the units. The design consists of three structures with two two-story buildings facing Main St and one three-story structure on the back of the property. Mr. Barker explained the Growth Management Review which is both the demolition of the existing housing and the development of the new housing and the creation of the credits. He stated in most scenarios, the demolition of multi-family housing requires some form of housing mitigation which is typically accomplished by providing 50% of the existing number of units as Category 4 units or 100% of the units as resident-occupied (RO) units. Once completed, the same number of free market units can be built back that had been previously demolished. A third option stated if the existing number of units are torn down and replaced only with affordable housing. The applicant is proposing the third option for this project. Mr. Barker stated there are criteria related to the affordable housing. He added the project meets option one and two. 1. 50% of the net livable is located above grade. 2. Sale is recommended as the preferred option, however rental is permitted in certain scenarios including replacing with 100% affordable housing. 3. Project complies with the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) guidelines. Mr. Barker stated in terms of the APCHA guidelines, the project needs a recommendation from the APCHA Board. The board reviewed the application on November 1st and recommended approval with some conditions. The guidelines identify the minimal net livable for two-bedroom units is 900 sf. The number may be reduced by the board up to 20% if criteria has been met. The board is looking for above average units before allowing any reduction. Mr. Barker displayed a table as shown on p330 of the Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2017 5 packet. He stated the units could down as low as 720 sf and the proposed units exceed this amount in most of the situations by a fairly good margin. The applicant is requesting about 16% on only two units and the others is about 6% - 7%. APCHA was comfortable with the proposed unit sizes and recommended approval noting the significant storage outside of the unit. The basement of the project will be for mechanical and extra storage. The units are all above grade as well. Mr. Barker then discussed the criteria for the certificates of affordable housing credits. Staff found the criteria has been met. He noted the requirements for issuing the credits include: 1. Deed restrictions must be in place and filed 2. Certificates of Occupancies must be granted for each of the units 3. The units must be Category 4 or lower as defined by the applicant. APCHA recommends 50% of the units be Category 4 and the balance being 4 or lower. Staff’s recommendation is supportive of the approval of the project. Mr. Mesirow asked for any questions of staff. Mr. Goode asked when the current building was built. Mr. Ted Guy, applicant, stated the back building was probably built in the 1950’s or early 1960’s. The front building was built on Waters Ave and moved to a block foundation in the late 1960’s, early 1970’s. Mr. Mesirow asked for clarification of the approval process and wanted to know if it goes back to Council. Mr. Barker replied the next step would be to go HPC for the final design review. He added the mass and scale have already been approved by HPC. Mr. Mesirow asked if they receive credits for the existing affordable housing units. Mr. Barker replied if the commercial use converts back to free market where the combined commercial\residential unit exists currently, the affordable housing is no longer required. Mr. Mesirow asked who will be managing the project. Mr. Barker replied the applicant would, not APCHA. Mr. Guy stated he may manage it with the other affordable housing group in the valley. Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to the applicant. Ms. Sara Adams, BendonAdams, then introduced Mr. Ted Guy, the applicant. Mr. Guy stated they are happy with staff’s recommendation. He noted the team went through a lot of design work with HPC. Ms. Adams provided slides depicting the existing conditions. She then provided slides of the proposed project, noting it will consist of eight two-bedroom units. The applicant is requesting Category Four or less for the 100% rental project. There are six parking spaces off the alley. Seven spaces are required, but HPC waived one parking space. There is exterior storage for all the units and an interior courtyard protected by the structure from the traffic and dust of Main St. She continued stating the project has a focus on livability including the following. • A bike rack • Two bathrooms for each unit Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2017 6 • Private outdoor porch or balcony for each unit. She then provided site plans and described the location of the parking, the units, trash, exterior storage, the two ADA units, and the basement. She added Mr. Guy may be able to squeeze more storage out of the basement. Ms. Adams then displayed floor plans. She noted the project was heard by HPC three times during the conceptual review. They ended up with a stacked unit in one corner to provide relief to the Tyrolean Lodge. She then displayed elevations of the project noting they would be returning to HPC for the final design review. She then reviewed their request including: • 100% rental project • Category Four or less - The first proposed Category 3 or less and after many meetings with APCHA and working through the financials. • Housing credit approval for 18 FTEs Mr. Mesirow asked for any questions of the applicant. Mr. McKnight asked what the estimated rent would be for Category Four. Mr. Guy replied he does not know. He stated the Category Three is about $1,635 per month for a two-bedroom. Mr. Mesirow asked if the credit is different for different categories. Ms. Adams stated it is the same because the number of FTEs is based on the number of bedrooms. He asked if they originally considered Category Three because it is more favorable. Mr. Guy replied you can get more fee-in-lieu with the lower categories, but you also get lower rental income so it is a balance of short-term vs. long-term. Mr. Mesirow asked why he decided to make it a rental instead of a sale project. Mr. Guy stated he always wanted to make it a rental project and feels Mike Kosdrosky, APCHA Director, does not care for sale projects. Mr. Guy wanted to provide a couple of long term tenants the opportunity to purchase their units in the new project. Ms. Adams stated if they wanted to make them for sale, they would have to amend this resolution. Mr. Mesirow asked if more density was considered. Mr. Guy replied HPC did not like the mass and scale of a single building. Mr. Guy originally designed it with one L-shaped building with a much larger courtyard. Ms. Adams stated the density of the project is driven by the available parking. HPC waived the parking by one space. Mr. Barker stated the applicant was granted special approval for a higher floor area which allows the project to have more density than typically allowed. Mr. Mesirow asked if they could have fit more parking spaces, would HPC have been acceptable of more density. Mr. Guy and Ms. Adams did not feel HPC would have approved more density and noted HPC would only approve a two-story building on Main St. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2017 7 Mr. Walterscheid finds it interesting APCHA is not allowing the conversion to sale units because the last few projects before P&Z were allowed the option. Mr. True noted a necessary amendment in Section 1 where City Council is mentioned. It should be P&Z. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Guy his preference regarding the categories. Mr. Guy believes they will all be Category Three, but none would be Category One. Ms. Adams stated they want the flexibility and exercise what is in the code. Mr. True stated he is struggling with the way it is written to allow for Mr. Guy to select all the categories. Ms. Phelan stated the land use code allows for Category Four or lower for credits. Ms. Adams believes the City recently did something similar for their projects and Mr. Barker confirmed this was true. Mr. Mesirow then opened for public comment, which there was none, so he closed this portion of the hearing. Mr. Mesirow then opened for commissioner discussion. Mr. Goode feels the building needs to be replaced, but will miss it as a part of Aspen’s messy character. Mr. Guy noted it was on the cover of the 1993 AACP. He added they will try to reuse the materials on the back of the building and in the courtyard. Mr. McKnight also likes the project and finds APCHA’s stance a bit odd regarding the rental instead of sale. Mr. Mesirow stated he is in favor of letting them select the category to allow them to get the project done. He sees this as another example of the credits program working. He also likes the green roof. He hopes that this is not another example of the lack of creativity in parking that is impacting the density of a project. Mr. McKnight motioned to approve Resolution 17, Series 2017 with the suggested amendment to Section one change City Council to P&Z. Mr. Goode seconded the motion. Mr. Mesirow requested a roll call. Roll call: Mr. McKnight; yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; and Mr. Mesirow, yes; for a total of four (4) 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