Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20060404 Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission - Minutes - April 4, 2006 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 MINUTES ........... ........................... ... ... ... ... ... ... ....... ... ... ....... .... .... ........... ... ... ......... ... 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2 1001 UTE SUBDIVISION .......................................................................................3 HAANNAH-DUSTIN SUBDIVISION .................................................................... 3 MOTHERLODE SPECIAL REVIEW..................................................................... 7 1445 RED BUTTE DRIVE SPECIAL REVIEW................................................... 10 1 Aspen Planninl! & Zoninl! Commission - Minutes - April 4, 2006 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission to order at 4:30pm in Council Chambers. Mary Liz Wilson, Brian Speck, Steve Skadron, John Rowland, Dylan Johns, Ruth Kruger and Jasmine Tygre were present. Brandon Marion was excused. Staff present Chris Bendon, James Lindt, Jennifer Phelan, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Jasmine Tygre asked why they want the commission to go back for a Shady Lane site visit. Glenn Horn responded that at the last site visit only 2 Planning Commissioners were present and he thought it would be helpful for the commission to take a look at the proposal to put Shady Lane in the existing easement, which was staked out. Tygre suggested meeting as a group so that there would be input from the other commissioners at the same time. Ruth Kruger asked if the city would treat the alleys like streets for cleaning, better plowing and general maintenance. Chris Bendon emailed Ordinance #12 (the emergency ordinance) to the Commissioners. Bendon stated that he would meet with the commissioners individually or as a group on the Ordinance. Bendon said part of the maintenance of the land use code was to never let it sit; it was constantly being evaluated and changed. Jasmine Tygre suggested a lunch meeting for review of ordinance #12. Ruth Kruger asked for a matrix or summary. Bendon answered the high points were the residential growth base allotment at 37 units per year was now 18 new units; all new affordable housing (each unit) must be 50% above grade; a 2,000 square foot unit size cap in the commercial zones (CC, Cl, MU and C); a 1 to 1 ratio was required between the amount of free-market residential and commercial within those same zone districts so the free-market residential doesn't exceed the commercial. James Lindt suggested a site visit to the Grand Hyatt in association with a workshop on May 9th. MINUTES Motion: Steve Skadron moved to approve the minutes from March 21st; seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. All infavor, APPROVED. (Dylan and John abstained). DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Dylan Johns and John Rowland had conflicts on the MotherLode. Jasmine Tygre on the Hannah Dustin and 1001 Ute Subdivision. 2 Aspen Plan nine: & Zonine: Commission - Minutes - April 4, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING: 1001 UTE SUBDIVISION Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearingfor 1001 Ute Avenue to April 18th; seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. All infavor, APPROVED. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (3/28): HAANNAH-DUSTIN SUBDIVISION Ruth Kruger opened the continued public hearing with notice provided at a previous meeting. James Lindt stated this was a continued public hearing to consider the subdivision and associated land use actions to construct additions to the Hannah Dustin Building at 300 South Spring Street. Lindt explained the proposal was a 3 story office space addition to the northwestern comer of the existing building and a two bedroom affordable housing unit and a residential addition to the building where the existing parking lot is located (just east of the existing building). The proposal includes 2 free-market residential units (about 4500 square feet each) and 2 sub-grade affordable housing units (30% of the total free market residential floor area in the project). The applicant proposed a bench as a pedestrian amenity, a sidewalk to extend along Hyman Avenue (the sidewalk currently ends at the end of the neighboring Benedict Commons building), street tree landscaping along East Hyman Avenue as well as along Spring Street. The applicant proposed parking off the alley and in the garages for the residential units. Lindt noted the elevator tower on the residential component was brought down to meet the height requirements. Lindt said the proposed pedestrian amenity location was moved from the comer area to the courtyard area by the existing Hannah- Dustin Building. Lindt said the applicant proposed the residential component entrance to be about 8 feet from sidewalk grade; staff would like P&Z to review. Lindt said the other discussion issues were the sub-grade affordable housing units; the code at the time of application did not prohibit affordable housing units from being below grade but Council voiced concern for the livability of below grade units. Stan Clauson, planner for applicant, introduced Hans Berglund, architect; Jeffrey Halferty, commercial designer; Rod Dyer, architect; Joe Krabacher, attorney for the project. Clauson emphasized the heights, setbacks and floor area all were fully conforming to the code; this was not a PUD. Clauson stated the allowable square 3 Aspen Plan nine: & Zonine: Commission - Minutes - April 4, 2006 footage was 9,000 square feet; the 2 residential townhouses equal 8,990 square feet; the affordable housing requirement was 2,700 square feet and this project provides 2,718 square feet. Clauson said the affordable housing units conform to the housing guidelines; the one under the commercial unit is 877 square feet and the two under the residential addition are 894 square feet and 947 square feet. Clauson said the site was constrained for parking; the free-market residential parking was fully provided for and there were 2 spaces on the alley along with the dumpster and recycling area. Clauson said the sidewalk was attached to the curb; the pedestrian amenity was relocated; the height of the building was 32 feet; the elevator tower is in the 5 foot conformance for that kind of pertinent structure. Clauson said the commercial building meets the commercial design standards and the residential first floor was actually 2 feet below grade, which meets the residential design standard but the main floor was above grade. Clauson distributed photos of adjacent projects with steps up to the main entry levels, which were the second level. Clauson said the code applied to the sub-grade housing with the thought that it would increase the amount of affordable housing that was being generated within the infill area. Clauson said these affordable housing units met the code. Dylan Johns asked what happens to the existing and new parking spaces for the Hannah-Dustin Building. Lindt replied they will pay cash-in-lieu for the spaces required as is allowed by the code and was in the resolution as a condition of approval. Lindt said that 2 spaces would be provided for the existing offices. Steve Skadron askedwhat has to be 50% above grade (the floor that you are standing on) in the affordable housing portion of the emergency ordinance. Lindt responded that 50% of the finished floor area has to be above grade (above finished or natural grade, whichever is higher). Skadron asked Stan what percentage of the finished floor area in these affordable housing units was above grade; zero. Clauson replied yes. Skadron asked where the dollars go for the cash- in-lieu paid for parking. Lindt replied the dollars go into a fund for establishing a new parking garage in the future; the money is earmarked for parking. Ruth Kruger said that if the money wasn't used within 7 years it goes back to the applicant. Skadron asked if any money has been refunded. Lindt answered that he did not think so. Brian Speck asked if the elevator towers were eliminated. Clauson replied the elevator had to be fully accessible and penetrate up through the roof area but the 4 Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission - Minutes - April 4, 2006 tower is within the 5 foot height limit. Hans Berglund utilized drawings depicting the elevator towers set back about 35 feet from the front of the building; the elevation shows the towers that would not be seen from street level. Ruth Kruger asked what the new parking requirements were for commercial and residential. Lindt replied the applicant can pay in lieu of providing those parking spaces and no longer requires a special review for the payment in lieu, which were 6 for the commercial and 3 for the affordable housing units ($270,000.00). Kruger asked the zoning on this property. Lindt responded that it was Mixed Use. Skadron asked if this, offering the option of cash-in-lieu, allows the developer flexibility. Skadron said the parking dictated the design of the building because the responsibility of the developer is lessened since they can simply write a check for parking. Public Comments: I. Eban Clark, attorney for the 700 East Hyman owners, asked about the height of the elevator shafts. Clark question Jasmine recusing herself when she was at the last hearing. Clark asked for clarification for the pedestrian amenity as a bench adequately addresses that amenity. Clark said that in section 26.304.03 it states the City of Aspen shall not accept or review more than one development application concurrently on one property and Growth Management 26.470.060. Ruth Kruger noted the prior application was denied so it was no longer pending. Clark spoke about the pending lawsuit. Kruger stated that was not appropriate for Mr. Clark to discuss the lawsuit in this public hearing. 2. Fred Martel, public, asked how high the fireplace stack was and was it as high as the elevator shafts. Stan Clauson responded to Attorney Clark with 3 changes to the plans: the entries to the townhouses were relocated to the outer edges of the structure; the elevator towers heights were lowered to conform to the five foot limit for mechanical equipment and the pedestrian amenity has been relocated to a mid-block location on Spring Street. Clauson stated the elevator tower was required by the International Residential Code (IRC) because of access issues; the architects were able to bring that to below the five foot height limit; the chimney was also no higher than the five foot height limit. Jeffrey Halferty stated the elevator was hydraulic piston with a deep well in the sub-grade space. Clauson stated the elevator shafts were 35 feet from the front of the building. Joe Krabacher, attorney for the applicant, said the applications considered complete shall be processed according to the Land Use Code in effect on the date 5 Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission - Minutes - April 4, 2006 of submission. Krabacher said the applicant is allowed by right to put the affordable housing sub-grade. Krabacher spoke of the code changes over the years. Krabacher said there was a substantial parking structure underneath the Benedict Commons and the City currently leased out spaces and they were hopeful that the cash-in-lieu that this project provided for parking could go into something such as a parking structure. Clauson said they looked into leasing spaces from the Benedict Commons and found there to be a waiting list. Mary Liz Wilson asked if the Hyman Avenue sidewalk was attached and what does that mean. Clauson responded it was attached to the curb or directly behind the curb; a detached sidewalk had street, curb, and parkway consisting of grass or landscape and then the sidewalk against the property line. Clauson said that in front of the Benedict Commons it was an attached sidewalk and they will do whatever the engineer wants them to do. Lindt stated that staff encouraged detached sidewalks from the curb because it was safer with maintenance lessened and with proper street tree planting in the parkway. Wilson asked about the trash compactor and if a lot of businesses had them. Lindt answered that it was more common now. Steve Skadron asked how the city determined the equivalency of 15% for the bench as a pedestrian amenity. Lindt replied that it was discretionary on the part of the commission; you can suggest the applicant amend their plans if you don't think it is an appropriate amenity. Skadron asked about the transition between this project and the Benedict Building. Clauson said the townhouse building was aligned with the Benedict Commons Building. John Rowland said that he found nothing adverse. Dylan Johns said parking was a systemic issue that was going around and saw the need for parking; this solution meets code requirements. Johns said it was hard to determine the value of the pedestrian space; he thought that the pedestrian amenity had more value when it was in programmed areas for the building. Johns said that the raised entries were common in urban settings and he did not have a problem with it. Johns said the affordable housing placement was allowed by code and the code has been changed. Brian Speck said that Dylan addressed some of his concerns and parking was a concern; the city has had opportunity to look at parking. Speck said that the overall requirements fit the code. Ruth Kruger stated concern for the parking and realized that this application fits within the parking requirements and was appropriate for the Commercial Core but 6 Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission - Minutes - April 4, 2006 wasn't sure about the appropriateness for the C1 and Mixed Use District; the commissioners should discuss this in the future work session. Kruger said there will be a huge parking deficit created and perhaps that will force the city to actually build a parking garage. Kruger said she had concerns about the livability in the affordable housing units. Kruger said there was a tragic loss of parking that the parking garage project did not gain approval however the developer came forward with another project that fits within the guidelines. Skadron added that he agreed with Ruth's comments on this project for the parking and affordable housing units but they meet the requirement set forth in the code; it leaves him no option but to support it. Skadron said that his preference would be the detached sidewalk; there was an aesthetic benefit in the summer months. Skadron said that a bench was not an appropriate equivalency for a pedestrian amenity. Clauson responded that it was a true pedestrian amenity with pavements, landscaping, lighting, bench seating to be designed with the Parks Department; the judgment call was the amount equivalent to what the cash-in-lieu would be. Skadron said his immediate reaction was to have an open space with nothing in it. MOTION: Brian Speck moved to approve Resolution #009, Series 2006, approving with conditions the Hannah Dustin Building commercial design review, commercial design standard variance for a street relationship, special review to vary the size of the trash/utility/recycling area, and growth management reviews, and recommending that City Council approve with conditions the requested Hannah Dustin Subdivision for several additions to the building at 300 South Spring Street, consisting of 2,440 square feet of new leaseable space, two (2) free market residential units and three (3) affordable housing units. Dylan Johns seconded. Roll call vote: Rowland, yes; Wilson, yes; Skadron, yes; Speck, yes; Johns, yes; Kruger, yes. APPROVED 6-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (3/21): MOTHERLODE SPECIAL REVIEW Jasmine Tygre opened the continued Public Hearing on the MotherLode Special Review. Notice was previously provided. Jennifer Phelan stated the special review and growth management review for the development of affordable housing for the Motherlode LLC represented by Stan Clauson. Phelan said the property was located in the commercial core and was a historic landmark. The prior approval was for 2 free market and 2 affordable housing units with a total of 4 off-street parking spaces. 7 Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission - Minutes - April 4, 2006 Phelan said this application was for a proposal to combine the 2 free-market units into I free-market unit and the 2 affordable housing units into I affordable housing unit and to reduce the off-street parking from 4 parking spaces to 3 spaces. Phelan said that both reviews were final at Council with a recommendation from P&Z. Staff believes that the proposal does not meet the applicable special review standards established in the land use code and feels the applicant could accommodate the onsite 4 off-street parking spaces. The I bedroom affordable housing unit was proposed at 944 square feet; the housing authority reviewed the new proposal and the current configuration of I unit would meet the housing guidelines and not require a parking space because it was a voluntary affordable housing unit under the current code. Staff believed the affordable housing met the goals the AACP; staff would rather see 2 units rather than I unit but as a voluntary unit it met the code. Staff recommended not granting special review to reduce the off-street parking. Phelan stated that there were 2 resolutions in the packet: Option A would approve both the special review to reduce the parking and to approve the growth management review for the affordable housing; Option B makes a recommendation to approve the special review for the growth management for the affordable housing. Stan Clauson stated that the affordable housing unit was not required as mitigation, it was a voluntary unit and therefore it represents a unit that might not exist in the Commercial Core. Clauson said that since there were half the number of units from the original approval; the three space now represent a greater amount of parking relative to the residential unit count than was provided in the original application. Clauson said 1 parking space was dedicated to the affordable housing unit and the other 2 spaces were dedicated to the free-market residential unit with the balance of area for a service yard of sufficient size to meet the needs of the building and an egress area required by code. Clauson said that nothing changes with the exterior of the building with the exception ofthe organization of the parking at the rear of the building at the alley. Ruth Kruger asked what was really going on here; according to the MLS there was an 11,000 square foot free-market unit being advertised. Kruger said that she has been disturbed about this project since the very first ad that she saw in the paper advertising something for 14,000 square feet. Clauson responded that it was difficult for him to account for the way some brokers represent properties; it was very clear that cannot be larger than a 6,000 square foot free-market unit there period. Clauson said that he could only apologize for the ad but could not account for it. Kruger said that she just wanted to know what was going to be built and 8 Aspen Plan nine: & Zonine: Commission - Minutes - April 4, 2006 what would happen after the project was approved. Clauson replied the free- market unit could only apply for a 6,000 square feet building permit and would be inspected. Kruger said that she found it disturbing and an insult to her industry. Jasmine Tygre seconded Ruth's comments; the reason this was of concern was that as realtors they discover that the ADU was considered the fifth bedroom in many cases and never used as an ADU. Tygre stated that the commission has to rely on representations made by the applicant at the time of review, which were completely different from the realtor's representations; the commission has no idea what they are really approving. Tygre said that once the approval was gained then the owner does whatever they please. Phelan said that there was a process with a standard of I to I floor area ratio. Kruger said the only way that she could support this is if the affordable unit was a "for sale" unit so that it was actually owned by separate person. Lindt stated that there was a condition proposed in the resolution that requires this was unit to follow the housing guidelines. Tygre asked what category it was restricted to. Lindt replied Category 2. The commission questioned a Category 2 unit in this type of project. Steve Skadron said that a single affordable housing and single residential free market was immeasurable in the depth to his disappointment; the benefit was solely to the developer and not to the greater community. These kind of applications cast skepticism on all other applications. Kruger stated infill was to increase density in the downtown core and not create monster houses; what we have here is nothing more than a monster home in the central core and it was an affront to all of the work the commission did to create the infill. Staff had similar concerns however there was a subdivision amendment applied for in conjunction with the request that P&Z was reviewing this evening, which was reviewed by Council and not by P&Z. Kruger said that she was glad that Council was the final say on the way this was split. Kruger stated that the intent of infill was to increase density and this did not increase density. Tygre agreed with Ruth on the futility of under parking; even though the unit count was lower the square footage remained the same. Tygre state the parking spaces were really valuable amenities to the building regardless of the configuration as well as to the community; it would be short sighted from a market standpoint to reduce the parking. Kruger noted this was a sixty foot lot and the minimum width for a parking space was ten feet; she did not agree with the decrease in parking. Steve Skadron agreed; the reduction of the number of units did not justify the request for under parking the spot. Mary Liz Wilson stated that to have a 9 Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission - Minutes - April 4, 2006 residential unit that size was not what was intended for the core. Brian Speck agreed. Kip Kummer, architect, said that during the design of the building after the approvals; the mechanical took up about 18 feet. Kummer said planning for four cars was found to be not very efficient use of the space making everything fit within 60 feet. Tygre asked as an architect and planner when you know that 4 spaces are required why don't you put that as a given and work your plan around that. Kummer responded that they tried that with the prior approvals before the design was finalized and in terms of working out the design of placement of equipment that needs to be accessible for the building. Speck commented that after returning from Japan we need to be more flexible where things are placed. Speck said that we need to be more sensitive to parking. Skadron agreed and said the code said 4 spots, make your lifestyle work with what you have. Public Comments: Shawn Goodin said that the advertising included garage space, outdoor living space, storage space, and basement, which was over 6,000 square feet (the footprint of the property). MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #14, Series 2006 Option A; seconded by Mary Liz Wilson. Roll call vote: Skadron, no; Speck, no; Kruger, no; Wilson, no; Tygre, no. DENIED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 1445 RED BUTTE DRIVE SPECIAL REVIEW Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for 1445 Red Butte Drive. Proof of notice was provided. Jennifer Phelan stated the application was a special review for variances from the Accessory Dwelling Unit and Carriage House Design Standards; the representative was Martin Mata. Phelan said there was a single family residence on the property and the request was to build a Carriage House with 1,756 net livable square feet and allowing the basement to be installed. The ADU or Carriage House would be 906 square feet on the ground floor and a basement of 850 square feet to include a laundry room, mechanical and storage. Staff finds the detached carriage house with the full basement will add to the overall livability of that unit. However the mechanical room would serve the property as a whole and the only access would be going 10 Aspen Plannine: & Zonine: Commission - Minutes - April 4, 2006 through the carriage house into the basement. Phelan said one of the standards is that it is its own dwelling unit; the resolution includes a condition that states the mechanical room only serves the carriage house or that there was an access from the outdoors to access only that mechanical room. Martin Mata said that they have a building permit application in Community Developemnt and the Housing Office approved the unit; the basement would be a change order to that permit. Mata said that they can comply with the condition in the resolution of the mechanical room serving the CDU only and not the rest of the property. No public comments. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #15, Series 2006, approving with conditions Special Review to approve variances for the ADU and Carriage House Design Standards to construct a Carriage House located 1445 Red Butte Drive as the request meets the review standards of Land Use Code 26.520.080D, Special Review with the condition that the mechanical room serive only the Carriage House. Brain Speck seconded. Roll call vote: Skadron, yes; Wilson, yes; Speck, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 7pm. ':ftuku. :f~ Jackie LothIan, Deputy City Clerk II .