Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.201802061 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 2018 Vice Chairperson Walterscheid called the meeting to order at 4:34 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Spencer McNight, Rally Dupps, Ryan Walterscheid, Kelly McNicholas. Absent was Skippy Mesirow. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Justin Barker, Senior Planner Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director Phillip Supino, Principal Long Range Planner COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. McNight mentioned Jasmine Tygre’s retirement from P&Z and suggested recognizing her or having a party in her honor. I said that Linda and I will discuss and reach out to her to see when is a good time. I also let the board know that Mr. Goode resigned from P&Z today and that the City is looking for two regular members and two alternates and to please send people our way. STAFF COMMENTS: None. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ms. McNicholas motioned to approve the minutes of December 19th and January 16th, Mr. McNight seconded. All in favor, motion carried. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None. PUBLIC HEARING: 230 E. Hopkins Avenue Justin Barker This is a final commercial design review and growth amendment for the Mountain Forge building. The property is a 6000-sq. ft. lot and zoned as mixed use. The existing property includes one affordable housing unit and the rest is commercial. This is at the corner of Hopkins and Monarch and just across from White House Tavern. The proposed project includes a remodel of the existing building and relocating the affordable housing unit within the existing structure and adding one free market unit to the upper floor of the property. This project received conceptual approval in June or July of 2016 and is subject to the pre-moratorium code. The two reviews for tonight include final commercial design review. This will deal with materials, fenestration, landscaping, lighting and public amenity. The other review is the growth management amendment and the reason for this is that the conceptual approval included two free market units on the second floor and the applicant has revised the application since then and is now down to one free market unit. In terms of commercial design, Mr. Barker showed slides of materials, fenestration and landscaping. Regarding growth management, at conceptual, this was approved as two free market units with a combined area of 2249 sq. ft., which calculated out to a mitigation total of 1.69 FTE’s through affordable housing credits. The revised design for final, sort of changes the layout down to one unit. The sq. footage is slightly higher than what was for the two combined units so what was 313 square feet is now up to 1.73 FTE’s. What is going to be addressed in 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 2018 this review is the overall size of the unit and has been written into the resolution. The second item, is the .04 FTE’s above what was originally approved and has been written into the resolution and accommodated in the increase in affordable housing credits. Since the unit is slightly larger, there is a slight reduction in the commercial area, so those numbers that have changed, are updated in the resolution. Staff is recommending approval and has added a condition for the FTE’s. Ms. McNicholas asked if there is a mechanism to confirm that the employee housing unit is occupied by an actual employee. Mr. Barker said this all takes place through APCHA and he is sure they have some level of enforcement. He said he is not sure about how they receive documentation about that, but it is completely governed through APCHA. Ms. McNicholas asked if ComDev informs APCHA of the space and if it is added into their inventory to track and Mr. Barker said yes, APCHA reviews the application. Ms. Phelan said that APCHA also approves the deed restriction so they are made aware at that point. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Dana Ellis of Roland and Broughton and Brett Krudener of Stan Clauson Associates. Ms. Ellis mentioned for the record that John Roland is in attendance as well as the owners of the property. Ms. Ellis said they took consideration from City Council on the volume along Monarch so they have made some edits there and noted that the building itself has gone from a grey tone to much warmer. As far as existing conditions, they are trying to keep the building intact from a demolition standpoint, while trying to modernize it. They are still under the proposed allowable floor area and their objectives are to remodel and recognize common neighborhood forms while creating a better use of the site features. They are keeping the courtyard level important for commercial use and feel they are meeting and exceeding the goals of a mixed-use area. They have spent a lot of time thinking about the pedestrian experience and the compatibility of materials, etc. Mr. True entered the meeting. Mr. Krudener spoke about landscaping and said the footprint will remain the same and the façade will remain as specified. Their focus was really on sidewalk improvements and off-site amenities. This is located at a prominent intersection and they want to accentuate the remodel and pedestrian space and corridor. At the front façade, they are incorporating concrete or stone paving bookended on the south side with a steel wall and mountain graphic with a backlight. Within the plaza space, they have incorporated slab stone benches to offset from the wall and landscaping. There will be some monumentation dedicated to Francis Whitaker, which would be a small plaque of some sort with minimal info to the historic component to the site. The paving, from his side of things, is to stop users from passing through and take a moment to browse the history and take in the site and take notice of the architecture and what is being done there. Around the other side of building, there will be some simple plantings and some light parking. Ms. Ellis pointed out that the joint pattern proposed for the sidewalk mimics what is around the crystal palace and has been done historically. It was a way for them to do a subtle nod to the Forge history of the site. The exterior materials they are looking at would be brick for the central volume, a core tin steel 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 2018 siding done in a modern application, but not super rough. There would be a super warm wood finish exterior. Ms. Ellis passed around samples to the board. She feels they are sticking to a concept of the materials relating to the adjacent residential zones. She said they didn’t want to do painted wood and they felt that high quality materials were appropriate. The central volume is broken up and relates to the White House Tavern across the way. The corner is mainly wood with metal being the railing material. The wood transitions highlight the residential forms. As far as fenestration, they are looking at doing dynamic windows, which would be metal clad aluminum. On the first-floor storefronts, they are assuming they have to replace fenestration. Those store fronts both on the main and lower level, they are looking at doing a black clad window. They are looking at Pella and their wood windows because they have a low profile. They will look the same as the ones above and work better with the dimensions that exist. A big change is taking what was two small windows and opening them up so it’s all glazing for the commercial space inside. They are replacing the windows on the second floor and creating a more linear look. The opening to the commercial space stays as it is with an upgraded door system. They will add step lighting on the stairs and recessed canned lighting where they can. Any of the decorative lighting is an understated metal, but references the Forge look. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. McNicholas asked what the theme is behind the landscaping. Mr. Krudener said the intention around the monument would be seasonal colors that can be changed out. On the other side would be grasses with a minimal water requirement and similar plantings. Ms. Ellis said they will also need to upgrade the right of way grasses, which will also be low water use. Mr. Krudener said they are also proposing a green wall or living wall in the courtyard space. It’s not zero scape, but close. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ruth Carver Ms. Carver asked questions about the plans regarding the white hanging pots and the sidewalk going past the monument. Mr. Krudener said the Forge was crafted with a ledger piece where planters can be used. It’s an idea and they are flower pots, essentially. Ms. Ellis said the sidewalk does go right past the monument and is ADA accessible. Mr. Krudener said that on the monument, there is a core tin steel wall cut out and backlit from within and there is a bench inside of it. It will be 4 to 8 inches dependent upon materials. They will be depicting an anvil and a hammer with a date range for Francis Whitaker with a quote and the base thickness is 24 to 34 inches. Public comment closed. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. McNight said he likes it, thinks it’s a good design and agrees with staff. He likes the paving and the flower pots, white or not. This project has his approval. Mr. Dupps said he agrees and doesn’t have anything further to add. Ms. McNicholas said that everything shown in white might look better black, as the applicant has suggested. Even the flower pots, which she does like. Ms. McNicholas verified that staff added the TDR into the resolution, which Mr. Barker confirmed. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 2018 MOTION: Ms. McNicholas motioned to approve resolution #1, Mr. McNight seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Ms. McNicholas, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Mr. McNight, yes. 4-0 motion carried. Mr. Supino gave the board an update on the miscellaneous code section of the land use code. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Walterscheid said this discussion probably has more effect for him and the way in which it is implemented has way more weight, than the actual numbers. This is completely about the way you go about doing it. He is interested in this because it is drastically important to his work. Mr. Supino said they are most concerned with the methodology and the focus of their discussions. Mr. Walterscheid noted that he is very interested in what they are changing the methodology to since he is not on the board of consultants for this project. Mr. Barker said that they do want to run a few test projects through because it will make a dramatic difference and they need to determine how to adjust, etc. Mr. Dupps exited the meeting. Ms. McNicholas asked about calculating grade and said she doesn’t get it at all and how this will be done in the future without manifesting a very different result. Mr. Supino said that grade relative to height is a perfect example and there are many instances where grade is manipulated up or down on a site. Ms. McNicholas clarified that when these changes get adopted, they will compare the pre- and post-changed permits and Mr. Supino agreed. She asked if people are on to this and Mr. Supino said yes, very much. Ms. McNicholas said the thing that raises a flag for her, is the fact that this board relies on the code. If something like vesting rights, comes down to the only reason to deny something is in policy, is that a defensible reason or defensible document for us to use simply based on the subsidy that they would be getting. Mr. Supino, said in general, the information provided to a board is sufficient grounds to base a decision and must line up with the standards provided in the code, but something like the granting of an extension, is a discretionary action. Mr. True agreed and said an extension of vested rights is absolutely discretionary and subject to referendum. Mr. Supino said this provides staff and decision makers with more flexibility to say we want to know x, y and z. Mr. McNight said he likes what they are doing and that his comments would come in these meetings where things are being discussed, but here on the surface level, he doesn’t have anything. Mr. Supino said that he sensed some trepidation with the draft ordinance. Mr. Walterscheid said he would like to see it and knows there is a number of people who are working on it. He is not sure how much the rest of the board cares about it and he trusts the work being done, but this is just more for his personal interest. Mr. Barker said they can send him the draft ordinance individually and he is welcome to contact them with concerns. Mr. Supino said their intention and goal is to save some brain damage, frankly, but they want to be respectful and he feels that Mr. Walterscheid’s input is important. Ms. McNicholas said she thinks the little food carts should be as funky as can be and as colorful as can be. That is the point of food carts. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 2018 Mr. McNight motioned to appoint the new chairs at the next meeting, Mr. Walterscheid seconded. Mr. McNight motioned to adjourn, Mr. McNicholas seconded at 5:43 p.m. _________________________________ Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk