Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20180717 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING July 17, 2018 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES - JULY 3RD, 2018 V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 465 and 557 N Mill St. - N Mill St Rezoning B. 627 W Smuggler St - RDS Variation VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting July 3, 2018 Chairperson Skippy Mesirow called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Teraissa McGovern, Scott Marcoux, Ruth Carver, Skippy Mesirow, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jimmy Marcus. Absent: Ryan Walterscheid, Rally Dupps, Spencer McKnight Staff present: Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Mesirow wished everyone a happy almost Fourth of July. He invited everyone to his house for a Fourth of July barbeque. He also noted that he is part of a group trying to change the local election day from May to March. He asked interested Aspen registered voters to sign his petition after the meeting. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that she is kicking off her campaign for County Commissioner tomorrow. She will be marching in the Fourth of July parade with the Democrats and invited anyone interested to join her. Families, workers, and wilderness is the tagline for her campaign. STAFF COMMENTS None PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Marcus moved to approve the minutes from June 19th, 2018. Ms. McGovern seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 627 W Smuggler St – Request for Design Standard Variation Ms. Phelan introduced the application. She stated that the applicant is TNT Ventures LLC, represented by Patrick Rawley of Stan Clauson Associates. She stated that public notice for this hearing was provided in the form of publication, mailing, and posting. A number of items were forwarded to the Commissioners. On Monday, Exhibit H, which is updated drawings of the project, were included. Two additional letters of support for the request were received earlier in the day and presented at the meeting as Exhibit I. She gave background on the project, stating that 627 W Smuggler is located between 5th and 6th on Smuggler. It is an approximately 6,000 square foot lot with an existing family residence on it. The P1 IV. property is proposed for a remodel with a second-story connector being proposed. The connector does not meet one of the City’s residential design standards, which is articulation of building mass. She explained that the City first adopted Residential Design Standards in 1995. When this property was initially developed, it was subject to the standards at that time, but the standards have changed over time, although they have some similar requirements. The request in question is from a non-flexible standard which has three options to meet it. She explained that, overall, the standards today are divided into flexible and non-flexible standards. Flexible standards can allow for alternative compliance while non-flexible standards are supposed to be met or to go to a board rather than an administrative approval if someone is asking for a variation. That’s why it’s come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Phelan stated that the existing conditions include the primary residence with a ground-floor connector that connects to the garage. It is shown circled in red on the slide. The conditioned space is a one-story connector between those two spaces. On the second story, the existing condition is a deck that someone can walk from the primary residence to the accessory structure that connects the two structures. If someone wanted to walk within the building, they would have to go through the first floor to get to the secondary structure. The proposal is to enclose what is now a deck connection to an enclosed glass structure. With the remodel, the applicants are proposing a different layout of the house and this would provide direct enclosed access from the primary mass to the secondary mass. Ms. Phelan explained the articulation of building mass standard has evolved over time and provided some history. She stated that, today, the standard gives three options on how to break up the mass of a building and create more articulation. One option is to have a maximum side-wall depth of 50 feet. This building right now is about 70 feet from end to end, so it doesn’t meet that standard. It allows for a one-story connection, which this building has right now, which wouldn’t allow for a second connection. It doesn’t comply with today’s standards because the dimensions are a little bit different for the connector and what is required today. This is the closest standard that this building would meet today. The third option that someone can meet when they’re building is a one-story rear stepdown, which this building does not meet. To approve a variation, the Planning and Zoning Commission must find one of two standards is met. The Commissioners could find that the design meets the overall intent of the standard and the general intent of the residential design standards. Or they could find that the variation is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff does not believe that either standard is met. Right now, the request would create additional non- conformity to this building. However, even though it does not meet today’s standard it does, with the one-story connector, get closer to today’s standard. Some of the intent statements in the residential design standards are to reduce perceived mass and bulk from all sides, to promote light and air access, and to convey forms that are similar in massing to the traditional forms in the Aspen infill area, the West End. Staff thinks that the intent would be what the Commissioners need to find because staff don’t find that there are any unusual site-specific constraints to this lot. Staff is recommending that this request be denied as it does not meet the intent statements for the residential design standards and creates a greater non-conformity by doing the second-story connector. Mr. Mesirow asked if there are questions for staff from the Commissioners. P2 IV. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the project will result in demolition. Ms. Phaelan stated that she guesses the applicant will try everything to not meet that 40%. Mr. Mesirow asked if the design would meet the standard if it maintained the existing condition with an outdoor passageway and a fence and didn’t include the glassed-in area. Ms. Phelan replied that the passageway is currently an outdoor passageway. Mr. Mesirow clarified that he wasn’t sure if the fence in the picture made a difference. Ms. Phelan replied that the fence he was referring to is a railing, which is required. Mr. Mesirow asked if the new design could be done with the railing. Ms. Phelan stated that the new design would be done with the railing and that the biggest difference is that the dimension of the connector is different today than in the ‘90’s. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the railing can be ten feet tall. Ms. Phelan replied that no, to not be considered a fence, the City requires that it has to be the minimum standard for building code compliance. Safety is 36 inches. Mr. Marcus asked what material is being proposed for the connector. Ms. Phelan stated that Mr. Rawley will give more details in his presentation but that she believes it’s primarily glass. She then turned the meeting over to Mr. Rawley for his presentation. Mr. Rawley introduced himself as working for Stan Clauson Associates, representing TNT Ventures and owner of 627 W Smuggler. He stated that the goal of the applicants is to remodel an existing house instead of take it down in order to minimize impacts. The remodel is for functional and aesthetic purposes. The aesthetic purpose of the remodel is to quiet the house down. The functional aspect is to connect both parts of the house in a more functional way. Currently, the only way to access this other part of the house is by either going outside or going through the garage, which is not always ideal in a mountain climate. He reiterated that the variation application before the commission is for the second story connector. The glass connector passage has a flat roof and is minimally visible from all sides of the house. It is also inside eight feet on either side, making it also inside eight feet. The applicants have collaborated with the neighbors and every one of them supports the variation request. The house was constructed in 1998 under different residential design standards. Back then, the code said that a secondary mass needed to be connected by a subordinate feature and this proposal still kind of meets that subordinate criteria. The site plan of the house is not changing, this project reduces some of the elements, so the footprint of the house is not growing. Any additions to the footprint will be a patio space in the backyard, which won’t be visible. The applicants are also in the process of processing the ADU removal approval. This is related to the ADU in the basement that had a required stairway. The plan is to remove the staircase, P3 IV. reducing the activity in the eastern side yard. The setbacks are unchanged, and the variance is requested for reasons of fairness, since it was a house constructed prior to what the existing residential design standards are and the applicants are trying to maintain the house as much as possible. Mr. Rawley also believes they meet the general intent of the code section. He showed the code and noted that they meet several criteria including a reduction to the mass and bulk of the buildings, promoting light and air access between adjacent properties, articulating the building walls, and breaking up expansive wall planes. Mr. Rawley showed a slide of the site. He showed that the property will maintain a large amount of open space in the back. He showed a view of the property from Smuggler street and showed where the connector element is from the front. He showed the side yard setbacks, noting that they will be maintained with no modifications. He also showed the staircase, which will be removed. Mr. Rawley showed a slide with a picture of the area of the proposed connector and the view looking to the southeast from the western side of the property, showing that the neighbor to the west will not be impacted. He stated that the backyard will be maintained as open space, creating significant relief from the neighboring property. Mr. Rawley showed a slide with a view from the alleyway, showing that the view from the alley is limited. He showed a view looking west from the property to the east, showing that the connector will be minimally visible from the public rights of way. Mr. Rawley reiterated that the neighbors who would be mostly directly impacted by this proposal are in support of the variation request. Mr. Rawley showed a slide with a picture of the front of the house. He noted that there are some modifications on the front. There will be an enclosure of the front patio space to create a weather-lock condition. He pointed out the house to the west and how the forms are similar. He pointed out the design of the neighboring houses and showed that this is an eclectic neighborhood with lots of different styles and forms. He stated that the modifications to this property would not change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Rawley showed a slide with the proposed site plan. He pointed out that the features of the patio will not be visible. He pointed out the window well that will replace the stairwell, which will be code- compliant for a bedroom in the basement. The backyard remains largely open with everything within six inches of grade. He pointed out the area of the secondary connector, inset from the side wall eight feet and the deck space that will become enclosed under their plan, the purpose of which is to provide access to the space. As the house currently stands, the only way to access the space above the garage is by the spiral staircase, which narrows the garage. The plan would provide space for a car and some storage. Mr. Rawley showed a slide with the south elevation, the view looking off the alleyway. He pointed out the roof forms that they are trying to quiet by simplifying them and creating a more contemporary look without changing the massing or the roof height, reducing the perceived mass. Mr. Rawley showed a slide of the eastern elevation, where the plan maintains many features of the mass. He stated that the plan meets the three features that Ms. Phelan referred to as ways to meet the criteria and that the plan meets the intent as much as possible with an existing house. He stated that P4 IV. there is a 40 foot mass immediately off of Smuggler Street that’s separated by a six foot connector, then there is a smaller accessory mass of 24 feet with another 6 foot step down. Mr. Rawley believes that that provides an articulated mass of an existing house. Mr. Rawley stated that the connector element doesn’t meet today’s code, but it exceeds code in other ways in that it is inset more than what is required, except for the fact that it’s a second story element. He emphasized the reduction of activity in the side yard, the removal of the staircase, and the massing stepping down with the patio immediately off the alleyway. He showed pictures on the slide and emphasized the low visibility of the connector and the increased functionality this would provide to the homeowners. He reiterated that the house would still fit with the aesthetic character of the neighborhood and that a remodel would have a smaller impact than building a brand new house. He believes this project meets the overall intent of the design guidelines and reiterated that the neighbors are in support of this project. He then asked for commissioner questions. Ms. Carver asked why Mr. Rawley mentioned creating a patio space when there is a patio space already there. Mr. Rawley clarified that he is talking about creating a deck space on the second story. That is created by pulling the mass of the garage off of the alleyway. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if there will still be a connection through the garage. Mr. Rawley answered that you can still access the space through the garage, but they are removing the spiral staircase. Mr. Mesirow asked if you can currently access the unit from the second floor by going outside. Mr. Rawley responded that that is correct, there is outdoor access, though it’s not a functional way to access the space. Mr. Mesirow stated that he does not agree with Mr. Rawley’s argument that the plan exceeds code because the connector is stepped in more than required, even though the plan does not make code overall. Mr. Rawley reiterated his argument that the code allows for a five-foot inset for the connector element and the project has the connector element inset by eight feet, improving on what code allows. Mr. Mesirow stated that it seemed like Mr. Rawley was saying that, because he was making an allowance on the inset of the connector element that somehow that could be traded for a code violation somewhere else. Mr. Rawley responded that he simply meant that, of the three elements of a connector element, the only place where this project does not meet code is on the second story nature of the connector. Ms. McGovern asked about the spacing. She stated that, on the first-floor level, one side is eight feet and about five and a half feet on the other side. P5 IV. Mr. Rawley responded that the inset is 5 feet, four inches. Mr. Marcus asked Mr. Rawley to show on the map which neighbors submitted letters of support. Mr. Rawley pointed out each neighbor on the map, reiterating that all four neighbors support the project. The neighbors who submitted letters of support were Tiffany Phipps and Nancy Blank. Mr. Mesirow asked if there are any further questions from commissioners. There were none. He asked if anyone from the public would like to comment. There were no public comments, though Mr. Mesirow stated for the record that the commissioners did receive public comment in the form of two letters from neighbors stating support of the project. Mr. Mesirow opened deliberation for the commissioners. Mr. Marcoux asked if it’s possible to open the main floor connector and add glass on top to allow air movement. Mr. Mesirow stated that this time should be for conversation among the commissioners, but that they should feel that they can make suggestions to bring to Mr. Rawley later in the meeting. Ms. Carver stated that she drove by there and agreed that the connector is hard to see, partially because of the trees. She stated that she noticed that the neighbor on the 6th street side has a one- story connector. The visibility would change if the trees were ever removed. Ms. McGovern stated that she thinks the commissioners should deliberate based on whether or not the project makes code, not whether or not it’s in character with the neighborhood. Ms. McGovern stated that it clearly does not meet code. She stated that she sees no reason to make an exception. Mr. Mesirow concurred. He stated that an exception would have farther-reaching consequences than this one instance. Ms. Carver stated that the present connector is only six feet, but the present code is ten feet. Ms. McGovern added that it’s six feet and has two overhangs that make it appear to be closer to three feet. She stated that the existing condition does not meet code. Mr. Marcoux stated that they would be helpless from stopping the owners from putting curtains up. Ms. McGovern agreed that they would probably put shades in there, but that it’s not P&Z’s purview. Mr. Mesirow asked if any of the commissioners disagree with the direction and feel that the two areas in their purview can be seen in a different light. No commissioner responded. Mr. Rawley stated that he’d like to request a continuance to come back with a revised approach to try to connect these two elements. He asked Ms. Phelan for a date. P6 IV. Ms. Phelan stated that there is an opening at the next meeting, July 17th, and that P&Z meetings will be taken up with the Lift One Corridor beginning in August, so the September 4th meeting would be the first available meeting if July 17th does not work. Mr. Rawley asked what day they would need to submit materials for the packet for the July 17th meeting. Ms. Phelan answered that they would need to submit their materials by July 10th for that meeting. Mr. Rawley opted for continuance to the July 17th meeting. Mr. Mesirow motioned to continue this hearing to July 17th. Ms. McNicholas Kury seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Ms. McGovern motioned to adjourn the meeting. Ms. McNicholas Kury seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:15 PM. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager P7 IV. TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 465 and 557 North Mill Street MEETING DATE: July 17, 2018 Due to a recent change in ownership of the property, the new ownership is considering all options related to the property and has asked that the application be tabled. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends discussed this proposed action with the applicant’s representatives. Tabling the item will keep the application active but will require re applicant is ready to present before the Commission. If no action is taken wi of tabling the item, the application will be considered abandoned. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to table the rezoning application.” Planning and MEMORANDUM Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director 465 and 557 North Mill Street – Public Hearing Due to a recent change in ownership of the property, the new ownership is considering all options related to the property and has asked that the application be tabled. Staff recommends that the application be tabled and has discussed this proposed action with the applicant’s representatives. Tabling the item will keep the application active but will require re-noticing for a public hearing when the applicant is ready to present before the Commission. If no action is taken wi of tabling the item, the application will be considered abandoned. “I move to table the rezoning application.” Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 of 1 Due to a recent change in ownership of the property, the new ownership is considering all options related to the property and has asked that the application be tabled. that the application be tabled and has discussed this proposed action with the applicant’s representatives. Tabling the item will noticing for a public hearing when the applicant is ready to present before the Commission. If no action is taken within a year P8 VI.A. TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Garrett Larimer, Planner THROUGH: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 627 W Smuggler – RDS Variation Request MEETING DATE: July 17, 2018 The applicant has requested to withdraw their application for a Residential Design Standard Variation for the Articulation of Building Mass Standard. The applicant is going to pursue alternative design solutions that do not require Zoning Commission. No further action is need from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission MEMORANDUM Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Garrett Larimer, Planner Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RDS Variation Request The applicant has requested to withdraw their application for a Residential Design Standard Variation for the Articulation of Building Mass Standard. The applicant is going to pursue alternative design solutions that do not require review and approval from No further action is need from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 of 1 The applicant has requested to withdraw their application for a Residential Design Standard Variation for the Articulation of Building Mass Standard. The applicant is going to pursue from the Planning and No further action is need from the Planning and Zoning Commission. P9 VI.B.