Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20181120 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 20, 2018 Chairperson Skippy Mesirow called the meeting to order at 4:28 pm. Commissioners in attendance: Teraissa McGovern, Scott Marcoux, Skippy Mesirow, Kelly McNicholas Kury Absent: Rally Dupps, Ruth Carver, Spencer McKnight, Ryan Walterscheid, James Marcus Staff present: Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Kevin Rayes, Planner Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director Garrett Larimer, Permit Coordinator COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Mesirow wished everyone a happy Thanksgiving. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Phelan stated that staff would like the hearing for 222 S Cleveland to go first because the applicants have asked for a continuation. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. McGovern motioned to approve the minutes from the meeting on November 13th. Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. Bryan if people who were not present for the meeting can vote to approve the minutes since Ms. McGovern was the only commissioner at this meeting who attended the November 13th meeting. Ms. Bryan suggested that the November 13th minutes be included for approval in the packet for the December 4th meeting. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Mesirow stated that he lives next door to 222 S Cleveland Street and recused himself from that hearing. PUBLIC HEARING 222 S Cleveland Street Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to continue the hearing to January 15th. Ms. McGovern seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to close the hearing for 222 S Cleveland Street. Ms. McGovern seconded. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING 909 Waters Avenue Mr. Rayes introduced himself as a Planner with the City of Aspen and stated that the hearing is for a request for a variation for the articulation of building mass residential design standard for the property at 909 Waters Avenue. He gave background on the existing site conditions, stating that it is located in the R-15 moderate density residential zone district. It contains a single-family dwelling and it is considered a nonconforming lot due to its small size. In the R-15 zone district, the minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet. 909 Waters is about 6,000 square feet. It is located within the Aspen infill area. Mr. Rayes stated that the current dwelling is conforming to the setback requirements of the R-15 zone district, but the dwelling itself is considered nonconforming with regards to the articulation of building mass residential design standard. The standard states: a principal building shall be no greater than 50- feet in depth as measured from the front most wall of the front façade to the rear wall. The idea behind this standard is to ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass and preserve historic neighborhood scale and character. Mr. Rayes stated that, from the front-most wall to the rear-most wall, the building measures 54.7 feet long. He pointed out the at-grade patio, which is a deck on the second level, stating that the property owner is planning to fill that space in with additional net-leasable space, which would contribute to increasing the bulk and mass of the dwelling and the nonconformity of the structure. The owner has proposed integrating a chamfer corner along the rear of the building with the idea that this would minimize the impact of the increased bulk and mass as seen from the front of the house. Mr. Rayes stated that, when granting a variation from a residential design standard, there are two criteria for the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider. The first is: that the variation, if granted, would provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as indicated in the intent statement for that standard as well as the general intent statements in the RDS code section. The intent statement for the articulation of building mass says: reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a property as viewed from all sides. While the applicant did provide an alternative design approach with the chamfer corner, this would ultimately reduce the additional bulk and mass as seen from the front of the house. He stated that the Gant is behind the house and the lodge units directly behind the house would be able to see the impact that the additional design would add on to the house. He showed pictures of the view directly behind the house on the slide and stated that this criterion is not met due to the statement “as viewed from all sides.” He stated that the second criterion for Planning and Zoning to consider is, if the variation is granted, it should be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. This property is considered a nonconforming lot because of its small lot size. Staff finds that this is not an unusual site-specific constraint. There are nonconforming lots all over the city and they are required to conform with the setback and design standards for their respective zone district. Because it is a nonconforming lot, that does not mean that this is a condition that is unique to this site. He stated that 909 Waters is not only a small lot, but it is also located within the Aspen infill area. Given that the proposed project does not meet the standards to grant a variation from the articulation of building mass, staff recommends denial of the variation request. Mr. Rayes asked the commissioners for questions. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked what types of buildings 901, 907, and 911 are. Mr. Rayes stated that those are single family homes. Ms. McGovern stated that the proposed site plan does not show that there would be a chamfer corner on the roof even though the renderings show that it would be there. She asked if it didn’t get updated. Mr. Bendon stated that that is likely the case. Ms. McGovern stated that it also does not include the roof desk. Mr. Bendon stated that the roof desk was a later consideration, but it is present in the three- dimensional renderings. Mr. Mesirow turned the meeting over to Mr. Bendon. Mr. Bendon introduced himself and the applicant, Neil Katyal. Mr. Bendon showed a picture of the property and surrounding buildings on the slide. He stated that 909 Waters is set back from the street about eight to ten feet more than the adjacent properties. This house was designed by Harry Teague and Kim Raymond and Milo Stark from Kim Raymond Architects are present at the meeting. He stated that the house is on a 6,000 square foot parcel in a 15,000 square foot zone district. There is no alley behind the property, but a drive that accesses parts of the Gant. It was constructed in 1990, which is prior to the residential design standards. He stated that Mr. Katyal has immediate needs to expand the property and make it more accommodating for a larger family, especially in the kitchen and dining area. He has been very clear with BendonAdams and Kim Raymond about the front being off limits to expansion and wanting to maintain the Teague design. Mr. Bendon showed the property and setback lines on a rendering on the slide. He stated that, as an R- 15 property, it has somewhat stringent property lines because the setbacks are made for larger properties. The expansions are limited to the front or the rear and the opportunity to expand in the front would be to enclose the front porch, which is not desirable. Waters Avenue is single-family homes on one side and multi-family on the other and this house is one of the most subdued structures on the street. Mr. Bendon stated that, in the rear, there is an outdoor area inside the setbacks that is available for development. This area is already covered by existing deck that not enclosed or interior space but is already captured by the architecture. Mr. Katyal has asked the designers to focus on that area within the footprint of the structure. Mr. Bendon stated that the standard that Kevin pointed out related to the maximum sidewall depth is relatively new in the residential design standards. It is an evolution of what was called secondary mass. Because the building doesn’t have an alley, the public’s appreciation of those sidewalls is limited to what you see from the street. The challenge is how to deal with the existing sidewalls that are already over the 50-foot limitation and be able to accommodate Mr. Katyal’s needs. That’s why the applicants would like to focus on the area that is within the footprint of the architecture and can be done with the chamfer corner without technically extending the length of those side walls. He showed on a picture on the slide that the measurement on the western side is just over 50 feet, not including the column and the eaves of the existing architecture and would remain a little over 50 feet with this proposal. On the east side, it’s 54 feet 7.5 inches. The wall would be unaffected because the expansion is on the other side of the building. While the building was built prior to the residential design standards, the architect did a good job. The building has an approachable connection to the street, a garage on the front that has a very subdued presence on the street, and principal windows and a porch. It’s very easy to understand it as a home as opposed to the other houses that were being built at the time that had generally somewhat offensive architectural statements that they were trying to make. Mr. Bendon stated that the applicants think that they have met both criteria that Mr. Rayes presented. The articulation of building mass intent statement reads: to reduce the overall perceived bulk and mass and to convey forms that are similar in massing to Aspen historic residential buildings. He stated that the proposal limits the addition to the rear of the building, utilizing the floor area that the property is allowed without changing the side walls of the building. There will be no change to the connection to the street. He stated that the standard talks about porches and walkways having prominent windows and the Teague design did a very good job of this. Mr. Bendon stated that, utilizing the existing footprint for the addition in the rear makes the proposal as low visibility as possible. It would not be visible at all from Waters Avenue and, since there is not an alley behind it, someone would have to be going out of their way to view the back of the house. He stated that the applicants believe this proposal is the best way to add to the building without changing the perception of scale and mass. Mr. Bendon stated that the applicants see these things as the relationship of the building to the public, which is, in large part, Planning and Zoning’s charge. Mr. Bendon stated that they sent out notices to 380 people, about double the number of what they normally do, and have not been contacted by neighbors concerned one way or another. Mr. Bendon showed a map of the R-15 zone districts throughout town and compared the sizes of lots in those neighborhoods to the size of Mr. Katyal’s lot, showing that it is much smaller than average, making it much more difficult to fit in new development. He stated that there are probably 500 to 600 properties that are zoned R-15 with only three or four being the size of Mr. Katyal’s. He stated that the applicants feel that this is a unique condition. Mr. Bendon stated that the applicants’ desire to keep the existing house in its current condition as much as possible is also a unique condition. He stated that he does not think it’s practical to make the house shorter and that the applicants want to preserve the original Harry Teague design. The applicants’ focus has been on the non-public side of the building where they can add to it in the most appropriate manner. He showed a rendering of the proposed design and stated that it provides for more breathing room in the kitchen, dining room, and living room. He stated that the width of that is 5 feet. Mr. Bendon stated that the applicants believe that the proposal provides an alternative design approach that meets the intent and is an appropriate way to add on to the property and exercise the development rights. They also believe that there are reasons of unusual site-specific constraints and that both standards are met. Mr. Bendon turned the meeting over to Mr. Katyal to speak to his perspective. Mr. Katyal thanked the commissioners and staff for being at the meeting. He thanked Mr. Rayes for his presentation. He stated that he came to Aspen in 2005 and fell in love with it. He looked for a long time for a place buy and eventually saved enough and found and fell in love with this property. He is a fan of Harry Teague’s design and knew they did not want to compromise the architecture but wanted to make the house bigger. He did not know about RDS standards when interviewing architects, but he connected well with Ms. Raymond who also did not want to alter the front, just fill in outdoor spaces with livable space. Ms. Raymond’s design takes advantage of the way that the lot works. He stated that there is a fence, creek, and stream in between his lot and the Gant and the applicants investigated the possibility of viewing the backside of the house from the Gant but it cannot be seen. The neighboring houses have much larger sidewalls. This proposal does not change the sidewalls but have filled in space in a way to ensure that there is no perceived increase in mass. He stated that the applicants believe that this project adheres to the overall intent of the standard and noted that the standard is not related to mass but perceived mass. He asked the commissioners if they had any questions. Ms. McGovern asked how many R-15 zone district house are in the infill area. Mr. Bendon stated maybe a quarter. He stated that Cemetery Lane and Riverside Avenue are outside. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked Mr. Bendon to show a quick overview of the building plans. Mr. Bendon showed the plans on a slide, showing the back side and birds-eye view. He stated that the front really remains unchanged, though there could be some discussion that hasn’t really taken shape yet regarding materials and light touches in the front. The focus has been on the backside of the building. Mr. Mesirow asked about the chamfer corner. Mr. Bendon stated that the chamfer corner is a way to reduce the perceived mass of the building. Ms. Phelan stated that the commissioners can determine, if you they choose, that this chamfer edge does meet the intent of reducing the scale. Ms. Raymond stated that the applicants have tried to make as few changes as possible while increasing the physical space and meeting the standard, which led to their approach of enclosing already existing deck space. She stated that the building is not getting any longer. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked staff if they need to be concerned with the additional mass on the second story. Ms. Phelan stated that the commissioners should be looking at whether or not this proposal meets the design standard and whether or not the chamfer responds to the site in an appropriate manner given the existing context. Mr. Bendon stated that it will go through a full vetting process. Mr. Marcoux asked if there were exemptions when the RDS was implemented. Ms. McGovern stated that it’s exempt if they don’t do anything to it. The reason the applicants are before P&Z is because they want to make changes. Mr. Bendon stated that, if Mr. Katyal was going to knock the whole thing down and start over, he would have to go through the full review. In some levels of change, it’s just not rational to say that he needs to comply with every part of the standard. This is in one of those thousands of shades of grey. He stated that the applicants are trying to upgrade the home with making as few changes to it as possible. Ms. McGovern asked what the distance is from the chamfer to the wall. Ms. Raymond stated that it’s about four feet. They are not making the back of the house longer, so the sidewall depth is not changing. Mr. Mesirow asked the commissioners if they had any further questions. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over to public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT Charles Tarver asked if a TDR is being used in this property. Mr. Bendon stated that it is. He stated that what’s nonconforming about the property is that the size is smaller than the zone district requires. Mr. Tarver stated that the question is not about this property, but about TDRs in general. Seeing no further public comment, Mr. Mesirow turned the meeting over to commissioner discussion. Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. McGovern for her option. Ms. McGovern stated that she does not see that this proposal meets the criteria. Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. McGovern if the chamfer corner makes sense to her. Ms. McGovern stated that she does not see that it helps them meet the standard. Regarding the lot size, Mr. Katyal bought a house on a small lot and that’s part of the deal. That is an unfortunate hardship of doing business in Aspen. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that she started out thinking that there was no reason to grant a variance. The applicants are asking for more nonconformity and that she couldn’t initially see why she would entertain that. She found Ms. Raymond’s point compelling, that the column is substantial, not just a piece holding up a deck, but something where a window could be added where that is part of the plane of the side wall. From a perceived length, she finds that it compelling that there’s not a change and that the column is part of the plane of that length. Mr. Mesirow asked Ms. McNicholas Kury if her position could be that this change just continues the nonconformity instead of adding to it. Ms. McNichols Kury replied yes. Mr. Marcoux stated that he would love to allow Mr. Katyal to expand, but everything else is too big for that lot. He stated that he walked in with a strict no, but that he sympathizes with the family’s need for more space. Mr. Mesirow stated that it’s important to remember that the standards have to do with the effects on the community and that what goes on inside the building is not the purview of Planning and Zoning. Ms. McGovern stated that, from her perspective, the intent is to reduce mass and scale as viewed from all sides. The second floor is where the mass is hanging the most. She stated that they wouldn’t be allowed to change if the commissioners didn’t allow for the chamfer. Ms. McNichols Kury stated that that’s not the direction the commissioners are getting from staff. Mr. Mesirow agreed with Ms. McNicholas Kury and stated that there is a huge amount of open space. He stated that even the existing structure could have more floor space using the second floor. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that that is not the commissioners’ concern right now. Ms. McGovern asked Mr. Mesirow what his thoughts are. Mr. Mesirow stated that part of what makes Aspen great is that it draws people from all over who come to enjoy it, like Mr. Katyal. Another part of what makes Aspen great is that the City is very strict about building constraints. He stated that he has a hard time granting the variance request. Mr. Bendon asked Mr. Mesirow if he can respond to that. Mr. Mesirow replied yes. Mr. Bendon stated that this proposal continues to protect the public realm, as Mr. Mesirow stated that he values. He stated that there are no changes to the way this building approaches the street. He stated that the commissioners should be allowing for flexibility for properties to evolve. There was never consideration of preventing someone from exercising their development rights. He expressed concern that the commissioners are using the RDS as a tool to say: “you bought the property and now, because there’s an ordinance in place, you can’t do anything with it from here on out.” He stated that the former standard of having a secondary mass to break up some of the overall property massing was also somewhat tough to deal with but was replaced with a standard of 50 feet. The chamfer is something that Mr. Katyal sees as a component of the overall design. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Bendon if he would like an up or down vote. Mr. Bendon stated that he would like to continue the hearing for the opportunity to present to a fuller board and also to dig deep into what all of the design options and see if there is another pathway that the applicants would prefer. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that the residential design standards went through a very public review process. There was the opportunity to have them say “perceived mass from the street” rather than just “perceived mass.” The standards allow the commissioners to use some subjective discussion. Ms. McGovern stated that the development right point is tough because it refers to footage. The commissioners have a set of guidelines and are required to stick with it. Mr. Mesirow stated that he is not prepared to change where he would land right now. The chamfer corner is something that he could live with and that he could see as softening it. He stated that the applicants could come back with something that might change his vote. He asked the commissioners if there is anything that the applicants could return with that would change their votes. Ms. McGovern replied that that is a tough position to put the commissioners in. She is not willing to say that her vote would or would not change. At this point, she would not change her vote. Mr. Mesirow stated that his question was meant to help the applicants with some feedback so that they do not waste time and money coming back with a plan that does not address commissioners’ concerns. Mr. Phelan provided some guidance to commissioners, stating that this approval is site-specific and so they should not be concerned about precedent setting. Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to continue the hearing for 909 Waters Avenue. Mr. Katyal asked if the applicants can amend the proposal right now to add a second chamfer corner. Mr. Mesirow stated that they couldn’t and it wouldn’t get them the necessary votes even if they could. Ms. Phelan, Mr. Bendon, and Mr. Katyal discussed what dates might be good for continuation and settled on January 15th. Ms. McGovern seconded the motion to continue the hearing on 909 Waters Avenue to the meeting on January 15th. All in favor, motion carried. ADJOURN Mr. Mesirow motioned to adjourn the meeting at 5:43 pm. Ms. McGovern seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager