Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.azp.20181218 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission December 18, 2018 Chairperson Mesirow called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm. Commissioners in attendance: Skippy Mesirow, Teraissa McGovern, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Rally Dupps, Ruth Carver, James Marcus, Spencer McKnight Absent: Scott Marcoux, Ryan Walterscheid Staff present: Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Garrett Larimer, Permit Coordinator Kevin Rayes, Planner Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that her four years on the Planning and Zoning Commission have been meaningful for her. She has enjoyed working with her fellow commissioners. She thanked city staff for their help and support. She wished everyone happy holidays. Mr. Mesirow thanked Ms. McNicholas Kury for her service on the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated that the commissioners are excited for her next step as County Commissioner. STAFF COMMENTS None. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. McKnight voted to approve the minutes from December 4th, 2018. Ms. McGovern seconded. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Mesirow stated that he had an unexpected offline conversation with a friend of the applicant on 909 Waters Ave. He spoke with City Attorney Jim True and he recommended that Mr. Mesirow recuse himself from the hearing. Mr. Mesirow recused himself from the hearing for 909 Waters Avenue. PUBLIC HEARING 909 Waters Avenue – Articulation of Building Mass Residential Design Standard Variation Mr. Rayes introduced himself as a Planner with the City of Aspen and stated that the hearing is for a request for a variation from 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 is considered a nonconforming lot due to its small size. The lot that is there now is about 6,000 square feet and the minimum lot size in the R-15 zone district is about 15,000 square feet. It is located within the Aspen infill area. Mr. Rayes stated that the existing house conforms to the setback requirements of the R-15 zone district, but the house 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 and the remainder of the house is just over 50 feet. 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 livable area, which would contribute to increasing the bulk and mass of the dwelling and the nonconformity of the structure. The applicant has proposed integrating a chamfer corner to minimize the impact that this addition will have as viewed 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. Staff finds that this criterion is not met. One part of the general intent statement of the RDS code section is to ensure that buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass and preserve historic neighborhood scale and character. The intent statement for the articulation of building mass states that: it should 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, that will only reduce the 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 stated that the second criterion for Planning and Zoning to consider is that the variation, if granted, 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 size. It is normal for smaller lots to conform with the setback standards for their zone district. 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 unusual or site-specific. He stated that the articulation of building mass design standard is critical in the infill area where small lots, small side and front setbacks, alleys, and historic Aspen building forms are prevalent. Due to its small lot and location within the Aspen infill area, staff recommends a denial of the variation request. Mr. Rayes asked the commissioners if they had any questions. Seeing none, Mr. McKnight turned the meeting over to a presentation by the applicant. Mr. Bendon introduced himself as the representative of the applicant. He introduced the applicant, Neil Katyal. He thanked the commissioners for continuing the hearing. Mr. Bendon stated that this house was designed by Harry Teague and the applicant is working with Kim Raymond and Milo Stark from Kim Raymond Architects. He stated that the property is a single-family home in the R-15 zone district, which results in setbacks that are larger than the size of the property would otherwise dictate. It was constructed before the residential design standards and the block where it’s located has many different types of residences on it. Mr. Bendon stated that Mr. Katyal has a large family, which led him to want to expand the kitchen and dining area. Mr. Katyal does not want to change anything about the front of the building due to his desire to maintain the Teague design. Mr. Bendon showed on a rendering where the setbacks are located. He stated that the proposal focuses on expanding into the existing footprint of the home. He pointed out where the 55-foot wall is located along the east side of the home, stating that it was built before residential design standards. That distance does not change with this proposal. There is significant vegetation between this parcel and The Gant, which will not change as it is important to the project. Mr. Bendon stated that the applicants believe that they meet both criteria that Mr. Rayes mentioned. The intent standards start with the articulation of building mass, reducing the overall perceived mass and bulk of the residence, conveying forms that are similar in massing to historic Aspen residential buildings. He stated that there are no changes to the street frontage of the building. This set of residential design standards is primarily geared to new development. The standards also talk about meeting the needs of the owner and an important piece of the commission’s consideration is balancing that with community objectives. The existing connection to the street is not changing with this proposal. Regarding response to neighboring properties, it is important to the applicants that they are staying within the existing footprint. That means that the expansion is not really visible from any aspect of the house and the perceived mass cannot be seen, even from behind the property. Mr. Bendon showed a picture of The Gant, pointing out that the mass closest to Mr. Katyal’s property does not have any windows that would look onto it. He stated that the applicants had a conversation with Donnie Lee, the General Manager of The Gant. They asked him if he had any response to the public notice that applicants sent out and he responded that he had not heard from any of the owners. Mr. Lee had no concerns for this development from an ownership standpoint. He showed a picture on the slide of the view from The Gant property looking toward 909 Waters and noted that the vegetation and fencing making it difficult to see from that view. Mr. Bendon addressed the next intent statement, which discusses reflecting traditional building scale. He stated that this is primarily focused on the aesthetics from the street, which is not changing. The applicants feel that the house already does a good job of reflecting a traditional building scale. Mr. Bendon addressed the unique conditions of the property. He stated that, since it was built before residential design standards, it didn’t anticipate an expansion having to deal with the articulation of building mass. He stated that the applicants feel that it’s important for the commissioners to understand that this project is not a scrape and replace. If it was, he would expect the Planning and Zoning commission to have different expectations from the project. He believes that the existing house is a unique condition of the property. The applicants’ plan is to expand the existing floor area in the most appropriate way, which they believe is to focus on the nonpublic side of the home. Mr. Bendon addressed the variation criteria. He stated that the he believes the design meets the intent standard by maintaining the subtlety of the home. He believes the design is and will remain similar in massing to historic Aspen residential buildings and that the building has and will maintain a connection to the street. Regarding reducing perceived mass and bulk from residential buildings from all sides, he stated that that criterion comes down to the view from The Gant, which the applicants believe is subtle. Regarding reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints Mr. Bendon stated that the applicants want to work with the current house and expand on it. He urged the commissioners to use their discretionary power to approve this project. With that, Mr. Bendon turned the meeting over to Mr. Katyal for comments. Mr. Katyal thanked the commissioners. He stated that he came to Aspen in 2005 and fell in love with it. He has made connections in the community and plans to live in Aspen part of the year and ultimately retire here. He fell in love with the Harry Teague designed house and does not want to change the design, but he does have a need to expand for his large family. He does not want the expansion in the front of the house and he wants it to continue to be one of the smallest houses on the street. Mr. Katyal addressed the variation criteria. He stated that, regarding providing an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard, the applicants went back to the intent statement, as the commission suggested. That is where they noticed the preamble, which states that the design should serve the needs of the owner. He understood from Mr. Rayes’s presentation that the issues are the bulk and mass of the building. The house cannot be seen from The Gant and the nearest building at The Gant that has windows that might look into the back of Mr. Katyal’s house is 200 feet away. He emphasized that the dimensions of the house are not changing with this design. Mr. Katyal addressed the unusual site-specific constraints. He stated that the lot and Harry Teague designed house make this a unique lot. He stated that the notice of public hearing has been posted for two months and only two neighbors have asked him about it. One of them responded that they are glad that the house is not being torn down. Mr. Katyal address Ms. McGovern’s comments from the previous hearing on this proposal, noting that she said she would like to approve the project, but she can’t see how to get there because the rules state that the mass must be reduced on all sides. He stated that that the RDS design standards are not rules, they are standards and they are flexible for a reason. He stated that that is the reason for Planning and Zoning, to interpret the code from a human perspective. Mr. McKnight stated that he appreciates having the actual applicant here and not just the representative. With that, Mr. McKnight turned the meeting over to commissioner comments. Ms. McGovern asked Mr. Bendon to show the slide that shows different dimensions than the same slide at the previous presentation. She stated that that slide at the previous presentation was not inclusive of the posts that are holding up the eave and the house. Mr. Bendon stated that the slide in the previous presentation included all of the porch area and stopped short the post on the south side. There is a question of the points of measurement, whether it is considered a piece of the wall and the chamfer corner would raise the same question of points of measurement. Mr. Katyal stated that he agrees with Ms. McGovern that the applicants did not make it clear that the A- frame does come out. Mr. Marcus asked if the applicants would be extending beyond the current footprint, regarding the roofline. Mr. Bendon stated that the question is if they should measure to the first corner or to the first depth of the chamfer. Mr. Marcus asked if the post goes away on the far end. Mr. Bendon replied yes. Ms. Carver asked if she saw a picture with an elevator on the roof and the deck extending further into the backyard. Mr. Bendon stated that the plans do include a popup that fits within the setbacks and heights, which will be an office for Mr. Katyal. He stated that what Ms. Carver saw is a staircase. Ms. Carver asked if the new porch on the second floor will extend further into the backyard. Mr. Bendon stated that there is a patio that would use some of that backyard space. Mr. Stark from Kim Raymond Architects replied that the deck does not go to the setback line. Ms. Carver asked if it goes further than it did. Ms. McGovern stated that it does based on the proposed south elevation. It sits in front of the master, not next to the master where it was before. Ms. Carver asked how close to the setback the deck will be. Mr. Bendon stated that the setback is ten feet from the property line in the rear and the new deck will not be closer than ten feet. Architect Kim Raymond stated that the deck is not affected by the standard. Mr. McKnight asked if there were further questions from the commissioners. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over to public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT Tim Mooney introduced himself as a Planning and Zoning alumni. He stated that he has a love for the community and the messy vitality that he perpetuated while he was here. He stated a concern that the commission is too focused on a small detail to see the big picture. The purpose of the Planning and Zoning Commission is to bring a human perspective to the project and he thinks it’s crazy that there are design criteria that is being applied to a 6,000 square foot lot that has an existing home designed by one of the preeminent living architects in town. The house is an important piece and Mr. Katyal is an important future Aspen local. No votes are important sometimes, but he believes this is not the place for a no vote. Lex Tarumianz introduced himself and thanked the commissioners. He has known Mr. Katyal for five years. He worked at The Gant condominiums for 12 years and lived on the property and in that time, there has never been a connection to or notice of the property on Waters Avenue. Mr. Katyal and his family want to contribute to the community and live like Aspenites. The variance Mr. Katyal is asking for is minor and it will improve the backside of their home. Harry Teague’s legacy will only continue to grow in the future and his work should be preserved. He encouraged the commissioners to approve variance. Mick Ireland introduced himself and stated that he understands variance in a way that many people don’t and that he helped write the anti-variance ordinance. The idea of a variance should be regarded with a human perspective, which means that the commission is not here to look at every variance request as something that can never be done. Variance requests need to be weighed against the greater good and, in this case, the greater good is bringing someone who wants to be a permanent resident into this community. The number of free-market, single-family homes that are occupied by people who live here has been declining steadily through the last two censuses. The opportunity to bring a family here to be part of the community is important. This proposal could be beautiful and will be unobtrusive. He encouraged the commissioners to look at the big picture. He does not see that this adversely impacts the community in appearance or in setting a precedent, but it does have the opportunity to add a family to the community at a time when the City is losing them. Mr. McKnight asked if there were further public comments. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over to staff rebuttal. Ms. Phelan commented that there are 15,000 square foot lots throughout town. She recommended that the commissioners don’t act from their feelings but base their vote in the criteria. Ms. Bryan stated that, if this decision were challenged in a court of law, it would be challenged on whether the criteria were met. Mr. McKnight turned the meeting over to commissioner deliberation. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated that she continues to support the request based on the first criterion for the variation. She stated that the applicant’s picture that Ms. McGovern asked to be displayed was what allowed her to review the language in the standard and decide that this design either retains or reduces the perceived mass on this side. Where the back plane of the wall ends and supports the current A- frame is part of the plane of the current building and filling that in and designing it with the chamfer corner makes the step to reduce that plane and get to the point where she can approve the variation. She encouraged the other commissioners to support this as well. Mr. McKnight stated that he agrees with Ms. McNicholas Kury. The proposal might be even better than the current condition as it is adding windows. The effort that the applicant made with the chamfer corner helped him get to the point where he is ready to approve this variation request. Mr. Dupps stated that he is tired of Harry Teague’s buildings being knocked down. The commissioners have a chance to be human beings and preserve a treasured community asset that’s at risk of demolition. If Mr. Katyal were to sell the house because it is too small for his family, someone else could buy it and demolish it and start over. He is completely in support of it. The applicants do meet the second standard that relates to fairness and site-specific conditions. Ms. Carver stated that she does not believe the commissioners should look at the sentimental aspect of the code and rules. This design would be a fit in the neighborhood and that it would be okay for the commissioners to approve this request. She stated that she will vote yes. Ms. McGovern stated that the design standard gives three options to come into compliance for design. One is the 50-foot maximum sidewall, another is an offset with a one-story connector to separate the two masses, and the third is to do a step-in and step-down at the rear. Because the code gives a lot of option to comply, she cannot get to approval from a code standpoint. She does not feel that it is necessary for reasons of fairness and does not think that it’s an unusual site. She does not think that the alternative design meets the overall intent and changing the articulation of mass. Stepping out those four feet is increasing a nonconformity and she could not approve this in good conscience using the code that she is allowed to use. Mr. Marcus stated that it was helpful when the applicants showed the measurement of the actual roofline. The fact that the proposal fits seamlessly within what is already the distance of that wall, and the perceived mass does not seem to be affected. He does not see that there will be a significant impact for the neighbors and the fact that the community who came for public comment is in full support speaks highly for the project. Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to approve Resolution 7 of 2018. Mr. Dupps seconded. Ms. Stickle read the roll. Ms. McNicholas Kury, Mr. McKnight, Mr. Dups, Mr. Marcus, and Ms. Carver voted yes. Ms. McGovern voted no. Motion approved. PUBLIC HEARING 813 W Smuggler – Residential Design Standard Variation – Articulation of Building Mass Mr. Mesirow re-entered the meeting at 5:35 pm. Mr. Larimer introduced himself as a Planner with the City of Aspen. He stated that 813 W Smuggler is located in the R6 Zone District. It’s an undeveloped lot and lot 3 of the Ranger Station subdivision. It’s located within the Aspen infill area. The existing lot is a 6,639 square foot lot and has some existing conditions that affect the site. There is a ten-foot utility and access easement to the rear of the property and the Si Johnson ditch easement located on the southwest portion of the lot. The dimensions of the lot are approximately 60 feet by 110 feet. The applicant applied for an administrative review of the residential design standards. They comply with all other standards in the residential design section for a single-family duplex house. They do not comply with the articulation of building mass standard, which is a nonflexible standard that requires approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission to be varied. The standard states that a principal building shall articulate building mass to reduce bulk and mass and create building forms that are similar in scale to those seen in historic Aspen residential buildings. The code provides three options to satisfy the standard. The first one is the maximum sidewall depth. The building must be 50-feet or less as measured from the front most wall to the rear most wall, providing a length limit for the primary mass. The second option is to provide an offset one-story ground-level connector between the two masses. This must happen within 45 feet of the front most wall, set back five feet from the side wall on either side of the primary mass, and must be ten feet between the primary and secondary mass of the building. The third option is an increased side setback or rear stepdown. This must be 45-feet as measured from the front most wall. The one-story stepdown must be set back five feet from the side wall of the primary structure. Mr. Larimer stated that, going back to the options for the standard, the maximum sidewall depth encapsulates all mass on site and the 50-foot maximum. The proposed structure is 84 feet four inches, clearly beyond the allowances for the maximum sidewall depth and maximizes the amount of development on site. The one-story step-down to the rear of the property happens at about 65 feet from the front most wall, which is beyond the allowances of the standard itself. There are two review criteria that need to be met to approve the request for the variation. The first is to provide alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standards as indicated in the intent statement as well as the general intent statement of the RDS section. The second is that the variation be necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. He stated that there are three items in the general intent. The first is to connect to the street. The design complies with the majority of the street-facing façade requirements of the residential design standard. Staff is not overly concerned with the connection to the street of this design. The second is response to neighboring properties that reduce the perceived mass and bulk of residential buildings from all sides and encourage a relationship to adjacent development through similar massing and scale. Staff feels that the proposed design does not reduce the perceived mass and bulk of the residential building as viewed from all sides. The east and west facades of the structure measure just over 84-feet with a two-story element that measures 65- feet long. The lot to the west of this property is also an undeveloped lot that’s currently in development review to be built if it does comply with the residential design standard. It will not have a relationship, as far as the mass is perceived from those two adjacent properties. Mr. Larimer stated that the third is reflect traditional building scale. With 84-foot sidewall depth, staff does not feel that it is necessarily consistent with historic architectural tradition in Aspen. Regarding the articulation of building mass intent statement, Mr. Larimer pulled out four elements from the paragraph that he stated were key. The first is that the standard seeks to reduce the overall mass as perceived on all sides. On the east and west sides of the structure, it is an 84-foot building depth, 65 feet of that is two stories. As viewed from all sides, it would be perceived as that length of building. The massing and articulation that conveys forms that are similar in massing to historic Aspen residential buildings, staff feels that the design does not meet that element. It states that this standard is critical in the infill area and this property is located in the infill area. It’s critical because small side and front yard setbacks exist. The setback between the adjacent property to the west and the proposed structure is five feet and the proposed design is right up to that setback line in some places, which impacts the adjacent property. Lastly, design to change the plane of the building sidewall, step a primary building’s height down to one story in the rear portion, or limit the overall depth of the structure. Staff feels that the design does not limit the overall depth of the structure but maximizes the amount of buildable area and, although it does provide a stepdown for the one-story element in the rear, it doesn’t meet the dimensional requirements of this standard. Because of this, staff finds that the does not meet review criteria number one. Mr. Larimer stated that the second review criteria for a variation states that it must be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constrains. He pointed out the zone district setbacks and utility and access easements and the ditch easement on a rendering on the slide. Although there are additional constraints on this site, staff feels that the constraints are not beyond what are seen in other properties in Aspen and there is still a substantial amount of developable property that the applicant should be able to provide a design that complies with the requirements of the code. Because of that, staff feels that the two review criteria that are set out for a variation are not met. Because of this, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for a residential design standard variation for the articulation of building mass. With that, he turned the meeting over to commissioner questions. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Larimer the size of the connector allowed in the second option. Mr. Larimer stated that it must be set back from the sidewall five feet and be ten feet long. Mr. Dupps stated that he needs to leave the meeting. Mr. Dupps left the meeting at 5:54 pm. Seeing no further questions, Mr. Mesirow turned the meeting over to applicant presentation. Rob Sinclair introduced himself and T Coverthwaite as being from Sinclair Building Architecture and Design and representing Smugg LLC for 813 W Smuggler Street. He stated that they had the design standards front and center as they were designing the house and considering the requirements. In the intent statement for the articulation of bulk and mass, there are the three distinct standards. In reviewing those, the applicants feel that they have all of the best aspects of the three options included in their design proposal, though it does not succinctly match with any one in particular. They did a very thorough site-analysis. How the property is accessed is pre-determined through the alley. They do have some restrictions regarding the installation of infrastructure in the alley. At the end of the alley, there is a setback on an encroachment which aligns with the ditch easement where the transformers and all the other utilities are located. They have addressed that in different ways with the setback and the articulation of their façade. Mr. Sinclair stated that the connection to the street is not in dispute with staff. Regarding response to neighboring properties, they do have a general understanding of bulk and mass of the neighboring property. Regarding the variation review standards, they feel that they have taken all the best aspects of the three options. A third of the site is encroached by the utility and ditch easements or the alley easement. Mr. Sinclair stated that their initial concept is a parti. He showed a diagram on the slide and stated that it is a strict interpretation of the traditional building mass block in the West End of Aspen. Because of the constraints on the site and the applicants’ desire to comply with the best aspects of all three criteria, they agreed that the best solution is to be able to step down to the single story at the alley. He showed on the rendering where the setback is located on the property and stated that, as they stepped up, they had additional setbacks. On the first level, the plan steps back five feet and an additional five feet on the second level. He showed where a twenty-five feet setback is located on the property and the measurements of the plan. There is one section of the building that could arguably be perceived as two- story wall with the articulated step backs as it goes up vertically. Mr. Sinclair stated that, looking at a flat two-dimensional elevation, arguably the building does give the perception of having this additional length. The applicants really worked to articulate the setbacks vertically and horizontally to respond to neighboring properties as well as draw upon the best aspects of the three design criteria. Mr. Sinclair showed a section of the building on the slide and stated that, by itself, it would comply with the second criterion, though it is not preferable. He showed that plan as an overlay with the proposal in question on a slide. The applicants feel that their proposal is a better design for that site. Some of the underlying design criteria are better for their end-user who has accessibility issues. The design does include an elevator. All three floors are single-level and they all need to be able to be connected. The applicants had an earlier design with a ten-foot split. If the elevator is one side or the other of the ten- foot split, the client, who is in a wheelchair, would be forced to go outside to navigate the second story of the property. There are the individual characteristics that the applicants had to consider from a livability standpoint. Mr. Coverthwaite stated that an unattached garage was not an option due to accessibility issues and considerations for weather. That took option 1 of the standards away and left the applicants to consider the other two. When the applicants considered option 3, they realized that bumping the garage would be very difficult to achieve without putting it on the west side of the setback because the site tapers down, which makes the plan noncompliant with that standard. The ghost massing to the left of the gable could not actually be built because the applicants would need additional side setback on that side to meet the 18-foot combined setback standards. He stated that the length is correct and gave the measurements for the plan. The front of the two-story mass is set back considerably from the site of the setback, so it does not really read that way. The applicants could use option 2 to get to an 85-foot building. There are no constraints to the rear mass being shorter and smaller than the other. The applicants found that to be an unappealing option, so they wanted to design the building so that it opens towards the west and their neighbor, making it more interesting and less massive on the front. Mr. Mesirow thanked the applicants for their presentation. He turned the meeting over to commissioner comment. Mr. McKnight asked the applicants to pull up the slide that showed the reduced portion of the plan which would be compliant. Mr. Coverthwaite showed the slide. He stated that the building to the left is the Forest Service barracks, which does not adhere to the setback. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the alternative design was discussed with staff as part of administrative review. Mr. Sinclair stated that it was not discussed directly. They spoke generally to say that they had explored many different options on the site and that they felt that they were 80% on all three, but not 100% on any one specifically. Ms. McGovern asked if the elevator is at a different level than the garage. Mr. Sinclair stated that there is now a ramp down. He stated that the infrastructure on the alley forced the garage higher, so it was a last-minute adjustment. He stated that that is a strict criterion that they are going to comply with. Mr. Messirow asked Mr. Sinclair if he can speak to the intended use case. Mr. Sinclair stated that it’s an individual who is in Aspen 90% of the year who has an extended family with children and grandchildren. The intended use is that this is a family hub. Mr. Mesirow asked if there were any other questions from commissioners. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over to public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT Michael Brown introduced himself as a neighbor of the lot. He stated that it is a difficult lot to work with. From his perspective, being located to the south, he has no objections to what is being proposed. He stated that there are some aspects of it that are favorable to them. Mr. Mesirow asked if there was further public comment. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over to commissioner deliberation. Mr. Mesirow asked the commissioners if they feel that it’s appropriate to consider the owner’s physical disability in conjunction with the site. Ms. McGovern stated that it’s not in the purview of the Commission to base decision on an individual. Ms. Bryan stated that, if a court were to review this, they would be looking at whether there was any competent evidence in the record to support whether the criteria were met, to support the Commission’s findings of either approval or denial. What the commissioners were referencing is not referenced at all in the code or criteria, however criteria are always open to interpretation. Ms. Carver stated that she would like to see the applicants fully comply with at least one of the standards. She stated that this is brand new construction and she imagines they could make it work for their client. Ms. McGovern stated that she agrees with Ms. Carver on that point. She stated that the ditch is something that not every lot has. But not every lot is 110 feet long, either. The utility easement cannot be part of our review as a hardship because they have an additional ten feet on their lot. The buildable length is the same. She would like to see them comply. There are a lot of options and their design does not meet them. Mr. Mesirow stated that he agrees with Ms. McGovern and asked if anyone has a different opinion. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked Ms. Bryan about the applicants from the previous hearing referring to the preamble of the standards. She asked if that is something that could come into consideration for supporting a decision or if the criteria come after that. Ms. Bryan stated that there is a good argument to be made that all sections of the code must be viewed in harmony with one another and in context. If this were to be reviewed, it would be reviewed on whether there was any competent evidence in the record to support an approval or denial. There could be an argument that the commission is reviewing this within the context. There are very specific criteria for this section of the code, so the fact that it doesn’t necessarily cross-reference the specific section Ms. McNicholas Kury mentioned is notable. Mr. McKnight stated his agreement with the rest of the commission. He expressed concern about the applicants following the code and ending up with something that’s terrible that the commission can’t say no to. Mr. Mesirow asked the applicants if they would like the opportunity to continue the hearing so that they might revise their proposal. Mr. Sinclair replied that they would. Staff and applicants discussed a date for the continuation for the hearing and settled on January 15th, 2019. Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to continue the hearing to January 15th, 2019. Mr. Mesirow seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. ADJOURN Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to adjourn the meeting at 6:15 pm. Mr. McKnight seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager