Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20190115Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2019 1 Staff Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Commission Comments ................................................................................................................................ 2 Minutes ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Public Comment not on the Agenda ............................................................................................................. 2 813 W Smuggler - RDS Variation – Articulation of Building Mass ........................................................... 2 222 Cleveland St – Special Review – Variation to the ADU Design Standards .......................................... 5 Election of Chair and Vice Chair .................................................................................................................. 6 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2019 2 At 4:30 p.m.; Skippy Mesirow called the regular meeting to order with Commissioners Spencer McKnight, Rally Dupps, Teraissa McGovern and Ruth Carver present. Jimmy Marcus arrived a few minutes later. Also present were Andrea Bryan and Linda Manning. Staff Comments Jennifer Phelan, community development, told the Commission there is a Council work session scheduled for February 26th. The first meeting in March would be on the 5th which is election day. There will be no meeting due to that. The second meeting is the 19th. We could schedule a meeting for the 26th. The board was in general agreement that day would work. Ms. Phelan will send out an email with the upcoming dates. Andrea Bryan, assistant city attorney, said there is a Council work session next Tuesday about small cells and 5G infrastructure. This is the new generation of wireless technology. Essentially it permits smaller cells in more locations. The federal government is limiting local control over what we can do to regulate these structures, particularly in the public right of way. We are in the process of evaluating our code. We are scheduling a meeting in February to talk to you about this. The goal is to have final code amendments adopted by the first council meeting in March to be effective by April 14th. Commission Comments None. Minutes Ms. McGovern moved to approve the minutes from December 18, 2018; seconded by Mr. McKnight. All in favor, motion carried. Public Comment not on the Agenda None. 813 W Smuggler - RDS Variation – Articulation of Building Mass Mr. Dupps stated he is also a neighbor and rents his property. He said that he can be fair and impartial. The applicant and board knows this and he will be participating in this hearing. Garrett Larimar, community development, stated this is an articulation of building mass variation of the Residential Design Standard. It was originally presented on December 18th. The property is zoned Residential and part of the Lot 3 Ranger Station Subdivision and located in the infill area. It is an undeveloped lot, 6,639 square feet. There is a 10 foot utility easement as well as the Si Johnson ditch that both run through the property. Both limit the developable portion of the lot. The lot size is 60 x 110 feet. A standard lot in this zone is 60 x 100 feet. The additional 10 feet was placed on the property to accommodate the utility easement at the rear of the property. The applicant submitted for an administrative review of the residential design standards and their design complies with all the other design standards besides the articulation of building mass. This standard is a non flexible standard. Any variation requires review and approval of the Planning & Zoning Commission. The standard reads that a principle building shall articulate mass to reduce bulk and mass and create building forms that are similar in scale of historic Aspen residential buildings. This standard provides three alternatives to comply with the standard. The first is a maximum sidewall depth. The principal building can be no more than 50 feet. There is no restriction on the articulation if all of the design falls within 50 feet as measured from the front most façade to the rear most facade. The second option is a one story ground level connection Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2019 3 between the primary mass and the secondary mass. This connector must happen no more than 45 feet from the front most wall of the building. There are set back requirements of five feet from the side wall of the primary mass to the connector. There must also be 10 feet between the primary and secondary structures. The third option is for a rear stepdown. The one story stepdown must occur no more than 45 feet as measured from the front most wall. It must be one story tall and must have a five foot set back from the primary mass sidewall. He showed the proposed site plan as well as renderings. Looking at the three options for satisfying the standard, the first is the 50 foot maximum sidewall. 84 feet 4 inches is well beyond option number one. The two story element portion of the building is 65 feet long. The code provides for a two story element no more than 45 feet long. This is well beyond the codes allowance for administrative approval. There is a one story stepdown at the rear, however there is no setback from the primary mass sidewall. The code does provide for variations. There are two review criteria that can be satisfied to meet a variation. The first is the design must provide an alternative 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 listed in the Residential Design Standards. The second option is that it must be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. This is an or statement. They can satisfy one of the two review criteria. The general intent statement for the Residential Design Standard is broken down to three parts. The first is to connect to the street. The second is to respond to neighboring properties. Third is to reflect traditional building scale. All of the standards that address connection to the street have been satisfied. We are not concerned with the connection to the street. For the second intent statement, respond to neighboring properties, this is aimed at reducing the perceived mass and bulk of residential buildings as viewed from all sides and encourage the relationship to adjacent development from similar massing and scale. Staff is concerned with the proposed development that the perceived mass and bulk as viewed from the west façade is 65 feet of a two story building and 19 feet of a one story portion to the rear. That façade is right up against a five foot set back line. Staff feels that significantly effects the neighboring property to the west. For the third, reflect traditional building scale, it is intended to retain the scale and proportions of the historic architectural traditions while encouraging design flexibility. This is intended to encourage design creativity and contemporary architecture but at a scale that respects historic design traditions. Staff also feels the proposed design is not consistent with historic design and that 85 foot building length is not something that is commonly seen. Staff feels the general intent statements are not satisfied by this design. Moving to the articulation of building mass intent statement, there are four main elements that are important to this review. The first is does the standard seek to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of the building as viewed from all sides. The west façade is a five foot setback. It is an 84 foot building length with 65 feet being two stories. It does create negative outcomes for the property to the west. The second aspect addressing building should include massings and articulations that convey forms that are similar to historic residential buildings. Staff does not feel that portion of the intent statement has been satisfied by the design. Third mentions the standard is critical to the infill area. Small side and front setbacks are prevalent. The west is relatively close to the setback. The proximity of the adjacent property makes it important that this design breaks up articulation, massing and scale. Lastly, the design should change the plane of a building sidewall and step the primary building height down to one story or limit the overall depth of the structure. Staff is concerned given the 85 foot developable area of the lot and the overall length is developed almost to that mark, it has not been satisfied. The second portion looks for a variation to be necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. There was an additional 10 feet added to the lot to accommodate the utility easement. We feel the primary encumbrance is the ditch easement. There are encumbrances on many lots in Aspen. That in itself it not unusual. Staff feels this criteria is not met. Applicant Rob Sinclair, representing the applicant, stated they presented at the last meeting and requested a continuance. At the time the chair and vice chair requested elaboration on some of the concerns on compliance with the prescriptive standards and how they would apply to this property. When designing the house we did not ignore the Residential Design Standards (RDS). The general intent statement from Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2019 4 the RDS ensures a strong connection between residences and streets. Ensures buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass and preserve historic neighborhood scale and character. Standards do not prescribe architectural style but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner contribute positively to the streetscape. RDS are intended to connect to the street, respond to neighboring properties, reflect traditional building scale. Connection to the street by establishing a visual and or physical connection between residences and streets and other public areas. We agree we comply with this standard. We don’t design any individual component in a vacuum. It has to be part of a cohesive design and a solution that responds to specific sites and uses for our client. We designed a strong physical and visual connection to the street. Respond to neighboring properties. Reduce perceived bulk and mass from all sides, encourage a relationship to adjacent development through similar massing and scale, create a sense of continuity through building form and setback along the streetscape, provide offsets or changes in plane or reduce the height near side lot lines. Our perceived bulk and mass is reduced from all sides. Our actual bulk and mass is physically and visually reduced by our design, especially on the street façade. Reflect traditional building scale. Retain scale and proportion in design that are keeping with Aspen historic architectural tradition but also encourage design flexibility. Encourage creative and contemporary architecture but at a scale that represents historic design traditions. Our design embodies traditional building scale and proportion with a simple two story gable roof and a contemporary wrap front porch element. Articulation of building mass is the standard of most concern to staff. Reduce overall perceived scale and mass from all sides. Design should promote light, air and access between adjacent properties. Design should articulate building walls by using multiple forms to break up large expansive wall planes. Buildings should include massing and articulation that conveys forms that are similar in massing to historic Aspen residential buildings. This standard is critical to the infill area where small side and front setbacks are prevalent. Design should change the plane of a building sidewall, step a primary building height down to one story in the rear or limit the overall depth of a structure. In regard to the intent statement, our building reduces the overall perceived bulk and mass from all sides. The design does promote light and air between adjacent properties. It articulates building walls by using multiple forms. The design changes the plane of the sidewalls and steps the height down to one story in the rear and limits the overall depth of the structure. While staff and I are reading the same code sections we argue that we meet all of them. The three options presented in the RDS as non flexible standards were reviewed and considered by us. We didn’t consider there were only three options. The variance option presented became the fourth option. 1 – stand alone building with free standing garage. There are accessibility issues where a free standing garage would not work. 2 – closest to being a possible solution. Would be fully in compliance but not a favorable option. 3 – given site constraints with ditch and utilities an attached garage is possible but we cannot articulate the 5 foot rear setback due to the retaining wall that has just been poured. The variation review standards provide an alternate design approach that meets the overall design of the standard as indicated in the intent statement or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness due to unusual site constraints. We feel the design clearly meets the overall intent as well as the general intent statement. The site is clearly constrained and qualifies for reasons of fairness because of the ditch easement and the alley configuration. 30% of the site is constrained and unusable. When we raised this condition with staff they responded that you bought it that way. It does not excuse the commission from fairly applying the variance standard. The plans remain unchanged other than we have now responded to the additional setback. The garage is required to have a five foot setback. He showed illustrations of the proposed plan and a what it would look like if they designed Option 2. The existing plan has a primary structure 30 feet in length. The secondary structure is 35 feet. Option 2 has the same 30 foot living space. Behind that, after the 10 foot setback and step down is a 40 foot 2 story structure with the remainder of the programming elements backing up to the alley. This hasn’t been fully designed but does comply with Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2019 5 RDS Option 2. A final design may be five feet longer. He showed section cuts. In our opinion and reasonable interpretation of the code, Option 2 is a favorable solution. We were told at the last meeting the accessibility issues of the owner were not something the commission should be basing a decision on. Because of the alley access we’ve had to manipulate our floor plate and continuous access. We’ve had a hard time finding the code sections saying either or, or saying options. T Coverwaite, Sinclair Architects, said fulfilling at least one of the following options shall satisfy the following standard. We asked staff what at least one meant. We did our best to look for attributes of all three. It also says the following options shall satisfy the standard, not is required. We absolutely feel the three options are compliant with the intents standards. They do not define the intent standards. They are three out of many ways to get to a solution that are compliant with the intent statements. The variance statement says provide a design alternative that satisfies the intent statement. We think you have the purview and latitude to look at the intent statements separate from the options. That is why we look at it as a fourth option. Going back to the notion of did we know the site was constrained, yes. Reading thought the RDS nowhere does it say an unusual site constraint must be a surprise. Nowhere does it say a variance can only be granted if compliance is impossible. Could we design to Option 2, probably. We don’t think it is as good for anyone. Ms. McGovern said the plans have not been updated to update the accessibility standards. Having the packet updated would have been helpful. Mr. Coverthwaite pointed out the changes from last time. Mr. Mesirow opened the public comment. There was none. Mr. Mesirow closed the public comment. Mr. Mesirow said he hasn’t seen any substantive changes from last time. Ms. McGovern said she does not see that they adjusted the design to address our concerns. Ms. Carver said it is a beautiful design. She does not see how in good conscious she can approve new construction. She cannot set a precedent to have a variance for what the rules are. Mr. Mesirow said he is hearing that this might be prettier, but our job is to enforce the rules. Ms. McGovern said this does not address the RDS. She does not think it sets a precedent. I cannot approve it. Mr. McKnight said he is alarmed a bit as how it looks and can meet the standard. It is a very good looking structure. We are making a decision based on the code. We don’t have the luxury of allowing it. Mr. Mesirow asked if they want to go back and meet the intent of 1 would you approve it. Ms. McGovern replied they wouldn’t be back here. There is a way to redo the design to get closer to the intent statements. Ms. Carver said there was something about the Forest Service designing the size of the lots and it is something they have to work with, Mr. Marcus said I could get there. The general massing, it is massive. From that angle it is what it is. If there was an attempt to step it down or an attempt to be thoughtful to honor that direction. It doesn’t come across to me. Ms. McGovern said there is lots of flexibility in the design. There is room to make it closer to compliance. Mr. Marcus said the block images are deceptive. You could make it a desirable design. There wasn’t a lot of intention to honor those guidelines. Mr. McKnight moved to deny the RDS variation for articulation of building mass for 813 W Smuggler; seconded by Ms. McGovern. All in favor, motion carried. 222 Cleveland St – Special Review – Variation to the ADU Design Standards Mr. Mesirow recused himself. Mr. McKnight opened the hearing for 222 Cleveland St. Ms. McGovern moved to continue to January 22, 2018; seconded by Mr. Marcus. All in favor, Motion carried. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2019 6 Mr. McKnight closed the hearing. Mr. Mesirow rejoined the meeting Election of Chair and Vice Chair Mr. Mesirow said he has enjoyed working with you all, but I will not be reapplying for P&Z. Mr. Dupps nominate Teraissa for chair. Ms. McGovern nominate Spencer for chair. Ms. Carver nominated Teraissa for vice chair. Mr. Dupps nominated Spencer for vice chair. Mr. Mesirow called a vote for Mr. McKnight for Chair. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Mesirow called a vote for Ms. McGovern for Vice Chair. All in favor, motion carried. At 5:40 Ms. Carver moved to adjourn; seconded by Ms. McGovern. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk