Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20111206 City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes December 06, 2011 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 904 East Cooper — Residential Design Variance 3 South Aspen Street PUD Amendment 3 1 City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes December 06, 2011 Stan Gibbs opened the regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission December 06, 2011in Sister Cities at 4:30. Commissioners present were: Bert Myrin, Jasmine Tygre, LJ Erspamer and Stan Gibbs. Cliff Weiss and Jim DeFrancia were excused. Staff in attendance: Jim True, Special Counsel; Chris Bendon, Jessica Garrow, Community Development; Reed Patterson, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Bert Myrin requested that the City P &Z sign the reaffirm support for the AACP adopted by this commission on November 15, 2011. Stan Gibbs said they have already made a joint statement. Jasmine Tygre said she would feel comfortable with endorsing a group action. Bert said he would support that the AACP reaffirmation that was adopted 11/15/11 even though he did not vote for it at that meeting. Jasmine Tygre said this could be one sentence. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved that four members of P&Z currently present issue a simple one sentence statement saying that the plan that was submitted to Council was the plan that had been voted on by both commissions and we stand behind it; seconded by LJ Erspamer. Stan Gibbs wrote down "we, the under- signed members of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission wish to reaffirm their support for the AACP as adopted November 15 ". All in favor: Jasmine Tygre, LJ Erspamer, Bert Myrin and Stan Gibbs. Stan asked staff if someone would write that up. Jennifer Phelan said that you could send it to her email. Jim True asked if the intent was to deliver this to Council now. The Commissioners agreed in favor. Bert said that the February 7th meeting he has a conflict. Jennifer said that Bert was here for a quorum and was going to the Council Meeting not staying for P &Z. Bert said that he would stay until someone comes and gets him. Jennifer stated the second agenda item South Aspen Street PUD will request a continuation from tonight to January 3rd The commission did not want to approve any minutes. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest None stated. 2 City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes December 06, 2011 Public Hearing: South Aspen Street PUD Amendment Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing on the South Aspen Street PUD Amendment. Jennifer Phelan stated the applicant requested the hearing be opened and continued to January 3, 2012. Stan asked if there was any member of the public would not be able to attend January 3 and wishes to make a comment on this item. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to continue the public hearing for South Aspen Street PUD Amendment to January 3, 2012; seconded by LJErspamer. All in favor. Public Hearing: • 904 East Cooper — Residential Design Variance Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing for 904 East Cooper; he asked for the notice. Notice was provided. Jennifer Phelan stated the application before you was for 904 East Cooper, a residential design variance request; the application was submitted by Charles Cunniffe Architects on behalf of Princess POW LLC represented by Charles Cunniffee and Janver Derrington. Jennifer said that 904 East Cooper was '/2 a duplex located on the corner of Cooper and West End Streets and was undergoing an interior remodel and the applicant would like to add second story windows on the Cooper Street facade. The residential design standards permit only one non - orthogonal per facade and the existing facade currently has a grouping of non - orthogonal windows on it. The memo on page 2 had pictures, figure 2 with a yellow circle, which is tonight's variance request. Jennifer said there were 2 standards associated with the design variance: #1. appropriate development considering the context and the purpose of the standard or #2. is the design variance clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site - specific constraints. Jennifer stated part of the purpose was to preserve neighborhoods scale and character; that each home contribute to the streetscape. Under the building element subsection it talks about materials and in this case the windows; it says that street facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade and that these elements should enhance the walking experience reinforce local building traditions and the street facing windows can establish a hierarchy of spaces with larger formal windows denoting public area and smaller ones suggesting private rooms. These are purpose statements surrounding the residential design standards specifically in this building the non - orthogonal 3 City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes December 06, 2011 window is located. Staff is considering this variance that proposed design is appropriate in development and the context of the neighborhood. Jennifer said there were many non - orthogonal windows in this neighborhood. Staff feels that this applicant could come up with a design solution that meets this standard and not need a variance so staff does not recommend approval of this request. Jasmine Tygre asked are the triangles on top are what makes these windows non- orthogonal. Jennifer replied yes. Jasmine said if they just rectangular windows without the triangles on top they would be in conformance. Stan Gibbs asked staff if just taking off the non - square or triangular light; what he means light is from the pane of glass. Jennifer answered what it says is no more than one non - orthogonal window shall be allowed on each facade of the building; a single non - orthogonal may be divided with mullions and still be considered one non - orthogonal window. Stan asked if the existing was one window. Jennifer replied that it is one window unless it is individual windows that open up (individual cased windows) you could have one large window with mullions in it but couldn't have multiple small windows that were non - orthogonal. Stan said so this already violated the standard because there are multi non - orthogonal windows existing. LJ Erspamer said he walked by 926 and 928 today and those are similar as are other pictures and it talks about the neighborhood. Jennifer said that she looked up the block face that the property was located on and directly across the street because of this corner lot. Charles Cunniffe, architect, said the residential design standards were really geared toward the West End neighborhood; it wasn't thought to apply to multi - family buildings or other parts of town because this is not a Victoria neighborhood. Charles stated that they did not design this building; this is what is built now and we feel that it meets the standards; this is not as good a design solution for this particular neighborhood, which already has this existing. Charles said the continuation of that we feel is much more appropriate for the architecture of this building; it is a better fit and quieter than was has been permitted and constructed. This feels like it completes the intent of the original architecture; it is not a Victorian building and it is a non - orthogonal window and in this particular case that is the most appropriate solution and we are seeking a variance so that we are allowed to come up with a little bit more appropriate solution for this particular building. Charles noted in the images he sees buildings with more than one non - 4 City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes December 06, 2011 orthogonal window. Charles said the upstairs bedrooms didn't have windows facing the views; it also has a door opening to the neighboring building. Charles said they feel it is a more appropriate solution even though it doesn't comply with the design standards. Janver Derrington stated the other duplex around the corner has a similar grouping of windows so our proposed solution is more harmonious than the duplex. Stan asked if there was any member of the public that would like to make a comment. None stated. Charles stated that they contacted 148 neighbors and not one of them objected. Bert Myrin said that Standard A is the standard and the windows don't change the scale but may change the character. Bert said the applicant said the character improves with the variance request. Bert said he would support that variance request. LJ Erspamer said he saw the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures and he thought it meets the review standards. LJ said this was so minor that it didn't beak up the true meaning of the code and thanked staff for all of their hard work. Jasmine Tygre said with the addition of the triangle the non - orthogonal will there be more light coming from those windows at night. Charles Cunniffe replied no there were curtains on the windows. LJ said that there would be solar gain. Jasmine said that it does meet Standard A. Stan Gibbs stated there have been a lot of variance requests lately that have been relatively small. Stan said that in terms of functionality it is not going to be that different in terms of light. Charles said the owner would like a view of the mountain which this variance would allow. Stan said given the diversity of architecture in this neighborhood; the house already has a non - orthogonal windows and if you made that one big window he would support that. Bert said that he would support that. Jennifer said if you think the context of the neighborhood allows this she would let what they have proposed pass; we are talking one plate of glass with mullions. 5 City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes December 06, 2011 MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to approve Resolution 23 approving the application's request for a variance from the residential design standards located at 904 East Cooper; seconded by Bert Myrin. Roll call: Bert Myrin, yes; LJ Erspamer, yes; Jasmine Tygre, yes; Stan Gibbs, yes. APPROVED 4 -0. Adjourned. ranscriber by Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 6