Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20120703 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes July 3, 2012 Comments 2 Minuets 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 601 East Hyman - Conceptual 2 1 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes July 3, 2012 LJ Erspamer opened the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission in Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present were Ryan Walterscheid, Jim DeFrancia, Keith Goode, Cliff Weiss, Stan Gibbs, and LJ Erspamer. Bert Myrin and Jasmine Tygre were not in attendance. Staff in attendance were Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Phelan and Sara Nadolny, Community Development; and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments LJ Erspamer stated that Jennifer did a good job on the update. LJ asked to see the year of the Aspen Area Community Plan documents when they are referring to it. Jennifer Phelan said the next meeting was July 17th and at the following meeting on August 7th the county was trying to schedule a "West of Castle Creek" meeting with City Council, Board of County Commissioners, County P&Z and City P&Z to meet at 4 pm for the update. Jennifer said that then the regular City P&Z Meeting would begin at 5pm. MOTION: Ryan Walterscheid moved to approve the minutes from June 19th with his corrections seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor APPROVED. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest None stated. Continued Public Hearing: 601 East Hyman — Conceptual Commercial Design Review LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing. Sara Nadolny stated that she emailed Exhibits A, B & H to be included in the record and the applicant provided a new Exhibit I. Sara Nadolny introduced Sarah Broughton and Stan Clauson. Sara said this was a 4,500 square foot parcel located on the corner of Hunter and Hyman; the applicant was planning a full demolition and replacement of the building. There was 6% public amenity and the remainder provided by cash-in-lieu. Sara said the Commercial Design Review included the placement of the building, height, massing and placement of the public amenity space. Sara said at the last public hearing a number of topics were raised like the trash/recycling area, the removal of the spruce trees, amenity space and the building space and massing. After the applicant met with Environmental Health and proposed an increased space for the trash/recycle area that will house four 96 2 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting—Minutes July 3, 2012 gallon containers, 2 yard cardboard recycling container and a wider opening. The trash area is now separated from the exit stairs by an overhead door. Sara said the applicant has contacted the Parks Department regarding the tree removal and discuss the street trees; Parks response is Exhibit F and is in favor of the street trees. Sara said the applicant was preparing an increase from 144 square feet to 272 square feet public amenity space with the walkway increased by 5 feet, street trees, public art and benches on the site. Staff does question the quality of public amenity space and refer to the design guidelines to be a gathering space with solar access and maintenance of a well defined street edge. The stair tower is now setback 4 feet and increased the public amenity space. Sara asked if the public amenity spaces on Hyman Avenue have a potential for more negative effects on retail. Sara said the staff has concerns using the 2nd and 3rd stories elements over projected over the 1St story and showed (power point) of that overhang which was lessened to 5 feet from 6 feet. Sara asked if this overhang will create a dark recessed space and potentially hurt the success of a retail space on the first floor. Staff is seeing this as 3 modules (Exhibit H); staff recommends a study of the stair tower height and location for greater balance for the massing. Jim DeFrancia asked why staff thought the canopy overhang was an impediment to successful retail. Sara replied that it removes the retail from the existing sidewalk and people have to choose to walk into the space. LJ said there were so many iconic buildings in Aspen and asked if there were any iconic buildings located right next door to those iconic buildings or in other words does an iconic building stand alone in town. Jennifer said there were buildings that stand alone but the context is important for these buildings to relate. Stan Gibbs does not show the façade as was proposed. Stan Clauson replied that they were asked to provide some drawings without the ornamentation so that the planning commission and staff have a better understanding of the underlying nature of the building. Jennifer said the ornamentation is at final design and material; those snow pillows will exceed the underlying height unless it is granted a variation. 3 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes July 3, 2012 • Cliff Weiss asked about the dimensions of the public amenity space and asked where is the 13%public amenity space on the existing building. Sara Nadolny said the public amenity space was 13% and it was the applicant's duty to keep that 13% however they are responding to that in the new proposal was to have 6% on site and the rest cash-in-lieu. Cliff asked what is that in square footage. Sara replied 272. Stan Clauson stated that they have made some changes based on comments and this has resulted in some minor changes in square footages; the 3rd floor residential unit has a net livable area of 1947 square feet. Stan Clauson said this was a project that was in conformance with the land use code and with the historic district guidelines with commercial design approval with the proposed max height at 36 feet and is specifically exempt as ornamentation such as the pillows. Stan Clauson said the proposed height overall is 8,798 which is considerably less that the code allowed on this 4500 square foot lot. Sarah Broughton thanked the commission for their comments; this is a unique situation with no alley access and 2 street sides. Sarah said it was appropriate to have the 2nd and 3rd stories not stepped back. Sarah said successful retail sidewalks start at 10 feet and is a code that they have studied and feel to create a great retail experience we need to step back the sidewalks. Sarah said the differences on the first floor were an increase in the transformer area, created a screen and open to the sky; a generous trash area that can accommodate retail and the rest of the retail; it is separated from the egress door from the stair and an opening. Stan Clauson said the public amenity is the walking area around the sidewalks as a linear amenity. Sarah said that they get solar access around the corner by pushing it back 5 feet from the property line. Stan Clauson said there were 4 objectives from the historic design guidelines that might be applicable: 1. having the wider sidewalk on Hyman strengthens the sense of relatedness to Hunter; 2. maintain a retail orientation and we were not losing retail orientation by the minimal setback; 3. promote a contemporary design and 4. encourage a defined street wall. Stan Clauson said that they met with Ashley Cantrell in Environmental Health regarding the trash/recycling area and that was how they came up with this design. Stan Clauson said that they removed the wing wall and feel it is a good design. Stan Clauson said some design changes were transits above the windows and increased orientation toward Hunter Street. Sarah said they have brought in French doors in the retail and are working with the retail to make sure that it is successful to pedestrians walking by. Stan Clauson said they have provided seating next to 4 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes July 3, 2012 the Muse building and looking at a green wall which will come back to you at final and is doable in our climate. Stan Clauson showed the Hunter Street elevation with the 4 foot overhang and showed other retail with overhangs. Stan Clauson introduced Ron Garfield as the builder of the property. Ron said first he wanted to thank P&Z for the time tonight; Sara and Jennifer have given good information that they have taken to heart and made some changes. Ron said the building they were in right now is a failure as an office building and retail; the building was built in 1975 and there were 2 art galleries and a bakery in the space that is now occupied by Joshua Real Estate. Ron said the 2nd floor was separated into a number of small office spaces and as they took more and more of the building and the building was originally designed to house a number of small spaces. Ron said that he and Andy had their law firm and were also developers and wanted to create retail space on the first floor of the new development. Ron said the challenge was the constraint of the site and when the buildings that are going up the town will look different and they are trying to make a statement with the glass design. Ron said they were clear with their team for no variances and there is a finite limit on what they can do on this site. Cliff asked how wide the public amenity space was on Hunter and Hyman. Stan Clauson replied 18 inches with a curved planter on Hunter and it is 5 feet on Hyman except where it goes under the canopy. Cliff asked if there was rooftop access above the 3rd floor. Sarah replied no. Cliff asked about the glass. Sarah replied that would be addressed at final. Cliff said that you show retail but could it be a restaurant. Stan Clauson said the code allows for a restaurant but it hasn't been designed for it. Stan Gibbs said the amenity space was only to the end of the bench. Stan Clauson replied it has an open quality but they did not count it as amenity space. LJ asked where the standard 10 feet sidewalk space. Sarah replied that a new urbanism has been around for 15 to 20 years and prior to that in the 1960s a Berkley Professor started the new urbanization scale in sidewalks that will encourage retail. LJ asked if there was an airlock with the French doors for winter. Sarah said they haven't gotten into that so far. Stan Gibbs said the dimension of the canopy coverage was 4 feet deep by how long. Sarah replied 35 feet. No public comments. 5 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes July 3, 2012 Commissioner Comments: Jim DeFrancia said there were no variances requested, the FAR was less than allowed and the staff had trouble with the public amenity space and noted that this was a constraint site. Jim said the 5 foot setback didn't have an impact on retail, personally. Jim said it was an attractive building and was satisfied with the turn out. Ryan personally liked the changes made to the building; the corner was well addressed by wrapping the storefront around the corner. Ryan said that he didn't have a problem with the massing and it is broken down; by pushing the trees out to the curb line you will put people closer to your building and will be more successful. Ryan said the next time P&Z sees this and we discuss materials you may be able to break up your modular more; by final how will you break up that storage in the basement. Keith liked the changes in the trash area and the setback for the stairwell; it flows with the block. Keith said that his concern was the overhang with water runoff. Cliff said he had no trouble tearing down what is there and putting something attractive in its place but was concerned about tying this block to downtown. Cliff asked about the one view but didn't like the piece of art. Cliff said the size, mass and scale he had no trouble with and he would like to see something a little more active than another gallery. LJ said that he liked Mr. Garfield's comments about the old building. LJ said that he was not a huge fan of modern contemporary but your comments were good. LJ said that he would like to see more public amenity space but was proud of the 10 foot sidewalk. LJ liked the canopy because it protects you from the elements but with cars parked in front and a canopy limits your view of retail spaces. LJ said he was not a fan of bringing street wall up to the sidewalk and likes that there was a setback. LJ said that he won't be supporting this because in his opinion he doesn't think that modern character reflects a small mountain town. Stan Gibbs said in general it was a good application and have done an admiral job of staying within the limits of development; in general he like the modularity but he doesn't favor the mass of that façade and overhang. Stan said he likes the building better without the glass because it goes to the mass of that overhang. Stan said the public amenity space even with the 4 feet that is taken out by overextending the building, if you take that 4 feet out you gain 144 feet of public amenity space and you reduce the apparent mass of the building. Stan wanted to 6 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes July 3, 2012 see more amenity space even though it is not sitting space but it is open to the sky. Stan Gibbs said that he probably won't support this project and would like more thought given to making the building flush. Sarah said that with the bump out she felt that it looks to the pedestrian experience. Sarah stated the materials would be looked at final and wants to make something that is long lasting and one of the ideas was to bring back some color to town. Stan Clauson said they would look at the final design issues and any dripping from runoff and they feel this will add to the vitality to what is there. Cliff said that he could support the canopy and the glass was different and Aspen could use a change, so it was fine with him. Cliff asked why we were losing 7% amenity space was it truly more than just flow. Stan Clauson replied from an FAR standpoint they are giving up quite a bit of that FAR in the overall building. Stan Clauson said the allowable floor area on this site is 11,250 and proposed is about 8800 so there is about 2500 square feet in unused floor area; they need to look to the viability of building and the 2nd and 3rd floor projection does add interest. LJ asked Debbie Quinn if there was a tie vote there is no action and what happens then; these people can't apply for a year. Debbie Quinn quoted from Section 26.212.050 applications where action is required remain pending with a tie vote. It shall not be considered action. Because action is required, the application remains pending until action is taken. Debbie said you could either continue after a 3 to 3 tie vote or you could come back and reschedule. MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #13, series of 2012 for Commercial Design Review for 601 East Hyman with the addition of the language further study and review of the public amenity space with the objective of increasing it before final; Ryan Walterscheid seconded Roll call vote: Stan Gibbs, no; Keith Goode, yes; Ryan Walterscheid, yes; Jim DeFrancia, yes; LJ Erspamer, no; Cliff Weiss, yes. APPROVED 4-2. Discussion prior to vote: LJ asked if the resolution in the packet would be the resolution used. Sara replied yes although public amenity space has not been completed. LJ read from page 4 of the staff memo regarding the public amenity space. Stan Gibbs said if there were an amendment to the motion then the person who made the motion agreed to it then it would be included in the motion but if they don't agree then it can't be included and we just have to vote on it to get any amendment to the resolution. LJ said the person who made the motion and the 7 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting— Minutes July 3, 2012 person who seconded it have to approve the amendment through that motion. Debbie Quinn said before it is voted on. Cliff said because of the loss of the 7% of public amenity if this were at final he would vote this down because it is critical for the amenity space. Jim DeFrancia suggested the language further study and review of the public amenity space with the objective of increasing it before final. Adjourned at 6:15. fckie Lothi. , Deputy City Clerk 8