Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20190521 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 21, 2019 Chairperson McKnight called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Spencer McKnight, Teraissa McGovern, Scott Marcoux, Ryan Walterscheid, Jimmy Marcus Absent: Brittanie Rockhill, Ruth Carver, Don Love, Rally Dupps Staff present: Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director Ben Anderson, Planner STAFF COMMENTS None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Marcus asked staff what the next step would be in addressing City Council regarding the rules around second-tier commercial space since that was something Planning and Zoning had expressed a desire to do in the past. Ms. Phelan replied that the commissioners had expressed wanting to wait for the new City Council members to come on board. PUBLIC COMMENTS Toni Kronberg addressed the meetings discussion slated for later in the agenda. She expressed a desire for the Planning and Zoning Commission to take public comment on all agenda items, beyond just public hearings, stating that Mayor Skadron does this in City Council meetings. She would like for the Planning and Zoning agendas to clearly articulate the rules for public comment. She also expressed a desire for Planning and Zoning to have a say in the elimination of the bike lane in front of the new City offices building. She expressed a desire for better connectivity between the river and the mountain, stating that the City promised to open the landscaping at the City office building. She expressed concern that this plan now seems to have been abandoned. She also expressed concern that there is not communication happening between different City departments, citing specifically Engineering and Community Development. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Walterscheid voted to approve the minutes from April 23rd, 2019. Ms. McGovern seconded. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARING 412 N Eighth Street, RDS Standard Variation – Articulation of Building Mass Mr. Anderson introduced the public hearing. He stated that the property next door has come before Planning and Zoning for consideration for a similar variation. He showed the location of the property within the subdivision on a map on the slide. The Commission is being asked to consider only one of the standards within the larger set of RDS standards as the design complies with all the other RDS standards. The standard being examined is the Articulation of Building Mass standard. Mr. Anderson showed a picture of building on the slide. He pointed out the design element in question, a one-story element that runs along the south side of the building and contains a side-loaded garage and entry door. He stated that there are three options presented in the land use code for meeting this standard within the residential design standards. This design is most pursuing option number two, Off- set with One-Story Ground Level Connector. The standard states that the connecting element shall be at least ten feet in length and set back at least an additional five feet from the sidewall on both sides of the building. This usually results in a barbell-shaped feature with a primary mass in the front and then rising back out with a step back in the rear element. This stepdown is required to be no more than 45 feet from the frontmost wall of that front element from the primary massing. He showed a rendering of the proposal on the slide and pointed out that the design runs past the connecting one-story subservient feature and back to the rear element. Mr. Anderson stated that staff has had a lot of discussion around this articulation of building mass standard. There was a code amendment to change it back in 2015 or 2016 to emulate traditional forms throughout Aspen. It has been the standard that staff has received the most questions about regarding how to best meet the standard, what the intent statement for the standard really means, what’s the flexibility around getting at the intent statement and meeting the standard. The reason that this case is before P&Z is that it doesn’t meet the standard. This is a non-flexible standard, meaning that staff can’t make an administrative determination, it is required to come before P&Z. Mr. Anderson stated that a variation is different than a variance to dimensional standards. In the case of a variation, the applicant does not need to have a hardship to grant the variation. The two review criteria are to provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard or site-specific constrains. As staff does not believe there are any site constraints in this case, the commission is being asked to contemplate intent. In the Articulation of Building Mass standard, there are two phrases that stand out. One is “design should articulate building walls by utilizing multiple forms to break up large expansive wall planes” and “design should change the plane of a building’s side wall.” Mr. Anderson stated that staff are generally reluctant to support variations to this standard. Most of the time, the applicant is asking for extension of those dimensions. In this case, staff’s perspective is that this design does get after these two statements from the intent statement, adding articulation to large wall planes, utilizing multiple forms to break up those planes, and changing the plane of a building’s side wall. There’s nothing in the general intent statement that this runs aground of. With that, this proposal meets the standard for the specific RDS Articulation of Building Mass standard and the general intent statements as well. Also, because the proposal meets the other RDS standards as shown by the administrative checklist shown in the packet, approval on this project would grant a variation to the Articulation of Building Mass standard as well as a general approval for RDS standards. With that, Mr. Anderson turned the meeting over to Commissioner questions. Mr. Marcus asked if the part that extends beyond the connector is another variation. Mr. Anderson replied no. He the piece that makes the design non-compliant on a rendering on the slide. Staff’s view is that the one-story element serves to break up what would otherwise be two unified wall planes. From staff’s view, this is a design improvement towards that intent statement. The only variation that’s being requested is an articulation of building mass in a way that does not precisely meet the numbers expressed in the standard. Mr. McKnight asked if there are any further questions. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over the applicants’ presentation. Patrick Rawley from Stan Claussen Associates introduced himself. He also introduced Joseph Spears of S2 Architects. He showed the location of the property on a slide. He pointed out the vacated Francis right-of-way and the Sy Johnson Ditch. Among being fully compliant with the other RDS standards, they are also compliant with building setbacks. There is a five-and-a-half-foot setback on the north side, in between the duplex on lot 5, and then a seventeen-and-a-half-foot setback on the south side. The articulation of building mass is the actual variation they are asking for. The intent statement is to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk of the buildings, articulate building walls by utilizing multiple forms to break up large expansive wall planes, and designs should change the plane of a building’s sidewall. There is an intent of this RDS and the standard that shows how to get there. What Mr. Spears and his team has come up with is arguably a better way to go about this articulation of building mass. Mr. Rawley showed a rendering of the one-story connecting element on a slide and stated that it would be fully compliant on the north side. It does meet the depth requirement. The alternative element on the south side, while it does not meet the standard of the dumbbell-shaped structure, it really is causing the mass and the articulation of the building to be evident and make the structure look smaller than it would if it were following strict standards. He demonstrated this by showing renderings on the slide. Mr. Rawley stated that there are two review criteria for the variation. It’s clear that the applicants are providing an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard, indicated in the intent statement for the standard as well as the general intent statements of the RDS. He showed a comparison between the proposal and a design that was fully compliant with the standard, showing that the proposal gives a sense of a smaller building overall and reduces the perceived mass and bulk. The articulation of building mass is also to promote light and air between adjacent properties. Articulate building walls by utilizing multiple forms. As stated, there are many multiple forms and various points of interest that will create visual interest. The applicants changed the plane of the building’s side wall, stepping it in. As pointed out earlier, the intent of the RDS is to connect residences to the street and this property has a very strong street presence. They are also responding to neighboring properties through the connector element that is meeting RDS standards on the north side. Somebody standing on lot 5 would be seeing this as any normal standard being met. This proposal reduces the perceived bulk and mass on all sides by pulling some mass away from the side yard on the south. To encourage the relationship of adjacent development, the proposal leaves room for future development. The final point of the RDS is to reflect traditional building scales. In that section of the RDS it says that you should encourage creative and contemporary architecture, but at a scale that respects historic additions. That is what Mr. Spears has taken a look at designs around town and has created a better result than what the strict standards would be doing. Most requests for this variation are attempting to increase the mass of the building and this proposal does the opposite and reducing the mass of the building. The intent statement is advanced by the proposed design as it says in the staff memo. With that, Mr. Rawley asked for commissioner questions. Mr. Marcus asked why the applicants extended it beyond what the step back would have been and how long the structure can be. Mr. Anderson replied that the primary, two-story mass is 33 and four inches. With the addition of the second story mass, it’s another 10 or 11 feet, still less than 45 feet. Mr. Marcus stated that, even with the extension, the proposal is still below what would be the limit of one wall plane. Mr. Spears stated that, regarding the step back, the applicants didn’t want to have a super wide gable. They wanted to pull out the garage because they need an entry on one side of the two-car garage which adds up to a certain width. But they didn’t want that width over a huge gable, so their preference was to make the garage a little wider but make the gable tighter. Mr. Anderson stated that he received phone calls from neighbors. One was concerned about he general impacts that the Ranger Station construction would have on the quality of the street. The other neighbor saw the design and was trying to understand the relationship between lots 4 and 5. They were okay with the design. PUBLIC COMMENT Kim Cailin introduced herself as a neighbor of the property on West Francis. She asked how this project relates to the Poppies site. Mr. Spears stated that there is a transformer and easement between the two lots. Ms. Cailin asked if this lot is to the north of the transformer. Mr. Rawley replied that that is correct. He pointed out on the map where Poppies is located in relation to this property. Ms. Cailin asked if the property cuts into the ditch. Mr. Spears replied that they are required to be ten feet off the center of the ditch. Ms. Cailin asked what is being built in-between right now. Mr. Spears replied that there is development happening on lot 4 to the north and then an alley. Lot 5 is the only lot that doesn’t have access to the alley. Mr. Anderson showed the boundaries of the alley on a map and pointed out lots 4 and 5, the Sy Johnson Ditch, and Poppies. Ms. Cailin asked if Eighth Street will just be constant parking. Mr. Spears stated that there are supposed to be better street trees, a sod strip, curbs, and sidewalk. Ms. Cailin stated that there was very little onsite parking when Poppies was approved. She stated that the parking for these properties will not be self-contained. Mr. Spears stated that there is room for parking between the street and the sidewalk and curb. Ms. Cailin stated that there is no space where they build the alleyway. Mr. Spears replied that there is supposed to be parking parallel to the curb that is eight feet wide. Mr. Rawley stated that parking won’t be exacerbated by this development. Poppies is a different matter. Mr. McKnight asked if there is further public comment. Seeing none, he turned the meeting over to commissioner deliberation. Mr. Marcoux stated that he likes it. Ms. McGovern stated that this is creative solution to the standard. Mr. Walterscheid stated that he agrees with Mr. Marcoux and Ms. McGovern. Mr. Marcus stated that his initial concern was having an expansive wall but understanding that it’s still below what’s allowed gave him perspective. Having the setbacks and the articulation is the goal. Mr. McKnight stated that he agrees with the applicant and City staff that this does a better job at the intent than the barbell diagram. Mr. Marcus motioned to approve the resolution, number to be assigned. All commissioners voted yes. All in favor, resolution approved. OTHER BUSINESS Running Commission Meetings Article Mr. McKnight stated that he wanted to discuss with everyone how the meetings are being run since he started as chair. He asked what the group expects for public comment. Sometimes the back-and-forth with the public is helpful and sometimes not and goes on too long. At what point do we cut it off? Mr. Marcus asked if public comment is supposed to be a statement or a Q&A dialogue. Mr. McKnight stated that he has noticed that applicants often try to make a statement regarding how they stand on a topic in response to a comment. Ms. Phelan stated that it should generally be statements, but sometimes questions for the Commission can be valid. They should be addressing the Commission and they can say: “we’ll have the applicant respond to that question at the end of public comment.” Mr. Marcus stated that Mr. McKnight should keep track of the questions to be answered and they can become part of deliberation but prevent it from becoming a dialogue. Mr. McKnight stated that he will shut down any follow-up that tries to happen. Mr. Marcoux stated that we need to stay consistent across every meeting. Ms. Bryan stated that the time limits are generally for consistency. If there aren’t boundaries, the meetings have the potential to get completely out of control. If there are no rules in place, it looks like you’re treating people differently. Mr. McKnight asked what information we can include for the public in the agenda. Ms. Phelan stated that the agenda already outlines a typical public hearing. She can always explain the procedure for public comment at the beginning of the meeting when there are members of the public present. Mr. Marcus brought up an incident from a prior meeting where a member of the public wanted to continue to make comments beyond the commend period. He asked the best way to control the meeting during a situation like that. Ms. McGovern explained that it was a member of the public who didn’t feel heard. There was no other way to make that person feel heard. She ended up politely telling that person they needed to stop talking after allowing him to speak at least twice. Ms. Bryan stated that what he did was an inappropriately timed outburst. The way to address that more formally would be to adopt formal rules of decorum. Mr. McKnight asked what the process is for adopting those. Ms. Bryan stated that those would need to be adopted via resolution. Ms. McGovern asked if there are examples that they can use. Ms. Bryan replied that City Council and APCHA have adopted them. They are to put the public on notice that there are steps the Commission is going to follow if conduct crosses certain lines. You can’t infringe on free speech rights, but courts around the country have upheld rules of decorum. They could be posted online and attached to the agenda. Mr. Marcus stated that it would be good to define what the rules are, adopt them, and attach them to the agenda for something to point to. Ms. Bryan stated that it would give protocol for removing someone from the meeting if their conduct becomes threatening. Mr. McKnight asked how long City Council’s are. Ms. Bryan replied that they are a few paragraphs. Mr. McKnight stated that he’s happy to read them at the beginning of the meeting or at the opening of public comment if there is a hearing that seems like it will be contentious. He asked what the process is for passing a resolution. Ms. Bryan stated that she can put together a draft and include it with a memo in the packet. The commissioners can vote on them and provide feedback. They are pretty standard across a lot of municipalities. Mr. Marcus stated that he would like to see Planning and Zoning members keep themselves more accountable and not veer off into personal rants that may not have anything to do with the application. He would like to see Mr. McKnight re-direct the commissioners. Mr. McKnight asked if that should come from him or Ms. Bryan Ms. Bryan stated that that is within Mr. McKnight’s role. She tries not to be seen as giving legal advice. She will step in if something is very blatant. Mr. Anderson stated that he has noticed that there are applicants that have a tendency to interject during commissioner deliberation, which disrupts that process and takes it in a different direction. He stated that that is their prerogative, but it is questionable in terms of Roberts Rules and it can often raise confusion in already difficult discussions that have transpired. Mr. Marcoux asked how to cut off applicants if commissioners have asked them a question during deliberation. Ms. McGovern stated that it should go through the chair. Mr. McKnight stated that the commissioners can ask him to ask a question. Then he will make it clear that it is a question and answer. Ms. Bryan stated that, as it says in the article, deliberation is not a negotiation. Mr. Walterscheid stated that public comment is the community’s opportunity to have a voice. He is in favor of giving the applicants an opportunity to continue the hearing if it seems like the commissioners are not in favor of their proposal. Ms. McGovern asked how many times the applicant can continue. Ms. Phelan stated that continuance is completely at the discretion of the chair or the Commission. Ms. Bryan stated that the commissioners have to vote on a continuance and they can vote “no.” ADJOURN Ms. McGovern motioned to adjourn the meeting at 5:28 PM. Mr. Walterscheid seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager