Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20120807Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes August 07, 2012 Comments Minuets Conflicts of Interest 1260 Red Butte Dr Residential Design Standards Variance 122 E Durant, conceptual and final Commercial Design Review Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes August 07, 2012 Stan Gibbs opened the regular Planning & Zoning Meeting in the Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30 with Ryan Walterscheid, Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin, Jasmine Tygre and Stan Gibbs. Jim DeFrancia, LJ Erspamer and Keith Goode were not in attendance. Staff present were Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Jennifer Phelan, Jessica Garrow, Claude Salter and Sara Nadolny, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. rammonk Jasmine Tygre said there was conversation about the sidewalks on Park Avenue and wanted to know if staff took any action. Jennifer Phelan stated that was an Engineering issue and Jennifer recalled the Aspen Walk issue with sidewalks. Jasmine said this was a P &Z discussion about requiring sidewalks in certain zone districts and it wasn't part of Aspen Walk. Bert Myrin said that on January 16, 2010 the 632 East Hopkins project P &Z talked about sidewalks. Bert said that they still haven't addressed many of the things on our list. Jasmine said there had been some discussion about revising the code for the extension of vested rights and whether that would go along with the requirement that if an extension is granted that the applicant would then have to comply with the code applicable at that time. Jasmine asked if it was still on "to do" list. Jennifer answered it was still on a "to do" list. Bert asked about the "to do" list and wondered what the process was to go back to it. Cliff said that Council was taking their number one issues and asked about P &Zs 50 items. Jennifer replied it will come when it comes; staff is working on code amendments that Council has asked for. Chris said we have a pretty full work plan at this point and have a strategic plan to implement concepts that came out of the AACP and Council gave a work plan on that. Stan Gibbs asked for a list of those of what council has decided; what would be the time frame of those things that need to change. Chris replied in their retreat and occasional work sessions regarding code amendment on an issue by issue basis and something may come out of the Housing Summit that is coming up. Bert asked who attended the Hospital Tour and what was learned. Cliff replied that he was very impressed and his only concern is the north facing side of the building is very monolithic with little room to build in any screening or tall trees. Bert asked if anyone has attended the county meetings on the West of Maroon Creek. None stated. Bert appreciated the updates from Ellen Sassano. 2 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes August 07, 2012 Stan said the hospital was an impressive amount of work being done and said that Steve Skadron voiced concern for the huge face; when the affordable housing is built that north face won't be as visible. Jennifer said that your schedule has been moving around a bit because of the South Aspen Street Lodge proposal; City Council made it clear that they were interested in seeing a lodge on South Aspen. Jennifer stated they were looking at a compressed review time so the long range agenda and a couple of special meetings; 8/14/12 and September 11. The State Planning Conference is being held in Snowmass Village on October 3rd through the 6th so she will send a link to the site and if you are interested in attending the conference let her know and Com Dev will sign you up for it. Chris said the Sketch Plan would be more like 6 pm on August 13th with Council and then on the 14th if they don't get through it and also the 27th of August. Chris will send the 3 page memo on the Sketch Plan. Jessica Garrow stated there was a special workshop for planning commissioners on Saturday that APA does every year. Jessica said regarding the West of Castle Creek corridor has been renamed West of Maroon Creek Plans called the WOMP; the county staff has been working with County Planning Commission to craft a plan from the direction based on the Aspen Area Community Plan. Jessica said that Ellen has been sending out periodic memos and they are interested to hear from City Planning & Zoning for the direction of that plan and would like to have a brown bag open house possibly on the 21St and Jessica will email the Commissioners if the brown bag will occur. Minutes MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve the minutes of July 3rd with the change from Debbie Quinn; seconded by Ryan Walterscheid. All in favor, APPROVED. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes from July 17`h seconded by Cliff Weiss. All in favor, APPROVED. Debbie Quinn clarified when there is a motion on the table it can be amended not just by the person who made the motion or seconded it but by anyone. Debbie checked your by -laws and back in 1974 P &Z adopted Robert's Rules and it does provide for making a motion. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest None stated. 91 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes August 07, 2012 Public Hearing: 1260 Red Butte Dr Residential Design Standards Variance Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing for 1260 Red Butte Drive Residential Design Standards Variance. Debbie Quinn stated there were 2 public notices provided with posting and mailing. Claude Salter introduced Stan Mathis as the architect and representative for the owner of the property and the applicant was here to request a variance from the residential design standards. Claude reviewed the purpose of the residential design standards that were to preserve, establish neighborhood scale and character, to insure neighborhoods are public places and that each home contributes to the streetscape. These goal specific to this project is building elements standards to insure that each residential building has a street facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale of the fagade, enhance the walking experience and reinforce local building tradition. Specifically this standard states that the entry door shall face the street and can be no more than 10 feet back from the front most wall of the building and the entry door shall not be taller than 8 feet. Claude said that a quick history of this project is that Stan Mathis is the architect and the entire project was a scrape and replace, a brand new single family home which met all the building design standards at the time of issuing the building permit and proposed 2 doors at that time. Claude said that the building design standards states that the door shall be no more than 10 feet back from the front of the building and the applicant requested a variance for that door. Staff recommends that the required variance does not meet the review criteria standard (a) and the lots are mostly over 15,000 square feet so they are not required to -within 60% of the front fayade within 5 feet of the front yard setback; some are setback more than the traditional town site lots. Going through the neighborhood you will see the door locations are the first thing off of the driveway and typically flush with the building or incorporated into a porch element which has a minimal setback given the size of the porch. Claude noted the architecture in the neighborhood was diverse but it doesn't detract the common font door element off the drive; in addition the front door being 30 feet from the front fagade doesn't bring a human scale to the fagade, it does not enhance the walking experience or reinforce the building traditions. The site does not meet review standard (b) it does not have a site specific constraint. Bert Myrin said that if the site does not have any constraints is this the only process to do this putting the door where it is not supposed to be. Jennifer replied Claude was clear that when the permit was approved it met the residential design 0 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes August 07, 2012 standards and subsequently the owner decided to move that conforming door. Cliff Weiss asked if the door that met the standard was removed. Claude replied that was correct it will now be a wall or a window. Stan Mathis represented John Collett the owner and Bob Bowden the developer of the project. Stan Mathis said they have a 25 foot setback in the front yard and the building envelope is 10,000 square feet as opposed to the allowable 15,000 and change. Stan Mathis distributed a color aerial map and a site improvement plan showing the outlined in red demonstrates where the front door is located and if it is clouded in red then the house doesn't have a street facing door or the door is 10 feet back from the furthest point of the forward part of the house. Stan Mathis said that of the 35 lots only 9 meet the front door setback; this whole community is non - conforming. The Design Guidelines came about with inappropriate development on the West End; there we see a grid like system with smaller lots and the houses there have street facing doors and alleys to come into the garages. Stan Mathis said with the subdivision being non - conforming it seems unfair that they are asking for a variance for the distance back for the door and it is a pleasant aspect from the street. Stan Mathis utilized the site plan to show where the mud room was located and the parking spaces. Bert asked if Stan Mathis looked at the P &Z minutes for why those were approved or were they prior to the Design Guidelines. Stan Mathis replied that it was difficult to track those; some of those houses were in place before the Guidelines and there are specifically houses built after the Guidelines at 1460, 1305. Stan said that Claude was a very good zoning officer. Cliff asked what was behind this door. Jennifer replied it was a hallway. Stan Mathis showed on the site plan the doorway to get into the house. Jennifer entered the Red Butte Drive Color Aerial Photo as Exhibit C and the Site Improvement Plan as Exhibit D. Stan Gibbs opened the public portion of the hearing. No Public Comments. Cliff said he was having trouble getting behind this because of precedent. Bert said the criteria were not met for (a) and (b) so he agreed with the staff recommendation. Jasmine said that Cliff and Bert have covered her comments and agrees with them. Ryan said if you were able to accomplish it in the beginning why do you need to change it now. Stan Gibbs agreed with the other commissioners; he said the changes coming in at this point in the project doesn't set well and he didn't see a good reason. 5 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes August 07, 2012 MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the application for a variance Resolution 414, series 2012, located at 1260 Red Butte Drive; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll call vote: Cliff Weiss, no; Ryan Walterscheid, no; Jasmine Tygre, no; Bert Myrin, no; Stan Gibbs, no. Not Approved 5 -0. Public Hearing: 122 East Durant — Consolidated Final Commercial Design Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing on 122 East Durant, Final Commercial Design Review. Debbie Quinn reviewed the public notices deeming them appropriate and submitted them into the record as exhibits I, J and K. Sara Nadolny submitted into the record letters from the public: Email from John Rice from the Engineering Department Exhibit L and Exhibit M from Robert Purvis at Winfield Arms with his decent for this project. Sara Nadolny introduced Phillip Ring from RDS, Inc and Ken Adler from K.A. Designs; this was a consolidated conceptual and final design review for the expansion of the Hotel Durant. It is located in the lodge zone district and fall within the Mountain View Base Character Area of Design Guidelines; this proposal is to expand and remodel and an existing lodge structure up to 10,642 square feet. The lodge room count may not change but rather to expand the units causing the building's west side to expand; the lodge will be reconfigured on the inside and an addition of a 4th floor with a fitness center and a single lodge unit and elevators on the West edge for ADA compliance. Sara explained the walkways one facing Durant Street and one to the stairs and elevator which will include curb and ADA compliance to the property. Parking includes one on site space and a deficit of 9 on site spaces but the code allows this to be maintained with the redevelopment of this property. Sara said the public amenity space was proposed as a landscaped lawn area beginning at the front of the area and extends to both sides; it will contain a table and seating area of about 2200 square feet 37% of the land of the property which exceeds the 25% of the code requirement for public amenity. The building does meet or exceed all required setbacks for and they are upgrading a primary entrance orientated towards East Durant Avenue. The current height of Durant Lodge is 361/2 feet measured 1/3 off the top of the gable and the lodge zone doesn't offer 38 feet in height with this density. The applicant is requesting with this proposal a height increase up to 40 feet through the commercial design review process. They are proposing a height at 39.6; the 38 foot height begins on the 4th floor approximately 25 feet back from the front of the building; further height will be :'7 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes August 07, 2012 added with the 2 stair towers and the elevator. The code allows these elements the stairwell and the elevator to exceed the height limitation set by the zone district; the stairwell at the front of the building is measuring at 43 feet; the rear stair tower at about 42 feet and on elevator at the western edge of the property is measuring just over 44 feet. Sara said the design guidelines give 5 points taking into consideration when a height of this measure is requested. Staff does not believe that this project has met the standards for receiving the height variance and do not support this request; staff is concerned with the mass of the building as it compares to its second and third story neighbors and the decrease in the property to natural features beyond.- Further concerns in this area regard the front entryway and the left shadow box style balcony that project over the front entryway with a stairway underneath with a wide heavy massing. Staff met with the applicant with concerns about this heavy massing and the applicant did propose an alternative design that you will find on the right hand side; staff supports this design with lighter massing and gives an open entryway to the building that seems to fit more with the character of the area. Sara stated the final design review of the building has articulation and the new design depends on the existing lodge and in this regard the applicant should pursue alternatives to reduce the perceived mass and stair tower. The glazing makes the tower seem larger and more imposing with height and make it seem like there are more floors than exist in this building. The flat style as opposed to gabled roof may add to a greater mass of the building. Staff feels the materials are in character with the area buildings and staff recommends an expansion of the trash area by 5 feet. Staff asked to redesign the trash/recycling area to the requirements of the code; reduce the overall height of the building to what is permitted in this zone district; review the stair tower of the front facade to soften the massing and create a sense of scale and incorporate the stairwell and balcony design into the final plans. Staff does appreciate the applicant's desire to update the lodging within the city and staff feels with recommendations this can be a successful project. Ken Adler said the last point, the entry into the design and wanted to clarify the alternative stair tower design. Sara replied that was what the stairwell and balcony design look. Jasmine Tygre asked if the stair tower on the right was the one to change or do you want both of these changed. Sara stated they were recommending a re- visitation to the stairway design. Jasmine asked if there was a staircase on the right. Sara replied that there was. iA Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes August 07, 2012 Cliff Weiss said it was fire code to have 2 stairwells. Sara replied that was correct. Cliff said because of the 4th floor unit the stairwell will have to go all the way up. Jennifer replied the access to the 4th floor has created the need for a taller stair cover. Bert Myrin stated this a combined consolidated review and how did it get to be combined instead of separate. Sara replied that when it was brought in was represented that it would be combined. Jennifer answered that when it brought in it was in the scope that it could be a combined review. Bert said there were 2 letters from the public in the packet and 2 others. Ryan Walterscheid asked what the existing height was at the 1/3 point. Ken Adler replied that it was 36 to the ridge. Ken replied it was actually be measured from the half point since it is tall roof and it was about 34 feet. Cliff Weiss said that the end of the packet were confusing. Jennifer said that was an exhibit from Lift One Condominiums. Stan Gibbs asked staff to go through the packet and state if it is from the public. Sara responded that Anthony Imhof from Lift One wanted to show the different times of day how light effects the project differently. Phillip Ring introduced Ken Adler, Brian McNellis and the owners of the project Brian and Vito Schaffer; the Schaffer's were here to support the investment of millions of dollars back in Aspen's Lodging base. Phillip stated the proposal seeks to expand and improve a property that has been a proud part of the lodging community for almost 50 years. The renovated hotel will feature a contemporary facade with a bold new entry street facing because now you have to enter up on the stairs to the left and then a door to the right. Phillip said the guest room will be enlarged to meet the current market standards, fully compliant ADA accessibility which does not exist in the building today. A roof top deck with a hot tub and amazing views; part of the plan is improving the day lighting in the building and large green roofs; replace all the mechanical systems with highly energy efficient systems and smart controls. One of the key features is the lobby which they serve Continental Breakfasts to their guests and in the afternoon cookies and tea; in the winter they have a wine and cheese apres ski gathering for guests to swap stories. Phillip said that the Aspen Times Sunday paper had an article of the small lodges are a rare species in Aspen these days and have been phased out and replaced with larger properties or scraped to make way for luxury homes. Brian and Neal are here with a wonderful product coming to Aspen from guests around the world and in order to stay competitive and solvent they need to take this a step forward and Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes August 07, 2012 breathe new life into this aging structure. On the Aspen Lodging spectrum the Hotel Durant is on the more affordable end; their pricing straight off their website with room rates from $110.00 to $185.00. Phillip said that they were in the very reasonable portion of market and hope to stay there keeping the construction budgets modest and by maximizing the improvements the hotel will be well positioned to stay competitive in the affordable priced market. Phillip said that they are planning to achieve this without maximizing the FAR; they are not exceeding any setbacks; they will not have to create a penthouse condominium and not requiring any variances except the 2 foot height that this board is allowed to grant. This is the building the Shaffer's want to own and operate and we ask that you support this application as an opportunity to support small lodges and local businesses here in Aspen. Phillip utilized power point to show the neighborhood and the new building showing the deck with a multi - purpose room, deck, the 20th lodge unit and the stair tower in the back that had to be raised up to provide access. The East face and the rear of the building do not change other than the fagade and on the West side is the addition of 10 feet in width and the elevator tower for the requirement of ADA which is an amenity for a hotel. Phillip said that they believe that the height variance is justifiable because it will bring down the energy demands on the building and the flat roof reduces the volume of space and the skin that you have to insulate with a green roof on top. Potentially put solar on that space but the real value gained is that the building is shorter with a 40 foot height limit; they could add gabled roofs but that increases the height of the building. Phillip said they feel that they do comply with the trash/recycle area because the code requires 15 linear feet interrupted by a pine tree and to take that tree out doesn't make sense. They thought that the entry was nicely created with a small grand staircase up to a glass box storefront windows to allow the guests to see into the lobby as they enter the building and be protected from above by the project of the shadowbox designed decks and thought it was a nice statement. Ken said that staff brought up the human scale point within the commercial design guideline rules. Ken said staff suggested the stair and comes out and shifts and take away part of the sidewalk and encroaches on the drip lines of the tree that exists on the next property. Ken showed on power point their alternate entry and staircase was closer to the building and would not impact the neighbor's tree. 9 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes August 07, 2012 Phillip said that staff was opposed to the vertical glazing on the stair tower and they felt it was an addition; in the mountain based character guidelines on page 2 you can see a striking similar stair tower depicted. Ken said staff preferred a gabled building but if you look at the existing streetscape their building and the Pines are the only 2 gabled buildings. Ken showed Option B which had the preferred stairway and a sloped roof to the 38 foot mark; it incorporates all of staff s comment including figure K for the entry. Ken said they minimized the stair tower without the openings going all the way up and a change in the color to lighten up the building. Ken superimposed the flat and gabled roof heights. Ken said there was literally no insulation in the current building and the remodeled building would be very energy efficient and the green features are improved day lighting with the vertical windows. Ken said the green roofs were sustainable in themselves and will meet the primary storm water and they could supply solar energy on the flat roof. Ken said they can't do quite the solar with Option B. Ken said Option A has 37,548 pounds annually of carbon dioxide emissions; Option B has 545,894 pounds, roughly 30% difference in energy efficiency for this building. Ken said they will add additional furring on the inside of the walls; they are going from 225 square foot rooms to 320 square foot rooms. Ken said that views were preserved through the property and showed a goggle earth video to establish what the views are now. The decks were heavily screened. Brian and Vito Schaffer were the owners of the hotel and Brian has been running the hotel since they bought it 10 years ago. Brian said the number 1 complaint was the cramped bathrooms; the remodel and expansion will have functional bathrooms, proper closets, desks and nicer and updated rooms that will fit into the market. This work will enhance the guest experience and allow them to remain competitive. Jennifer said that in commercial design review you find that you meet the standards and there a definite issues that talk about reducing the scale, the modules so it is not a given that you get the variance. Phillip replied right, it would fit into the guidelines. Public Comments: 1. Paul Taddune stated he was the lawyer representing Lift One and the vice president could not attend. Paul Taddune commended the applicants on the work but hasn't had a time to review the new application and staff hasn't probably either. Paul said he wasn't prepared to comment except that Lift M11 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes August 07, 2012 One has no problem with the expansion but it does have problems with the height and glazing. Paul Taddune said Lift One objections are the same as staff the height and glazing but the information needs to be better. Stan Gibbs said he understood this was sort of a renovation of the building he did not feel this was a consolidation of reviews and felt this was a great first meeting on a conceptual review and he was not considering finishes. Stan stated considering continuing this so we have another go around to actually address these issues with the public; when you gentlemen decide what it is you want to do and then P &Z can decide if that is an appropriate way to go. Cliff agreed with continuing this. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to continue to 7:15 seconded by Cliff Weiss. All in favor, APPROVED. Ken said they wanted to do Option A. Cliff was supportive of an expansion and making the room size regular but was concerned with the heights with the 3 towers that don't relate to each other. Cliff said that you are trying to justify the 4th floor by a fitness center and 1 other lodge unit; he wasn't sure a fitness center was worth the revenue or gaining more guests. Cliff said if the 4th floor were more units then maybe okay but green roofs don't mean anything to him. Cliff didn't like either stairway and with stone it is a heavy material and get rid of the stone rail. Jasmine said that she agreed with almost everything Cliff said. Ryan preferred Option A with the cantilevered elements; it creates more of a personal scale and he said the vertical glazing is reminiscent of a mine shaft element. Ryan said he was a proponent of green roofs and deck space. Ryan voiced concern for the height of the stair towers and the way that you are dealing with that is what stands out most contradictory. Ryan said he wasn't opposed to the 4th floor but you will need to deal with the stair towers and elevators to get there. Ryan wanted to clarify that he did not want to see a for sale condo on the top; he said if you can keep the other rooms more affordable and charge a higher rate for that room. Bert said the penthouse is an issue; he agreed with all of staff recommendations. Bert wanted to see this without a big variance; he asked about parking and having 11 Regular City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes August 07, 2012 access to the sidewalk. Bert asked how noise from air conditioning and mechanical would be reduced. Stan said that the current building seemed to be an Alpine Chalet kind, but the new design of the building is massive. Stan stated as Cliff said to lighten up the building and he also liked the glazing but you have to find the technology for the glare. Stan said the tower don't seem to be consistent with the building; the new design is too massive. Cliff liked the cantilevered balconies but they seemed too big and the towers don't blend. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to continue to September 21st seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor, APPROVED. Adjourned 7:25pm ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 12