Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20210303Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 3, 2021 Page 1 of 6 Chairperson McKnight called the special meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Brittanie Rockhill, Rally Dupps, Scott Marcoux, Teraissa McGovern, Kimbo Brown-Schirato, and Spencer McKnight Commissioners not in attendance: James Marcus and Ruth Carver Staff in Attendance: Amy Simon, Planning Director Garrett Larimer, Planner II Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Simon congratulated Ms. Brown-Schirato on her efforts to run for Council. Ms. Simon stated the March 16th meeting has been cancelled. PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES None DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None PUBLIC HEARING 815 Roaring Fork Rd – RDS Variation – Articulation of Building Mass Mr. McKnight opened the hearing and asked if proper notice was provided. Ms. Johnson stated the published notice was found sufficient for the meeting. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to Staff for the high-level review. Mr. Larimer introduced himself and stated the hearing is for a residential design standards (RDS) variation to the articulation of building mass. He stated he will provide a high-level introduction of the variation being requested and the code requirements along with the procedure for an RDS variation. Next, the applicant will present their design. And finally, staff will provide their review and recommendation. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 3, 2021 Page 2 of 6 Mr. Larimer stated staff has reviewed the design and found it meets all the RDS except for the articulation of building mass. So, the applicant is requesting the planning and zoning Commission, consider a variation request to that standard. Mr. Larimer then reviewed the flexible and non-flexible RDS and noted administrative approval of flexible standards is allowed. He then reviewed the two review criteria for RDS variation. The first criteria consider site-specific constraints and the second criteria is to provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard. Mr. Larimer provided the standard language of the code as follows. He reviewed the details for each option. A principal building shall articulate building mass to reduce bulk and mass and create building forms that are similar in scale to those seen in historic Aspen residential buildings (* applies to the infill area). Option 1: Maximum sidewall depth Option 2: Off-set with one-story ground level connector between 2 story elements Option 3: One story step down and the rear of the property He then reviewed the three general intent standards for the RDS. 1. Connection between the building and the street using RDS elements 2. Respond to the neighboring properties 3. Reflect traditional building scale Finally, he reviewed the intent of the standard for articulation of building mass. Mr. McKnight asked if there were any questions of Mr. Larimer. Seeing none, Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, stated the applicant is requesting an RDS variation for the articulation of the building mass. He displayed a picture of the property from above and another from the street of the residence. Mr. Wilson stated they believe the site has some site-specific constraints, but they will be focusing on the intent statement which they feel they have a good alternative. Mr. Wilson then displayed a picture of the general intent statement in Section 26.410.010. He called out the following in each subsection. (a) Intent…ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass (1) Connect to the street…visual and/or physical connection between residences and streets… (2) Respond to Neighboring Properties…perceived mass and bulk of residential buildings…continuity through building form and setback along streetscape… (3) Reflect Traditional Building Scale…Ensure that residential structure respond to human scale in their design. Ensure that residential structures do not visually overwhelm or overshadow streets… Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 3, 2021 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Wilson then provided a zoning map of Aspen showing the location of the applicant’s property zoned as R-15 within the general location of the Infill Area as previously described by Mr. Larimer. He also pointed out the location R-6 zone noting zone dominates the area with a grid street pattern and long, narrow lots served by a street and alley. He then stated the area where the applicant’s residence is located does not have any alleys and the lot sizes are more than double in size (6,000 – 9,000 sf to 18,000 sf). He added because of the lot sizes, there are larger setbacks (25ft) from the street. And that really describes more what’s going on in the Cemetery Ln area and the articulation of building mass doesn’t apply over there. He noted the river goes out rather than in in this particular Location. Mr. Wilson then displayed a plat map of the area identified as a Supplemental Plat for the Hallam Addition showing the area with a typical lot and block configuration. A red cross on the plat map indicated a corner location. He then displayed an amened plat map from 1961 identified as the Second Aspen Company Subdivision. On this map, the same red cross was placed to show how the lots were eventually laid out. The new looping layout no longer followed the previous grid layout. He then provided pictures of neighboring context properties and a map showing the entry door setbacks. He noted the front yard access was typically a garage with an adjacent front door. He stated because of the garage projections in the front, there are increased sidewall depths and there is not a lot of street orientation. He stated the neighborhood is not fully responsive to the RDS, but that’s not to say we shouldn’t try to follow them anyway. Mr. Wilson then discussed the three options for the maximum sidewall depths per the code. He wanted to note in each of the options displayed, the lots are skinny that come out to a street at the front and backs to an alley. He stated the applicant’s lot does not have an alley. He stated on the examples there is a 45 ft depth on the lot with some sort of one-story element which would be okay. He stated for the applicant’s lot, they are taking figure 6 and flip it on its head so that the one-story element is out front and the two-store articulated element in the back that would be less than the 45 ft depth. He added because there is no alley, the garage is located on the street side which is permitted by the RDS as long as it is side loaded. Mr. Wilson then displayed a site plan and indicated the location of the following: • 25 ft front side setback, • one-story element (33 ft depth) on the front, • entry trellis to provide a street scape experience, • two-story element (less than 45 ft depth) at the back of the lot. He then displayed an elevation rendering of the view from the front of the lot looking at the garage element. He also provided a small rendering of how the RDS explains the location and position of a one- story garage. He noted in the applicant’s design the elements are connected and feels it conforms to the intent of how a garage should be approached if placed in the front yard. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 3, 2021 Page 4 of 6 He then displayed an elevation rendering from the front of the lot looking at the entrance. He pointed out the entry feature on the front, the one-story side loading garage, a one-story element in the front, a two-story transparent box on the back of the lot which 33 ft in depth. He believes the design meets the articulation and mass concept if the intent statement of that particular standard is to promote light in the access between adjacent properties, articulate building walls by using multiple forms to break up large, expansive wall planes and convey forms in scale with the neighborhood. He believes the proposed design responds to the site context and the one-store garage element is very typical of this area. He then stated he believes flipping the maximum sidewall depth option three on its head so there is a one-store element up front with a two-story element behind because of the subdivision access doesn’t have an alley meets the intent of the statement. The design reduces the perceived mass of the building by starting low at the street and then builds towards the back of the lot. He concluded stating he has the building plans if needed but asked if there were any questions related to the articulation of the building. Mr. McKnight asked if anyone had questions of the applicant. Seeing none, he turned the floor back to staff for their findings. Mr. Larimer displayed the two RDS variation review criteria and noted only one of the two need to be met. He stated staff did not find any site-specific constraints on the property that would prohibit compliance, so they focused on how the design meets the intent. Mr. Larimer stated staff’s primary finds are that there are a number of design tools used to provide articulation including materials, fenestrations, elements that relate to the street well to provide a pedestrian scaled perception of the building mass. The one-story elements are most forward in the design and the two-story elements are more than 60 ft from the property line. As viewed from the street, there is articulation and variety. It is not a large, expansive wall without articulation as viewed from the street. Mr. Larimer displayed an elevation of the right side of the structure and stated as viewed from either side, over half of the sidewall depth is a one-story element with a 31 ft two-story mass which is well under the 45 ft limitation as defined in option three. There are a number of walls providing some variation wall planes on all sides. Mr. Larimer displayed a layout of the structure and stated the front of the structure is all one-story with a variety of forms including the garage, living space, deck trellis which helps contribute to the perceived mass of the building. He also confirmed there is no alley access. Mr. Larimer stated staff has found that flipping it to have a one-story element at the front of the property is appropriate and consistent with the neighborhood context. In considering these factors, the 25-foot front yard setback as a standard in the area and this is an atypical infill lot, staff has found additional flexibility to consider in the design intent is appropriate for the lot. Staff has found the design Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 3, 2021 Page 5 of 6 does meet the intent of the General Intent statement and the articulation of the Building Mass Standard even though it doesn’t fully meet the standard. So, staff has found the review criteria for the variation to be met. In conclusion, he stated Staff recommends the P&Z Commission approve the requested variation for the RDS to the articulation of building mass. Mr. McKnight asked if there were questions for staff. Seeing none, Mr. McKnight opened and asked if any members of the public had a comment. Seeing none, he closed public comment. Mr. McKnight then opened for commissioner deliberation. Ms. McGovern stated based on the presentations, the applicant and staff have done a decent job finding an alternative design that meets the review criteria. It doesn’t have long side walls, especially on the second level and she feels it meets the criteria for a variation. Mr. Dupps agrees and feels there is good evidence in the R15 zone and similar properties to support taking option three on its head. He feels the proposed design is much nicer than the typical R6 zone design with the two-story front and taper it down to a garage. He stated perhaps in the future this type of option for larger lots should be added to the code so people don’t have to come to the commission for a variance. Mr. Marcoux agrees with Mr. Dupps and Ms. McGovern and likes the green roof on the south facing deck. He also agrees with Mr. Dupps regarding considering adding this option to the code. Ms. Brown-Schirato agrees with the others and the suggestion made by Mr. Dupps. Ms. Rockhill and Mr. McKnight also agree with everyone. Mr. McKnight asked for someone to make a motion. Mr. Dupps motioned to approve the Resolution Number 2, Series 2021, approving a variation to the Articulation of Building Mass Residential Design Standard, in order to redevelop the property with a single-family residence, as depicted in exhibit A of the resolution. Ms. McGovern seconded the motion. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call for Resolution 2, Series 2021: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Marcoux, yes; Ms. Brown-Schirato, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of six (6) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission March 3, 2021 Page 6 of 6 Mr. McKnight thanked staff and the applicant. He then asked for a motion to adjourn. Ms. McGovern motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Mr. Dupps. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 5:08 pm. OTHER BUSINESS None Cindy Klob, Records Manager