Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20140715Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 15, 2014 LJ Erspamer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Stan Gibbs, Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, Ryan Watlerscheid, Brian McNellis, Ollie Nieuwland-Zlotnicki and Jason Elliot (alternate) present. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, Sara Nadolny and Justin Barker. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Erspamer stated he attended the lodge meeting on July 14th and encouraged anyone with an opinion about land use and the code should attend the next meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan informed the commissioners of an upcoming lunch meeting to discuss potential code amendments. Jessica Garrow will be sending out an email in the next couple of weeks. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. McNellis stated he had worked for BlueGreen several years ago but he felt it would not influence his ability to review the application (Rubey Park Remodel) objectively. Mr. Erspamer stated upon driving by the property and a neighbor spoke of a current HPC application for the property across the street. Public Hearing – 320 Midland Ave. – Residential Design Standards Variance Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing for a variance request for 320 Midland Ave. Ms. Quinn stated the legal notice as shown in Exhibit F in the staff memo was appropriately provided. Ms. Nadolny presented the project to the commissioners for the requested variance to the residential design standard regarding the build-to lines at 320 Midland Ave. The property is located in the R-15A zone district (moderate density residential), part of the East Meadows Subdivision, bordered by three streets and currently a vacant lot. Smuggler Grove Road was determined at an earlier time to be the front yard of this lot. On parcels less than 50,000 square feet (sf), of which this lot is just under 10,000 sf, at least 60% of the front façade should be within 5 feet (ft) of the minimum front yard setback. The setback for the front yard for this zone district is 25 ft. Per the code, we are expecting 60% of the front façade to be within 30 ft of this line. As a reminder, there are two criteria for granting a variance. The first is that a variance will provide an appropriate design or pattern development in consideration of the neighborhood context. The second is the variance is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness or the property has site specific constraints. 1 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 15, 2014 Ms. Nadolny displayed the original site plan and explained her memo was written based on the original site plan. From the displayed original site plan, no portion of the façade of the building was located within the 5 foot setback line. The design was amended as shown as the addendum in Exhibit G of the packet. The addendum places the porch element within 5 ft of the setback line or 26% is meeting the intended standard. The purpose of the residential design standard is to preserve neighborhood scale and character and create neighborhoods conducive to walking, promote a consistent façade line and encourage a relationship between the building and the street. Staff has examined the proposed building in terms of the two criteria for granting a variance. Staff ruled out the second criteria quickly due to the flat rectangular site. There are a number of trees in the front of the property, but none that are not able to be removed per the Parks Department with a tree permit. Staff then examined the first criteria in regards to the Smuggler Grove Road neighborhood. A neighborhood map was displayed and Ms. Nadolny explained there were a lot of different setbacks in the immediate neighborhood. She wanted to note the residential design standard was adopted in 2005. The majority of the properties in this neighborhood were built well before 2005. She noted a couple of properties were built since the standard was adopted. One being 63 Smuggler Road constructed in 2007. An administrative variance was denied for this property by the Board of Adjustment (BOA) in regards to build-to lines. At 73 Smuggler Road, constructed in 2006, a setback variance was granted by the BOA (closer to the street). Ms. Nadolny measured all the properties on Smuggler Grove Road using GIS. The property at 55 Smuggler Grove Road is excluded from this standard because the lot size. The remainder of the properties on the street are located closer to the street rather than further away. Any new development must be reviewed based on the standard. In conclusion, staff feels this new development has an opportunity to meet the standards. Staff wants to eliminate nonconformities within the city wherever possible. The new development within this lot is a good opportunity to meet the standards. Staff did not find the requested variance meets the criteria necessary for granting the variance. Staff recommends denial of the request for the residential design standard variance. Mr. Erspamer asked the commissioners for questions to the staff for this agenda item. Mr. Watlerscheid asked that because it is a corner lot, is it only evaluated for the side designated as the front of the property against standards at which Ms. Nadolny replied yes. Mr. Erspamer believed he read that the longest lot line would be considered the front of the property. Ms. Phelan replied that typically they look at the entire city block including the length to the alley to make the determination, but an administrative determination was made in this case to make Smuggler Grove Road the front. Mr. Gibbs asked if someone made the request to make Smuggler Grove Road the front. Ms. Nadolny replied it was an administrative determination. The applicant did not make the request. Mr. Erspamer asked for confirmation of another lot that previously requested and received a setback variance. Ms. Nadolny confirmed it was 73 (Smuggler Grove Rd) that received a variance from BOA due to a number of utilities located on the property along with other items. Ms. Nadolny also confirmed lot 73 has a duplex on the lot. 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 15, 2014 Mr. Erspamer asked why this request was not brought in front of the BOA at which Ms. Phelan replied residential design standard variances are handled by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z). Mr. Gibbs asked for clarification regarding why 73 (Smuggler Grove Rd) did not go before the BOA at which Ms. Nadolny recollected the request was a setback variance, not a residential design standard variance. Mr. Erspamer turned the floor over to the applicant for this agenda item. Mr. Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning is representing the HTM Properties LLC, the applicant. Sitting with Mr. Haas is Bob Walker who assisted with the design of the building. Regarding 73 (Smuggler Grove Rd), Mr. Haas stated the applicant did go to P&Z for a residential design variance for the one store element. He represented the applicant in this case and knows it was granted. He speculated the staff’s interpretation regarding the granting of a setback variance also applying to the build-to lines. The same type of variance was granted last week at 28 Smuggler Grove. Mr. Haas stated the two previously mentioned criteria is an either or situation. He felt standard one has largely been ignored and the staff’s position has been one of noncompliance of the standard because it is a vacant lot, therefore the variance was not granted. He feels this is not the standard. Whether you can comply or not as nothing to do with a residential design variance should be granted. All you need to show is that your design meets the purpose of the standard and considering the context of development, provides an appropriate solution to addressing that purpose. Whether or not you can comply is irrelevant. He feels the need for the review is unfortunate. The application was submitted in April and his client was hoping to be building by now. They are only asking for one variance when you are allowed to ask for up to three variances administratively. He feels it should have been granted administratively. Mr. Haas felt the application clearly stated how the standard was addressed; the purpose of it and it complies with the requirement for a variance. Using the same map previously displayed by staff, Mr. Haas explained the standard for the variance was to provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development was proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Mr. Haas state the lot is in a neighborhood where there is not much of an established pattern or context. Smuggler Grove is a private easement paid for and maintained by the homes that use it. There are no sidewalks and cars are parked along the north side of Smuggler Grove Road head in fronting the building with fences behind the cars and then the houses are set back beyond the fences. There is not a clear distinction between public realm, semi-public realm and private realm as found in the west end or other neighborhoods in town. The semi-public/semi-private realm is largely hard to find behind the parked cars and fences. His client is seeking to increase the front setback which will increase the area of semi-public realm. It will help to preserve a lot of trees. He understands the Parks Department would issue permits to remove the trees, but because you can remove means you should remove. The Parks Department referral stated that Mitch Haas was correct in the assumption that the Parks Department would like to preserve the trees located on this property. Mr. Haas said his client feels the same. If forced to move the house more towards the front would mean 10-17 trees would have to be removed which would otherwise be able to be kept. The neighbors appreciate the increased front setback and the ability to preserve the trees. Keeping the house back on the property increases the public experience and a greater semi-public realm between the street and the house. All the outdoor living and yard space will be in the front rather than the back corner on Mascotte Lane which is more 3 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 15, 2014 private lane. The applicant is not even allowed to use the private Mascotte Lane by the owner for access. Per the city, they are also not allowed to use Midland Avenue for access either. Mr. Haas then reviewed the purpose of the standard. The code for site design standards states the intent is to encourage residential buildings that address the street in a manner which creates a consistent façade line and defines the public and semi-public realms. He stated there is no consistent façade line in this neighborhood. The context is quite haphazard on the north of the property which is in unincorporated Pitkin County. There are several duplexes and multi-family nearby that do not address any of the residential design standards. The front set back in the neighborhood in R-15A zone is 25 ft. This requires at least 60% of the façade to be at least within 30 ft of the property line. Everything surrounding Smuggler Grove Road in the East Meadows Subdivision maintains different zoning designations and different front yard setback requirements. The opportunity for consistent setbacks in this context pretty much does not exist. The only context worth considering is Smuggler Grove Road. Including the subject property, there are eight properties that front on the road. Mr. Haas then described each property on the road identifying each having a different set back and each having multiple compliance issues (three to six issues on each) in regards to the residential design standards (including building orientation, build-to lines, setbacks, fence height, fence requirement, first story element, entry porch, windows, front facade area and light wells, garage doors). These includes lots 23, 43(duplex), 63(built since design standard adoptions), 73 (received setback variance), 55, 28(received set back and orientation variance from HPC within past the week, where staff stated “the neighborhood in large part does not meet this standard” in their memo) and 312. Mr. Haas stated staff’s only argument is irrelevant for the applicant’s property to meet the design standards because it is a vacant lot. He referred to his statement on page 2 or 3 of his submittal which stated “To be clear, as written and codified, the two criteria under which a variance may be granted have nothing at all to do with whether compliance with a particular design standard can be achieved. Thus the fact that the subject parcel is a vacant lot should not be a consideration.” He feels that it was the only consideration and it shouldn’t have factored in. Mr. Haas feels there are consistent with context as well as all the other residential design standards and fully addressing standards relative to Midland Ave. as to provide for the purpose of the standard including addressing the context, public and semi-public realms and pedestrian experience. It was also pointed out in the application (possibly erroneously), calling the trees a site specific constraint, but the trees are a part of their context. He feels a requirement to keep trees whether the city would require you to keep them or not is irrelevant. Mr. Haas feels they are dealing with a haphazard neighborhood which doesn’t provide the context for a consistent façade line as the standard goes for, but the spirit of the design standards have been addressed as a whole and the build-to line standard and other standards in particular to Midland Ave. Mr. Haas feels the revised design goes even further towards trying to meet the spirit of the standards. These include pulling forward another piece of the building forward to meet the 25 ft front setback line, increasing the size of the front porch to more than 50 sf and six ft deep and placing a hole will be placed in the front porch to allow three or four trees to remain. In closing, Mr. Haas feels the proposal complies with the spirit and intent of the design standards, complies with the letter of all but one of the applicable design standards, limits the extent of the requested variance and justified in the context of the development and promotes the purpose of the standards, particularly along Midland Ave. 4 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 15, 2014 Mr. Erspamer asked the commissioners if they had any questions for the applicant or staff for this agenda item. Ms. Tygre asked if there would be a sidewalk along Midland Ave. at which Mr. Haas replied there are no sidewalks in the whole neighborhood. Smuggler Grove is a private street. Mr. Erspamer asked staff if the applicant was required to place the house where it’s supposed to be if he would have to obtain and pay for the permits to remove the trees. He referred to the Parks Department comments regarding a permit is required and the cost is based on the size of the tree. Ms. Phelan thought option would be for them to replant trees of the same height to offset the cost of the ones removed. Ms. Phelan said she did not know the diameter requirements for the trees. Mr. Walker stated the cost of mitigation could be ten times the cost of tree depending on the diameter. He stated there is a significant difference between the replacement and permit costs. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Haas how he obtained the information on the setbacks of the other properties he mentioned previously. Mr. Haas said he utilized GIS and other houses he worked on previously. He said it’s difficult to get a precise measurement on house 63 because of the angle. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Haas to confirm the existence and placement of the garage at which Mr. Haas answered it would be off Smuggler Grove Road set back on the west side (left) of the lot in the northwest corner. It will be a single car garage. Mr. Erspamer asked the applicant what percentage was meeting on the setback requirement. Both Mr. Haas and Mr. Walker replied it meets 26% as opposed to 60%. Mr. Haas they meet the requirement a 100% at 10 ft on the Midland side. Mr. Watlerscheid asked when the determination was made that Smuggler Grove Rd would be the front, what criteria was used to make the determination between Midland Ave. and Smuggler Grove Road. Mr. Haas thought it was based on the longer block length. Mr. Walker stated it wasn’t the lot, it’s the entire block. Ms. Phelan was not sure what the actual approval said, but block length may have been the consideration. Mr. Gibbs asked for clarification regarding the side loaded garage. Ms. Phelan stated there is a requirement to access off the alley when you have access from an alley. She believed a side loaded garage is permitted on a larger lot size. Mr. Haas stated if you don’t have an alley, your garage doors have to be at least 10 ft recessed behind the front most façade or wall of your building. The proposed garage is more than 10 ft further back than the front of the building as viewed from Smuggler Grove Road. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked why the garage could not be accessed from Midland Ave. Mr. Haas and Mr. Walker stated it was the city’s decision for the access to be off of Smuggler Road. Mr. Walker stated the city waived the 50 ft setback of the access drive from a corner. Mr. Erspamer opened the meeting for public comment for this agenda item. Mr. Steve Hach from 23 Smuggler Grove, agreed with Mr. Haas in that when the subdivision was platted they did not have to comply with any of the standards. The setback variances at 73 do not impact the street because it is the end of the road and there were other issues to address. He feels it is an anti- setback variance. The applicant wants to go further back than the set back and from his perspective the street would have been wider and the view from my house would have been much preserved until the 5 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 15, 2014 city made them move part of it out to the street. The change has a negative impact on him as owner of his lot. He is supportive of the development and thinks they are being persecuted because they are not building to 100% of their FAR (floor area ratio) like everybody else does. They are building a design to live in and a design works for them and so far what they’ve been asked to do makes it worse for the neighborhood. He reiterated he is supportive of their proposal. Mr. Erspamer closed the meeting for public comment for this agenda item. Mr. Erspamer opened rebuttal from staff for this agenda item. Ms. Phelan wanted to address two items. First, she did not believe there was a hardship in regards to site specific constraints and secondly, the intent of the standards is to ensure there is a relationship between the house and the street and what the applicant is asking for is to push the house even further back from the street, therefore reducing the relationship it has with the street. And as the applicant’s representative has mentioned, a lot of these house are even closer than 30 ft, so what you are doing is actually pushing this house back from the existing context. This really privatizes and closes off the building to the street. She feels it creates less consistency by pushing it further back. Ms. Nadolny wanted reiterate that any redevelopment of the properties on Smuggler Grove Road would be subject to the same review of the present design standards and would be expected to apply for a variance if necessary. She does believe 63 does meet the standard. She does not believe they received a setback variance, she has not found any evidence of a variance. She calculates the measurement at just over 25 ft but agreed with Mr. Haas that it is a difficult property to measure. She feels the standard is met for 63. Mr. Erspamer closed rebuttal from staff for this agenda item. Mr. Erspamer opened rebuttal from the applicant for this agenda item. Mr. Haas said he thought about the idea that every house that wants to redevelop must comply. Then there has been three other design requests since the design standards have been approved including house at 53 clearly does not comply with most of the standards, the house 73 was granted a first story element and front yard setback variance so it did not have to comply with the build-to line standards and the house 58 is currently under review and pending with staff’s recommendation to grant it the same variance. So he does not see a pattern of redeveloped properties having to comply with the standards. It seems to be exactly the opposite. He is not directing his frustrations directly at Ms. Nadolny; she has been perfectly fine and reasonable. His frustration is the code gives the Community Development Director an authority that they just don’t use. He feels the standard is not being followed when his one request was not dealt with administratively. He feels the context clearly supports the request. Mr. Erspamer closed rebuttal from the applicant for this agenda item. Mr. Erspamer opened for the commissioner’s comments for this agenda item. Mr. Erspamer feels both Mr. Haas and staff are right, making the decision challenging. He believes the code can create narrow and cavernous properties by having everything up to the front. His thought is to consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures. The adjacent structures are encroaching one way or another so he feels this is a continuation. At this point, he does not have a problem with the way it currently sits. 6 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 15, 2014 Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki understands the purpose of the residential design standards is to foster a better public realm for the city of Aspen predicated on a relationship between the front door and the front of the house to the street that makes a better public realm. The properties as he sees them still have a relatively close relationship to the street. The importance is the relationship of the front of the house to the street and he doesn’t think the variance should be granted. He does not agree with the argument is that the context does not support the standard. These standards were established in 2006 after many of the buildings were built and that as new buildings are built, they will be built to these standards. Because some of the older buildings do not meet the standard does not allow for the new development to not go by the standard. Mr. Goode mentioned lot 26 being reviewed and not to the standards. He believes good neighbors make good neighborhoods and the neighbors are supporting this development. He is partial to grant the request. Mr. Watlerscheid feels torn, but because it is on a corner, he is more likely to go along with the variance request. If he was reviewing the lot 23, he probably wouldn’t grant the variance request. They are meeting the standards on the Midland Ave. side. Mr. McNellis understands the staff’s position that they need to give a recommendation based on intent of the code especially in the context of the west end. But this is not the west end and it is very different. The properties were previously in the county and it’s reflected in the way the houses are built on the lots. This neighborhood embodies messy vitality and there is a character associated with that. He does not have a ton of heartburn regarding the request especially considering trees will be preserved. He also recognizes that with it being a corner lot, there is more to consider. He also noted there are not objections from adjacent property owners. Ms. Tygre stated whether the motion passes or fails, it is important for precedence to indicate if we are voting yes or no based on which of the two standards. It doesn’t have to be both. Are we voting yes or no based on context or based on hardship of site specific constraints? Ms. Quinn stated the commissioners should be very clear which proposal is considered; the original one or the subsequent submittal. She assumes it is the subsequent submittal and not the original. Mr. Haas stated he prefers the subsequent submittal be considered. Mr. Erspamer assumed it was the most recent submittal as well. Although both were discussed, the subsequent submittal including the 26% of the front façade within the required front yard setback line will be considered for the vote. Ms. Quinn and Ms. Nadolny noted the resolution included in the packet was written for the original submittal and will need to be modified to reference the subsequent submittal including a new Exhibit A (currently Exhibit G in the packet). The measurement references in Section 1 should be modified to reflect the revised site plan (approximately 26%.of the front façade within five feet of the required setback...). Mr. Watlerscheid moved to approve Resolution #10, Series 2014 recommending approval of the request for variance from the Residential Design Standard found in Section 26.410.020.D.2.a, seconded by Ms. Tygre. Ms. Tygre reiterated she would like the motion to indicate which of the two standards was considered. Mr. Watlerscheid stated he wanted the motion to be about the context, not site constraints. Ms. Tygre stated she wanted the resolution to state clearly what the commissioners based their decision on in the resolution. Ms. Quinn suggested adding the applicable 26.410.020.D subsection of code to the last 7 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 15, 2014 WHEREAS paragraph. Ms. Tygre seconded the corrected motion. Roll call vote; Mr. Erspamer, yes; Mr. Gibbs, yes; Ms. Tygre, no; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Watlerscheid, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Nieuwland- Zlotnicki, no. Motion carried with a count of yes-5 and no-2. Public Hearing – Rubey Park Remodel – Planned Development Amendment Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing for a PUD amendment for the Rubey Park remodel. Ms. Quinn stated she had a couple of questions of the applicant regarding posting the notice. The affidavit states the notice was posted on May 27, 2014. Ms. Quinn believes it should have been dated June, which the applicant agreed. Ms. Quinn then asked if the posted notice been maintained the day of its posting to today at which the applicant replied yes. Ms. Quinn stated with that clarification, the notice is appropriate. Mr. Barker clarified the additional handouts included since the packet was delivered to the commissioners. Page one is a revised employee generation numbers requested by APCHA to include all the drivers working hours, not just the time spent at Rubey Park (Agenda Exhibit G). The other two pages are the exhibits to the proposed resolution that were neglected to be included in the packet (Agenda Exhibit H). Mr. Barker stated this request is a planned development amendment and growth management review for an essential public facility; Rubey Park Transit facility, located on Durant between South Mill and South Galena street. It is a 27,000 sf lot or one-half of a block. It is zoned public with a plan development overlay and located just in the very far edge of the commercial core historic district. Because it is located in the district, the HPC did have conceptual design and commercial design review for the project. Under the newly amended code as of December, 2013; it would have the opportunity to review the plan development and growth management concurrently, but it was staff’s decision that P&Z should also be creating a recommendation to City Council. This project will go before council and then it will go before the HPC for the final review and the HPC will handle the final review and final plan review which is technical in nature. This review tonight is covering the project mass and scale dimensions. HPC did have one item to pass on to both P&Z and Council over there concerns for the proposed bus parking on the south side of Durant and the operations. They are requesting this review to look at this specifically and note any concerns. This project will be a renovation of the existing structure currently on site with the inclusion of two new structures, one on each side of the existing building. One of the new structures is for RFTA facilities and the other new building is for expanded public restrooms. There will also be a new glass roof connecting all three structures together. The site and adjacent right-of-ways are also proposed to be enhanced and improved as part of this project in order to create better bus functionality and a better pedestrian experience overall. This does include the relocation of some of the parking spots in the area as well. In order to maintain service on the site, they are proposing to do six phases of construction including the location of a temporary facility on-site for the ticketing and restrooms during the renovation. In regards to the planned development review, staff has found it meets all the applicable criteria. Many of the city departments have been involved in the design process over time including engineering, parks, 8 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 15, 2014 community development. All been working throughout the process to ensure compliance with the standards during the design. The dimensions for the project are set through this process. Since it is located in a public zoned district there are no baseline numbers. The existing set and the surrounding properties are included which staff has addressed in how the review criteria is met. Staff has one item of concern regarding the requirement to improve pedestrian and bicycle transit facilities in the PUD review criteria. In many ways the applicant has met this from the existing facilities, but staff feels there could be a better emphasis on the proposed pedestrian connection between the existing malls and where the proposed facilities will be located. Staff wants the applicant to look at this going forward. For the growth management review this is designated as an essential public facility. P&Z’s role is to determine the employee generation for the site and provide a recommendation for council. The City Council will determine what the mitigation is when it is delivered to them including waive or partially wave any requirements that might Staff recommends the employee generation is what is represented in the packet. Staff also recommends an audit to be conducted two years after the certificate of occupancy (CO) for this project to confirm or deny the employee generation numbers and initiate mitigation if necessary. Overall, staff recommends the P&Z Commission to determine the employee generation to be an increase of 0.18 as shown in the application and recommend to City Council to approve the request for planned development amendment and growth management review for the essential public facility. Mr. Erspamer asked if P&Z can make recommendations. Mr. Barker replied yes. He then asked which parking spaces will be eliminated by McDonalds. Mr. Barker said some parking will possibly be relocated as part of the proposal. He also stated the applicant will cover this in more detail. Mr. John Krueger, City of Aspen Director of Transportation, introduced the applicant’s representatives at this meeting including Sheri Sanzone of BlueGreen; Gilbert Sanchez of Studio B; Samuel Baucum of BlueGreen; Lynn Rumbaugh, City of Aspen Transportation Program Manager; and Mike Herms and Nick Senn of the Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA). Mr. Krueger stated the Rubey Park was built over 30 years ago and described how it was only a little shack in hayfield at one time shown by pictures available at the historical society. It has served the community well. It was built in 1987 and served a couple hundred thousand riders a year. Now with the implementation of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) last fall, the city carries over a million passengers on its eight route system with most of them going through this facility. RFTA sends about another four million through the facility on an annual basis. The facility is hanging on, but most of the infrastructure is failing and it’s in desperate need of renovation. Council recognized this need perhaps two years ago and made it a top ten goal for staff to start looking at ways to renovate and make improvements to the facility. City staff started this process and obtained local funding from the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) to engage Studio B and BlueGreen to compete a big portion of the design work. Grant funds in the amount $3 million dollars have also been obtained from the state of Colorado and Federal Government. 9 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 15, 2014 Ms. Sanzone stated when they initiated the design work, the team was shocked at how many people use the facility. One of the initial efforts by the team was to look at the existing conditions. Some items the noted were buses parked for drivers on break, buses staged for loading and unloading passengers, very unsafe conditions and it is not very functional for today’s needs. The amenities for users are fairly inadequate. The waiting room is fairly small, the restrooms are undersized and do not meet the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, the outdoor space is uncomfortable for waiting, inadequate bike parking. Based on the surveys conducted, people really enjoy sitting outside with great views in a centrally located place. A number of outreach days (three during schematic design & two during final design) were conducted at Rubey Park to help ensure a collaborative approach with the people using the facilities. The team collected great input from both riders, people walking by, drivers, other RFTA employees. The team also provided previews for appointed and elected officials. Surveys were conducted with bus riders, in person riders, online other outreach activities including a project web page from the beginning of the project and working with the media. One of the key survey results included an almost 98% response regarding keeping the facility at the current location. Respondents included a broad range including residents of the valley and visitors. The design process documented the how the spaces are currently allocated for usage and what was needed. This process identified that additional space was not necessary, but rightsizing and making the current spaces function better than today. With the design, the team attempted to utilize existing bus spaces well, eliminate conflicts and accommodate additional bus spaces as well. Two additional spaces were made available in the design. They also took a close look at the building itself to determine how it is used and how it needs to function in the future. The proposal includes only an additional 606 sf. This space is split between the public waiting area and what the staff uses. The staff is currently using the space (no ventilation) in the gable roof as an ad hoc lounge area for the drivers. The proposal attempts to provide adequate space waiting, staff lounge areas as well as ADA requirements. Some of the comments heard during the outreach were from individuals who had previously attend sessions and were happy with the design and excited for it to start now! Ms. Sanzone displayed the schematic design selected by Council as their preferred design out of the four presented. In regards to the parking spaces described in the memo, Ms. Sanzone stated on Mill St, there are nine spaces total near McDonalds. They are proposing to relocate six of those spaces. Three will remain and they will likely be ADA spaces. Ms. Sanzone stated they plan to meet with the parking department to nail down where the parking spaces will go. One option is move metered spaces to Galena through some realignment of the curb. Another option is to create a fifth spot on S. Mill St. south of Durant where there are currently four spaces. These spaces would also be changed to meter parking. In regards to buses parking on Durant St south of Wagner Park, RFTA currently utilizes this parking area for staging 10 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 15, 2014 buses special events, parking buses during layovers and breaks. The proposal identifies these parking spaces for special events. In the design approved by Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) which is presented this evening, the building in the center that exists today will remain. The addition on the back will be removed and the two wings of the building will be reconstructed based on some structural review and analysis. It will essentially be the same footprint as the building exists today. The public commented they love the clock tower and believe it’s an iconic Aspen image and want to keep it moving forward. The center building will include an enlarged waiting area, an improved clerk’s space to allow up to two clerks working when necessary, new windows. On the right hand side is a new building to be connected by a continuous roof to the center building which will include new restrooms. The new building on the left side is the home for RFTA which will be right-sized and ADA compliant. The trash and recycle bins will also be accommodated within this building. The current site includes six diagonal parking spaces along the alley for buses which causes a lot of conflicts with neighboring units trying to use the alley. The new plan separates the alley from the parking spaces. Another safety and annoyance issue of the beeper when buses backing up will be eliminated with the new design. The bike parking will increased and the WE- Cycle station will be maintained. Rubey Park will also have a park-like space as an extension of the pedestrian mall on the left where people can wait and relax. The two new bus parking spaces added along with two current spaces in the back will be for drivers who are on break or layovers. The buses parked around Rubey Park and on Durant are actively staged for riders to load and unload. The new design shows spaces for 20 buses which would be for peak conditions. Ms. Sanzone described how the connection between pedestrian mall and Rubey Park allows for people to diagonally cross through the parking area creating an unsafe condition. The new design is intended to provide visual cues so pedestrians should know where they should be going. Concrete designs will be used to communicate a crosswalk for the pedestrians between the mall and the parking area. Mill St will be created as an extension to the mall to reduce the number of cars allowed to park in the area. The sidewalk along Wagner Park has been widened about two times the width it is currently providing a space easier for people to negotiate towards the mall. The architecture of the HPC approved design included in the proposal includes the gable form, clock tower and façade is similar to the existing building today. The two building and attaching wings will now have a flat roof. All three buildings will be linked by a continuous canopy providing extra shade and cover. Looking at the area from above, a green roof is proposed for the flat roofs. Solar panels on the flat roofs are also included in the proposal. These two work well together in a sustainable approach managing storm water and energy efficiencies. Along the back is a continuous bioretention area required by city engineering of projects. Water hitting the roof will partially be absorbed by the plants and then move along the surface of the paving and eventually end up in the bioretention areas including plants that will assist with removing poisons and toxins from the water before making its way to Rio Grande and Roaring Fork River. Ms. Sanzone displayed a view of the front façade showing the materials being considered including brick, metal, wood and glass as well as the transparency of the building making it open to take advantage of the views and using sustainable plants. 11 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 15, 2014 Mr. Sanchez then provided information regarding the size and scale of the building. The current tower is 32 ft 2 inches to the peak and the gable is about 22 ft to the peak. The current side wings with gable roofs are about 18 ft to the peak. The proposal includes an inverted roof, not really flat, a glass canopy connecting all three proposed buildings. The green roofs will help deal with storm water issues and increase the permeable surface on site. Another intention is to be subservient to the iconic forms. The new elements are very horizontal, very low. The height of the side wing roof will drop to 12.5 ft as compared to 18 ft. the form of the roof should also minimize the snow shedding safety issues existing with the current building. The new roof is designed to hold the snow. Ms. Sanzone then reviewed the plan going forward for a sense of the big picture. Their last outreach day was last week. They have just completed their 60% level of design and going through a cost estimating process to ensure they are still aligned with the budget. The P&Z review is this meeting and next month the plan is to meet with City Council. Then Mr. Krueger will go back the EOTC in October to request the additional money for the project to move forward. The final review is tentatively scheduled for November with HPC and then submit for a building permit in December. The construction will start as soon as the mountain closes in the spring with a tentative re-opening date by Thanksgiving for the next ski season. This is a very tight process to get everything completed. Mr. Erspamer asked the commissioners if they had any questions for the applicant for this agenda item. Mr. Erspamer asked if the planted trees would block the sun from the solar panels. Ms. Sanzone stated they have planned for the separation and height to not block the sun from the panels. Cottonwoods will be planted at the back of the facility for screening and bioretention and smaller trees will be planted near the front of the facility. Mr. Erspamer asked how they plan to shovel the snow from the roof at which Mr. Sanchez stated they do not plan to shovel the snow and the roof is designed to hold the snow. Some form of heat tapes will also be used to assist with melting ice. Mr. Sanchez also stated the canopy will capture the snow coming off the gable and keep it from falling to the sidewalk as it does now. In regards to the parking on Mill St north of Durant, Mr. Erspamer wanted to know if the management of McDonalds have been contacted and informed and are they concerned. Ms. Sanzone stated they have been invited to the outreach days and they have spoken with them. Mr. Elliot then asked about the two parking spaces across from CP Burger. He said there are two meter spots currently there that were not accounted for in the parking mitigation. Ms. Sanzone understood those spots were for official parking, but she stated she would confirm and if so, they will find additional parking. Mr. Erspamer asked who parks on the south side of Durant facing Independence Pass. Mr. Krueger stated currently the east end ride, Burlingame and the cross town shuttle park there. Mr. Erspamer asked for confirmation on the number of men’s and women’s toilets at which Mr. Sanchez replied there will five fixtures in each. Mr. Erspamer asked if there was space allocated for courtesy, shuttle, taxi and lodge drop-offs. Ms. Sanzone stated there is one space currently included in the proposal on the corner of Galena and Durant. 12 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 15, 2014 Mr. Goode asked if the new design has fewer buses parked along the alley. Ms. Sanzone stated the new design has room for four buses where now up to six buses park along the alley. Mr. Krueger stated the new sawtooth design for parking behind Rubey Park eliminates the eight-ten point turns to back out of the existing spaces along the alley. Mr. Gibbs asked for clarification on how the new design attempts to channel pedestrians at both ends of Rubey Park. Ms. Sanzone stated the current sidewalk along Wagner Park is undersized for the amount of pedestrians accessing the mall from the south side of Durant. The new sidewalk will be widened to assist pedestrians to access the mall. She states there will be some pedestrians attempting the diagonal cut through the back parking area so the plan will include paving features to delineate between the pedestrian and bus parking areas. Mr. Elliot asked if they make the Mill St. appear like a mall will people use the area as a pedestrian mall and increase bus – people interactions. Ms. Sanzone feels the new design cuts off the diagonal traffic and the design will allow vehicles to recognize people may be in the area. Mr. Krueger stated the design eliminates car –bus and car – people interactions that currently exist on the Mill St. side. Mr. Watlerscheid asked if the bioretention area will be recessed. Ms. Sanzone replied it will be recessed, but not to the extent of the areas near the Gondola Plaza. He also asked if the pedestrian walkways would be raised. Ms. Sanzone stated the areas are not proposed to be raised primarily due to how buses move. Raised areas would rock the bus while they make the turns into Rubey Park. Mr. Krueger stated raised areas would increase the noise of the buses while they make the turns. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked how much bicycle parking is proposed. Ms. Sanzone stated the plan doubles the amount of bicycle parking currently available. A different rack system will be used allowing more bicycles. Mr. McNellis asked if the Parks Department will be tasked to maintain the green areas, including roofs, and have they been a part of the design process. Ms. Sanzone replied the department has been involved in the design and they are aware and understand it will be part of their program. Mr. McNellis asked if the 20 buses accommodated with the new design is for maximum use. Ms. Sanzone stated the design was about compromising and identifying a balance use of the park space. This number allows RFTA to meet a lot of operational needs but it also allows the other needs from neighbors and the community to be met. Mr. Gibbs asked where the cross town shuttle would be located. Mr. Krueger stated the plans have not been finalized with RFTA operations. He feels there is an opportunity for improvement. Mr. Erspamer opened and closed the meeting for public comment for this item because there were no members of the public attending. Mr. Erspamer opened for the commissioner’s comments for this agenda item. Mr. Goode asked if the design discussions included making Durant a one way street. Ms. Sanzone and Mr. Krueger stated there had been quite a bit of discussion. This is a primary area for people to move 13 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 15, 2014 around the core of the city. It was decided making Durant one way would compromise the grid system and circulation of traffic. The members of the design team decided no for making Durant one way. Mr. Watlerscheid asked if they were going to bulb-out the corners. Ms. Sanzone state there would be none because it is too restrictive on the buses making the turns. Ms. Sanzone and Mr. Krueger stated there were three bus turning tests conducted to make sure the buses could make the turning radiuses. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked if bulb-outs were considered on the ends of the bioswales. Ms. Sanzone stated this was part of the original design, but they were moved after the turning test was completed. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki suggested indicating with color the pedestrian’s path. Ms. Sanzone stated they will be marking the four cross walks at Durant and the mall. Mr. Krueger described the pedestrian area at the end of Mills as a jailbreak area because there is nothing to direct the pedestrians. He hopes the new design will help eliminate these issues. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki stated extending the pavement patters should make drivers more aware of pedestrians. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki felt widening the sidewalk was actually an opportunity to plant more trees where the parking spots were eliminated to add more greenscape to the area. Mr. Krueger stated the Parks Department is reworking Wagner Park (mostly irrigation and electrical) but he did not know if that could be part of it. He stated they could mention it to the members of the design team from the department. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki feels this building is such an important public institution; a gateway to Aspen; the first sight of Aspen for many visitors. He strongly suggested to Mr. Krueger, HPC and to City Council that it goes through some kind of architectural design review. When he looks at the design, it looks a lot like high school in the boring suburb outside of Philadelphia. He thinks this city has a legacy of great architects doing meaningful public architecture and he thinks Lake Tahoe just did their bus depot which is a lot more forward looking in their design and environmental system it integrates. He commends the bioswales and the solar panels but this can do and be more. When people arrive in Aspen, they should think they are arriving somewhere special and he feels he would be arriving somewhere between a weird post-modern reinterpretation of our past Disneyland in anyplace rather than a truly distinct place. As a P&Z member, he feels it could be way more forward looking instead of the safest possible approach. These materials are not of Aspen and they are not of our rustic character and they are not modern. When you arrive, you should feel you are in a mountain town or an ecologically advanced forward looking building. Instead he feels he would be arriving at his high school from ten years ago. Mr. Erspamer stated he agrees with Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki’s statement. Mr. Sanchez disagreed with a lot of Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki’s statement. He feels they have not had an opportunity to discuss all the minutiae of the project and all the parameters and restrictions of the project. In many ways he does agree with Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki’s statements and he would have loved to have a broader design opportunity presented, but there are certain restrictions that compelled him to approach the way it was done. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki countered he understands and that is why he directed his statements towards a broader audience. Ms. Sanzone added that a lot of the public comment collected included statements from people stating they love the building the way it is and could more space be just added to it. The design has involved 14 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 15, 2014 knowing people really love the clock tower and really love the gable form which is one reason they were preserved. Mr. Krueger stated some of the funding partners providing grants asked the City to make sure it was a renovation, not a scrape and redo. This includes $3 million in funding received. This restricted Mr. Sanchez from taking the design where he may have liked to take it. Mr. Krueger states he understands Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki’s comments. Mr. McNellis stated he is struggling with the design to continue the mall on both ends of Rubey Park. He understands what the design is trying to do, but feels the areas are confusing to kids and tourists. He feels it can be dangerous to navigate across the areas. He stated if further studies are conducted to extend the mall, the studies should include good barriers at the end of the mall to delineate the end of the mall as well as delineate the passages from the mall to the terminal island. Ms. Quinn reminded the commissioners that there is action to be taken for this agenda item. There is a draft of Resolution #11 included in the packet. Mr. Barker reminded them their role is to confirm the 0.18 increase of employee generation. In reviewing Resolution #11, Mr. Gibbs noted the language used to describe the increase of employees in Section 2 is confusing and should be edited for clarity an increase of 0.18 employees. Mr. Watlerscheid asked if the brick will be reused or not. Mr. Sanchez replied the bricks would not be reused. All new brick will be used so all three buildings will match. The design team is looking at a variety of bricks and he said it would not be a typical standard size. Mr. Watlerscheid asked the commissioners wanted to include additional recommendations other than what is stated in Section 3 (1). Mr. Gibbs stated he thought the recommendation stated in Section 3 (1) should be edited to include text to make it very clear and well-marked where pedestrians can walk and to both pedestrians as well as bus and other drivers into the alley. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki motioned to extend the meeting until 7:20pm. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gibbs. Roll call vote; Mr. Erspamer, yes; Mr. Gibbs, yes; Ms. Tygre, no; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Watlerscheid, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki, yes. Motion carried with a count of yes-6 and no-1. The commissioners agreed to change the language of Section 3 (1) to include lighting, replace the Mill St and Galena St Mall areas defined with transit facility and to change the word accommodate to delineate. Mr. McNellis and Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked if a review of the architecture or an outside design review should be included as an additional recommendation. Mr. Gibbs was not sure the commission had purview to make the recommendation and noted HPC has approved the design. Mr. Gibbs further stated this would have been a good opportunity to have a joint meeting with HPC to bring up some of these concerns and felt it was too late to bring up as a recommendation at this point in time. Mr. Barker reminded the commissioners that HPC has already approved the conceptual design including mass and scale and proportions of the project. When the proposed design goes to Council, in which Council can direct it to back for a conceptual review, but otherwise the conceptual design is locked in. If so only 15 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 15, 2014 materials, landscape, lighting, and other finishing products. Mr. McNellis stated the best course would be for Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki to attend the City Council meeting and make his comments at that time. Mr. Erspamer closed the commissioner’s comments for this agenda item. Ms. Tygre made a motion to approve Resolution #11 with the changes defined. Mr. McNellis seconded the motion. Mr. Gibbs asked Mr. Barker to make the changes in the last sentence if Section 3 (1) so they both reflect an increase of 0.18. Ms. Tygre made a motion to include the additional changes stated by Mr. Gibbs. Mr. McNellis seconded the amended motion. Roll call vote; Mr. Erspamer, yes; Mr. Gibbs, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Watlerscheid, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki, yes. Motion carried with a count of yes-7 and no-0. Ms. Tygre left the meeting. Mr. Erspamer asked if there was other business to discuss. Mr. Gibbs asked if at some point, the commission could discuss how they take public comment. He had attended a meeting last week that he felt was poorly handled. He feels it would be important for all the commissioners to review this subject because how the public is treated is an incredibly important issue and how the City government is perceived. He asked if the subject could be discussed at a future meeting. Mr. Erspamer commented he attended a couple of City Council meetings and noticed they are having dialogue with the public. He was not sure why they are handling it differently than in the past. He stated the State of Colorado advises how to run meetings. Both Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Erspamer agree it is difficult at times to handle public comments. Ms. Phelan state she would look at the schedule in the future to plan for a discussion on public comment. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 pm. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 16