Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20150707 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING July 07, 2015 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. June 30, 2015 Minutes V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 710 & 720 E Durant Ave (Durant Mall) - Commercial Design Review - Continued Public Hearing from June 16th B. 1475 Sierra Vista Drive - Residential Design Standards Variance - Public Hearing VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 13 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legaJ notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of ap plicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015 1 Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jesse Morris, Skippy Mesirow, Kelly McNicholas, Jasmine Tygre, Keith Goode, and Ryan Walterscheid. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, Hillary Seminick, Chris Bendon and Jessica Garrow. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. McNicholas asked if Council has made a decision regarding the SCI zoning for Obermeyer Place. Ms. Phelan replied the first reading is scheduled in July. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes for April 21st , seconded by Mr. Morris. All in favor, motion passed. The draft minutes for May 26th were discussed. A couple of corrections were requested by Ms. McNicholas. Mr. Morris moved to approve the minutes pending the requested corrections and was seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor, motion passed. Mr. Mesirow moved to approve the minutes for June 16 th and seconded by Ms. McNicholas. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no conflicts expressed. 540 E Main St – Rezoning – Public Hearing Mr. Walterscheid opened the public hearing and asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Quinn replied it appeared notice had been appropriately provided. Ms. Seminick, Community Development Planner Technician, reviewed of the application. The City of Aspen, Capital Asset Department is requesting to rezone the subject property. The property is currently zoned Service Commercial Industrial (SCI), Commercial (C-1) and Commercial Core (CC) and they are requesting it be zoned as Public (PUB). As a City asset, the Public zoned district is an appropriate one and clears up the mix of zoned districts. The property is also designated as Historic due to three cabins located on the northern portion of the property. The property is approximately 27,000 sf and the City P1 IV.A. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015 2 Parking Department is currently located on the property. There is no proposed change in use at this time. The City Parking Department is considered a public use and is not allowed in within the SCI zoned district. The C-1 and CC allow for public use on the ground floor only. She displayed a map to show where the property is located and the location of the current single story Parking Department structure located on the CC zoned portion of the property. There is an accessory use building located on the SCI portion of the property which are allowed within the SCI zoned district. She also pointed out the location of the historic structures. She added no development is being proposed at this time, but the parcel is being considered for the future expansion of City facilities. Nothing has been approved at this time for any future development. The PUB zoned district would require a Planned Development (PD) review when any development is proposed for the property. With the PUB zoned district there are no dimensional requirements and would be set in the PD review. Should a development be proposed in the future, a Historic Preservation review would be combined with the PD review. The PUB rezoning as would consistent with zoning of adjacent properties which provide public uses. To the west is Pitkin County Courthouse, Plaza and Jail. Further west is the Pitkin County Library and to the north is the Rio Grande Park. Staff recommends P&Z provide a referral to City Council by adopting Resolution 12, series 2015 to approve the request to rezone the subject property to the PUB zoned district. She showed photos of the existing property including the existing structures. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of Staff. Ms. Tygre wanted to know if the same result could be obtained by changing SCI to allow public use. Ms. Seminick stated it wouldn’t address the issue with the property currently being in three different zoned districts. To change the SCI zoned district would require a change to the code. Ms. Phelan stated the project would also be subject to the dimensional requirements of the SCI zoned district. She added when you have a property with multiple zoned districts, you must stick to the allowed uses on the specifically defined areas. Mr. Mesirow and Mr. Morris asked if had been proposed previously and why not. Ms. Phelan asked Mr. Richman, representing the City, when the property was purchased by the City at which he answered in 2002. Mr. Richman added the property was previously a private property and zoned as such. He feels this is a housekeeping issue in that the property has been owned by the City for 13 years and the rezoning will allow for current and future public uses. He does not believe the City plans to sell the property. Ms. Tygre asked if zoned PUB, it would have no dimensional requirements. Ms. Phelan stated she was correct and added and it would have to go through a PD review for any proposed development which includes review criteria regarding mass, scale and context. P2 IV.A. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015 3 Mr. Walterscheid asked Staff to confirm the review process for a proposed development application. Ms. Phelan stated it would be reviewed by HPC for mass, scale and historic resources and then to City Council for review and ordinance approval and then back to HPC for the final skin approval. Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services Inc, represents the City of Aspen as the applicant. With him was Jack Wheeler, City of Aspen Capital Asset Manager, and Scott Smith, the project architect. Mr. Richman feels this is more of a housekeeping option. The property was purchased in 2002 to serve as a public function and was considered for the new fire station. More recently it has been considered to meet the long term office needs of the City or possibly a site for the Police Department. No uses are being proposed at the meeting. He added having a site trisected by three different zoning districts is a confusing situation. All the current zoned districts are all high density and high intensity commercial zones which would anticipate a big building. He does not feel this would be upzoning the property. Rezoning the property will ensure the uses are conforming. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Ms. Tygre asked at what point in the planning process will the public have a chance to weigh in on the uses they feel are appropriate for the property. Mr. Richman feels it will happen in two phases. One being during the public discussions going on right now to identify uses in the building replacement projects. The second phase will be during the project review phase to go over the use and mass. Mr. Wheeler stated public outreach started a year ago including several open houses presenting concepts to the public. The City has also reached out to stakeholders and neighbors and have received a lot of feedback on what they think is appropriate for the site. They are currently going through a rigorous process internally, with Council, the public and stakeholders. They plan to go to Council later in July to discuss the conceptual designs. He added the City is going through the inventory of all City properties and rezoning property over the next year where appropriate to eliminate zoning issues. Mr. Walterscheid asked for any public comment at which there were none so he closed that portion of the meeting. Mr. Walterscheid opened for discussion with the commission members. Ms. McNicholas feels it is an appropriate change to make and is in line with the uses of adjacent properties to the west. Mr. Goode, Mr. Morris and Mr. Mesirow agreed. Ms. Tygre stated on the surface it seems to be a reasonable request and it makes sense to have the public adjacent to County Courthouse. She is concerned is what happens down the road. Although this is a housekeeping measure, she feels we’ve been burned by housekeeping measures before because once you allow step one to happen, then step two, which you didn’t anticipate, winds up being a 70,000 sf building. She wants to make sure we are not going down that road especially since there has been a lot of concern expressed by a lot of people including herself about the potential size of some the buildings to be constructed for public use and what types of public use. P3 IV.A. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015 4 Mr. Mesirow agreed you could be setting the environment where that could be possible based on the needs the City states it has for public uses. He feels a building for the expressed public uses will be built somewhere and is this an appropriate location for a public entity. He feels the community will have an opportunity to say what they do and do not want in regards to the building to be proposed. Mr. Goode motioned to approve Resolution 12, Series 2015 recommending the approval of the rezoning for 540 E Main St. Ms. McNicholas seconded the motion. Mr. Walterscheid requested a roll call to vote: Ms. McNicholas, yes, Mr. Morris, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes. The motion passed with a six to zero (6-0) vote. Mr. Walterscheid then closed the hearing. Work Program Check-In – Other Business Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to Staff for the work program check in with Mr. Bendon and Ms. Garrow. Mr. Bendon stated Staff wanted to touch base with P&Z on the department’s work program. They will be meeting with Council in late July to update them on the items they were asked to pursue. They also want to update Council on items that have come out of HPC, P&Z and things from the community plan that should be added to the work program. The meeting will also allow Council to clarify what they want Staff to work on. He said tonight is an opportunity for P&Z to ask questions on any of the items identified in the agenda packet. Mr. Morris asked in regards to transportation the two items currently on the work program include the Rethink the Street and the Off-Street Parking Requirements. Ms. Garrow confirmed those are the two transportation related items. He agrees both items should be on the work plan and feels Rethink the Street is number one. When looking at the community plan and how the community is performing on the sustainability front, he feels transportation is the weakest in terms of congestion. He feels the Off- Street Parking item could be key in transforming Aspen. He recommended conducting a study similar to on conducted for the city of Fort Collins by Donald Shoup, known as a parking guru. He added it could be used as a case study to help other cities. Mr. Morris asked for an update on the Rethink the Street item. Mr. Bendon stated with street related projects, typically the City will study, budget, plan and build without obtaining outside input. Now they are trying to engage people with experimental projects. One project is the bulb-outs near City Hall and another one with the new island with flexible curbing on N. Mill St. They would like to experiment more and make more changes. Mr. Walterscheid asked about the feedback they have received on the experiments. Mr. Bendon replied about two thirds (2/3) or stronger responding like the City Hall experiment. The major pushback is on aesthetics for the one near City Hall. Folks who do not like it are pretty adamant about it. Others have stated it is more dangerous for bikes by pushing them more into traffic. P4 IV.A. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015 5 Mr. Walterscheid asked if they plan to do experiments it in other areas. Mr. Bendon stated they would like to but the City departments involved with helping including Parks and Streets are at operational capacity now with the summer season. Ms. McNicholas asked it the experiments are limited to the core currently and Mr. Bendon confirmed it is right now. There are not necessarily limits for future projects. Mr. Walterscheid asked about experimenting with Main St and Mr. Bendon stated they will probably not occur on Main St because it is a State Highway and would involve other agencies. He added there are continuing discussions with Engineering to address the barriers in crossing Main St. Mr. Bendon stated the City is also looking into utilizing a text based service to allow the public to easily respond to the experiments. Currently the public can utilize a Quick Response (QR) code to take them to a site for a response and they are using a chalkboard. Ms. McNicholas asked if they are considering any experiments for the pedestrian malls. Mr. Bendon stated they are not right now, but they will probably started a process next year to re-imagine the malls. There is a need to update some major infrastructure for the malls. There are also some significant development projects stacking up. The City may try to leverage some of its improvements at the same time the development will be occurring. Mr. Goode asked when the malls were built at which Mr. Bendon replied the 70’s and it was a grassroots effort to close off the streets for a year to obtain feedback. Ms. McNicholas asked if there was a plan to put together a comprehensive transportation plan. Ms. Garrow stated it is broadly covered within the transportation chapter of the Aspen Area Community Plan. The Transportation Department completed some internal planning related to busses but there is no overall transportation master plan. The City has strived to implement it by targeting specific areas including policy. In 2012, one of Councils top goals was a mitigation system for development to ensure any addition trips generated are mitigated. This is now a new requirement for all development applications and it has been incredibly successful. The Parking item on the plan is a next step in the mitigation plan. Ms. McNicholas asked if the Lift One neighborhood fits in any type of master plan or vision. Mr. Bendon stated there has been a lot or recent activity in the area. The townhomes are in for a building permit and should start construction by the end of the year. The Lift One Lodge was recently purchased and they just started conversations with the new owner who they anticipated will be in the next month or two with a development application. There is plenty of opportunity for the City to step in to organize a plan for the area. Ms. McNicholas asked if there is a plan to retain the area as residential or become a gondola plaza west and include commercial. Mr. Bendon stated previous planning involved re- invigorating the area as a portal. Currently it is three percent or less of the uplift traffic and largely because it takes too long to get from Dean St up the mountain to the current lift. Right now as part of the Lift One Lodge approvals there would be a historical museum run by the Historical Society focused on skiing. Improvements to Dean St to include pedestrian access to connect to the gondola as well as a platter pole lift to move skiers up to a redeveloped Lift One A. There have been recent efforts to encourage the owners of the properties work together. The Lift One Lodge has lodging with a timeshare ownership and a restaurant. There are plans for 50 public parking spaces in the lodge as well. Ms. McNicholas feels it should be a priority for the City to engage to ensure the parts become cohesive for the town. Mr. Bendon feels with the two remaining parcels there is a scenario for a positive or negative outcome and feels it is important how the two projects relate to each other. P5 IV.A. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015 6 Mr. Mesirow feels he shared his opinions during the Next Generation meeting. The four priority items identified by the Next Generation Board included Housing Credits, Rethink the Streets, and the Uphill Economy in conjunction with looking at the SCI rezoning. He felt the overall list is pretty impressive. Mr. Walterscheid asked about the status for the lodging code improvements. Ms. Garrow stated there are a few more items to move forward on. In December, Council approved a policy resolution as the first step in code amendment listing a number of priorities. The first one was helping small lodges. The next one was looking at the condominium bed base which makes up 40% of the bed base. They also want to look at timeshares and multi-family replacements. In June, Council passed a small lodge preservation program including incentives for small lodges for the 12 identified lodges including planning assistance, energy efficiency related rebates, reductions in building permits and other general assistance with general code compliance. They have obtained feedback from P&Z related to condos and timeshares and want to confirm with Council this is still a priority. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there is any prioritization of items with the recent passing of Referendum 1. Mr. Bendon stated there has been some amendments to integrate it into the code language. They are trying to make people fully aware of what triggers a vote. Mr. Bendon and Ms. Garrow stated there will be some code cleanups in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) code section which includes Hallam Lake, 8040 greenline reviews, stream margin reviews, and view planes. The view plane language has not been updated since the 70’s. There are some confusing areas regarding exemptions from view planes. Mr. Bendon explained currently there is a process for P&Z and HPC to exempt a project from view plan limitations if it is behind a building that already blocks the view. Now this exemption would trigger a Referendum 1 vote which highlights the need to cleanup the code. There are similar little items that need to be addressed. As an example, Ms. Garrow stated the Aspen Alps would have never thought they were in a view plane, but it submitted an application and discovered it is in the Cooper St view plane. The application was submitted prior to Referendum 1 so it is not subject to a vote. Ms. Garrow stated they asked City Council to adopt a map to identify the zone districts identified as of the date specified by Referendum 1 (Resolution 69, Series 2015). Staff is working on compiling additional information to help out everyone. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there was any way to adjust zoning to address the ‘Zone it like you mean it’ statement. Mr. Bendon stated they haven’t had the opportunity yet to discuss it but feels it will come out in the upcoming retreat. The trick is getting past the sound bite and figuring out the definition of “mean it” or “fix it”. He feels there needs to be a good and thorough conversation to determine the destination prior to amending any code. The Council retreat is scheduled for July 23 rd - 24 th . Mr. Walterscheid asked when the housing credit item goes before Council. Ms. Garrow replied it has been stalled with the Aspen \ Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) because there has not been a quorum at the last two meetings. Ms. Garrow anticipates it will be presented to Council in August. Mr. Walterscheid asked when the residential mitigation would go before Council. Mr. Bendon stated the first reading is scheduled for the end of July. He added APCHA is still working on the cash-in-lieu rates. Mr. Walterscheid asked if Staff could hold a meeting for calculations and measurements similar to the residential design standards update meeting held earlier in the day. Mr. Bendon stated it was possible. P6 IV.A. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 30, 2015 7 Mr. Walterscheid asked it the permit process change and standardized building subdivision items were Council directives or just items within the department. Mr. Bendon stated they are identified because they require a big effort on the part of Staff to update and maintain. Mr. Walterscheid thought it would be beneficial to standardize as much as possible and Mr. Bendon agreed. Mr. Walterscheid asked if they are seeking any 3D models from architects in town who may have generated them in the last five years. Ms. Garrow stated they just recently resolved an issue converting some of the GIS data in SketchUp. She anticipates reaching out to local firms for completed models. Mr. Bendon stated they have temporary help dedicated to the project. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there would be a surveyor provided actual heights on items and contours. Ms. Garrow stated they are requesting new data on the next flyover when the information is collected. She stated all the building heights should be accurate as it relates to topography. She added having the entire town surveyed is cost prohibitive. Mr. Morris asked if Staff had updated P&Z on the housing credit policy changes. Ms. Garrow stated P&Z had been updated and she is still waiting on formal feedback from the APCHA Board. The APCHA Staff is recommending is similar to the City’s Staff recommendation except the APCHA Staff is recommending allowance of credits to be available for housing created anywhere in the Roaring Fork Valley. Mr. Walterscheid asked about the fee. Mr. Bendon stated they are still evaluating cash-in-lieu methodologies APCHA should use. Mr. Goode would like to add an item to address interior lighting code. Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting at 5:50 pm. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager P7 IV.A. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU : Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director FROM : Justin Barker, Planner RE: 710 & 720 E. Durant Avenue (Durant Mall) Consolidated Commercial Design Review Resolution No. __, Series of 2015 - Public Hearing MEETING DATE: July 7, 2015 (Continued from June 16, 2015) APPLICANT /O WNER : Durant Mall Condominium Association REPRESENTATIVE : RGS Architecture LOCATION : 710 & 720 E. Durant Avenue CURRENT ZONING Neighborhood Commercial (NC) w/ Planned Development (PD) overlay SUMMARY : The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission approval for consolidated Commercial Design Review to remodel the exterior of the two structures. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends approval with conditions. Photo of Durant Mall, as seen from E. Durant Avenue LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES : The following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission is being requested: • Commercial Design Review – for remodel of the existing structure, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.412 (P&Z is the final review authority ). P8 VI.A. Durant Mall - Staff Memo Page 2 of 7 CHANGES FROM 6/16/15 PUBLIC HEARING : At the hearing on June 16, the applicant presented two design options. Staff did not support the applicant’s preferred design option, which included additional parapets. P&Z was somewhat split on the additional parapets. Some commissioners agreed with staff, mentioning the parapets added additional perceived mass and height to the structures. Others were comfortable with the additions. P&Z suggested that there might be an appropriate design option somewhere between the two proposed. The applicant requested continuation to provide an opportunity to continue working with staff. The applicant submitted a revised design on June 30 (Exhibit F). The revised design still includes the steel superstructure and concrete masonry unit (CMU) base. The revised design also includes a combination of metal and composite siding, similar to Design Option 1. The applicant is proposing to complete the parapet on the east building at a height of 32 feet. There is no parapet addition on the west building. Overall, staff is supportive of the proposed design. Staff’s main concern from the last meeting was the inclusion of many new parapets that would increase the perceived mass of the structures. This concern has mostly been remedied with the revised design. The east building still adds additional parapet walls, however they will conform to the zone district requirements and is slightly modified on the Durant Street side to break up the massing. The east building proposal also includes new parapet walls on a small tower-like element. These walls are over 32 feet. P&Z has the ability to grant an allowable height up to 32 feet in the Neighborhood Commercial zone district, but any new development above that must still require a variance from City Council. Staff recommends removal of these parapet walls from the design to conform with the zone district. If P&Z decides to approve the project as-is, the applicant will be required to receive a variance approval from City Council for this design. At the June 16 meeting, the applicant provided photos of the proposed metal siding and a sample of the proposed composite siding. Staff has requested the applicant bring physical samples of both materials to the July 7 meeting to allow P&Z the chance to better evaluate the materials. Staff recommendation is for approval with the condition of removing the proposed parapet above 32 feet on the tower-like element. EXHIBITS : A. Review Criteria – Commercial Design Review (provided 6/16 and 7/7) B. Application (provided 6/16) C. Design Option 1 - Updated 6.11.15 (provided 6/16 and 7/7) D. Design Option 2 – Updated 6.11.15(provided 6/16 and 7/7) E. Public Comment (provided 6/16) F. Revised Design 6.30.15 THE MEMO ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES IS FROM THE 6/16/15 PACKET : P9 VI.A. Durant Mall - Staff Memo Page 3 of 7 BACKGROUND : The subject property is located on the north side of East Durant Avenue, between Spring Street and Original Street (Figure A). The lot is approximately 16,500 square feet and is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC) with a Planned Development (PD) Overlay. There are two existing structures on site (Figures B & C on next page) that were built at the same time in the 1970s. The buildings are each three stories tall above grade on a raised plaza, and contain a combination of commercial and residential uses. There is a parking garage located below grade that is accessed from the alley side. The buildings are heavy timber construction with wood siding and a combination of standing seam metal and flat roofs. The existing buildings vary in height but are approximately 41 ft. tall in some areas, which exceeds the height limit in the NC zone district (28 ft., increasable to 32 ft. with Commercial Design Review). This existing nonconforming height may be maintained, but not increased, as long as demolition is not triggered on the existing structure. Any new construction must conform to the zone district limitations. Figure A – Locator Map CITY MARKET P10 VI.A. Durant Mall - Staff Memo Page 4 of 7 Figure B – Existing Durant View Figure C – Existing Alley View P11 VI.A. Durant Mall - Staff Memo Page 5 of 7 PROJECT SUMMARY : The applicant is proposing to replace the existing exterior timber frame and exterior materials. The overall massing of the buildings and fenestrations will remain the same. The applicant is proposing two different designs. In both designs, the timber frame will be replaced with structural steel and the existing stone covering the base will be replaced with a combination of polished and split face concrete masonry units (CMUs). In Design Option 1 (Figures D & E) the wood siding will be replaced with a combination of vertical aluminum siding and horizontal composite siding. Figure D – Design Option 1 Durant View Figure E – Design Option 1 Alley View P12 VI.A. Durant Mall - Staff Memo Page 6 of 7 Design Option 1 (Figures D & E on previous page) also adds additional parapet walls on the top floor, adding height. The proposed walls would reach 32’ 4”, which exceed the height limit. This is the preferred design by the applicant. If approved by P&Z, Design Option 1 would still require a height variance from City Council. In Design Option 2 (Figures F & G) the wood siding will be replaced only with horizontal composite siding. Design Option 2 (Figures D & E on next page) also does not include additional parapet walls, therefore not requiring a height variance. Figure F – Design Option 2 Durant View Figure G – Design Option 2 Alley View P13 VI.A. Durant Mall - Staff Memo Page 7 of 7 STAFF EVALUATION : Commercial Design Review (Exhibit A): The property is located in the Commercial Character Area. The primary design objectives of this character area are: 1. Strengthen the sense of relatedness with the Commercial Core Historic District. 2. Maintain a retail orientation. 3. Promote creative, contemporary design. 4. Encourage a well-defined street wall. 5. Reflect the variety in building heights seen traditionally. 6. Accommodate outdoor public spaces while establishing a clear definition to the street edge. 7. Promote variety in the street level experience. Staff Response: Staff recognizes that the preferred proposed design is intended to modernize the appearance of the building, and the parapets are an integral part of the design. This also reinforces the appearance of a flat roof, which is the dominate roof form in the city center. However, the proposed parapets do not inherently help achieve any of the Guidelines and increase the perceived mass of the building. The existing buildings create variation of height and building mass through varied roof forms and parapet edges. This variation is particularly important for a building that is already over the allowable height. Design Option 1 eliminates much of this variation by hiding the variation behind new parapets and further creating the perception of tall flat walls. There are no unique site features or constraints that would warrant a variance for this design. Staff does not support Design Option 1. The proposed exterior materials are durable modern materials, but do not convey the range and quality of materials seen traditionally which includes brick, natural stone and wood. Composite and CMU are intended to mimic wood and granite, which are natural materials that are more consistent within the Commercial Area and other nearby development. Predominate materials in the Commercial Area include high quality brick with occasional natural stone accent. Wood is often used for earlier residential buildings. The Guidelines call for continuing the combination, quality and variation that is traditionally found in these materials. Staff recommends the use of natural materials to be more consistent with the Guidelines. Additionally, the use of large amounts of metal siding in Design Option 1 – although somewhat detailed at a human scale – increases the overall perceived scale of the building, particularly with the additional parapets. The Guidelines call for building materials which reduce the perceived scale of the building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Overall, Staff is supportive of Design Option 2. Staff is concerned about the durability and quality of the proposed composite siding, but would be supportive of a composite material that has long durability and high quality. The applicant will be providing samples of the proposed materials at the meeting. PROPOSED MOTION : “I move to approve Resolution No. __, Series of 2015, approving consolidated Commercial Design review for 710 & 720 E. Durant Avenue, with conditions.” P14 VI.A. Resolution No. __, Series of 2015 710 & 720 E. Durant Street Page 1 of 5 RESOLUTION NO. __ (SERIES OF 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING CONSOLIDATED COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 710 & 720 E. DURANT AVENUE (COMMONLY KNOWN AS DURANT MALL), LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A. Parcel IDs: 273718242006, 273718242008 –273718242016, 273718242018 – 273718242024, 273718242028 – 273718242034, 273718242038, 273718242041 –273718242060, 273718242062, 273718242070 – 273718242072, 273718242078, 273718242079, 273718242116 – 273718242130, 273718242802 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Durant Mall Condominium Association, c/o RGS Architecture, represented by RGS Architecture, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission approve consolidated Commercial Design Review for the property located at 710 & 720 E. Durant Mall; and, WHEREAS, the property is zoned (NC) Neighborhood Commercial with a (PD) Planned Development overlay, and located within the Commercial Character Area; and, WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the application; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 16, 2015, continued to July 7, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. __, Series of 2015, by a ____ to ____ (_ – _) vote, approving consolidated Commercial Design Review, with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the P15 VI.A. Resolution No. __, Series of 2015 710 & 720 E. Durant Street Page 2 of 5 Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves consolidated Commercial Design Review as represented in Exhibit B, with the following conditions: 1. The additional parapet walls shall not exceed 32 feet in height, as measured by the Land Use Code in effect at time of building permit submittal. 2. The proposed parapet for the tower-like element on the east building is not approved. 3. The signage represented on the drawings in Exhibit B is not approved. All signage shall comply with the requirements of the City’s Land Use Code. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 7th day of July, 2015. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ______________________________ ______________________________ Debbie Quinn, Asst. City Attorney Ryan Walterscheid, Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager Exhibits: A. Legal Description B. Approved Design P16 VI.A. Resolution No. __, Series of 2015 710 & 720 E. Durant Street Page 3 of 5 Exhibit A Durant Mall, (A Condominium), according to the Condominium Map thereof recorded February 6, 1976, in Plat Book 4, Page 565, as amended by Amended Condominium Map recorded October 21, 1983, in Plat Book 15, Page 48 and by Second Supplemental Condominium Map recorded June 14, 1984 in Plat Book 16, Page 10 and plat recorded March 20, 1990 in Plat Book 24 at Page 6, and the Fourth Supplemental Condominium Map recorded October 17, 2013 at reception no. 604796 and as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration for the Durant Mall, (A Condominium), recorded February 6, 1976 in Book 308, Page 518, as amended by First Amendment to Condominium Declaration recorded October 21, 1983 in Book 453, Page 848 and by Second Amendment to Condominium Declaration recorded June 14, 1984 in Book 467, Page 876 and Third Amendment Recorded December 26, 1995 in Book 803 Page 52 as reception no. 388538 and Fourth Amendment recorded October 17, 2013 at reception no. 604797, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. P17 VI.A. Resolution No. __, Series of 2015 710 & 720 E. Durant Street Page 4 of 5 Exhibit B P18 VI.A. Resolution No. __, Series of 2015 710 & 720 E. Durant Street Page 5 of 5 P19 VI.A. Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 1 of 14 EXHIBIT A COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW DURANT MALL 26.412.050. Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria: A. The proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, or any deviation from the standards provides a more appealing pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. Unique site constraints can justify a deviation from the standards. Compliance with Section 26.412.070, Suggested design elements, is not required but may be used to justify a deviation from the standards. Staff Findings: Responses to Sections 26.412.060-070 are outlined below. Staff finds this criterion is met. B. For proposed development converting an existing structure to commercial use, the proposed development meets the requirements of Section 26.412.060, Commercial design standards, to the greatest extent practical. Changes to the façade of the building may be required to comply with this Section. Staff Findings: The existing structure is already commercial. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. C. The application shall comply with the guidelines within the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines as determined by the appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. The City shall determine when a proposal is in compliance with the criteria, standards and guidelines. Although these criteria, standards and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. In such a case, the City must determine that the intent of the guideline is still met, albeit through alternative means. Staff Findings: Responses to the Design Guidelines are outlined below. This property is located in the Commercial Character Area. Overall, Staff finds this criterion is not met in Design Option 1, but is met in Design Option 2. 26.412.060. Commercial Design Standards. The following design standards, in addition to the commercial, lodging and historic district design objectives and guidelines, shall apply to commercial, lodging and mixed-use development: A. Public Amenity Space. Creative, well-designed public places and settings contribute to an attractive, exciting and vital downtown retail district and a pleasant pedestrian shopping and P20 VI.A. Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 2 of 14 entertainment atmosphere. Public amenity can take the form of physical or operational improvements to public rights-of-way or private property within commercial areas. On parcels required to provide public amenity, pursuant to Section 26.575.030, Public amenity, the following standards shall apply to the provision of such amenity. Acceptance of the method or combination of methods of providing the public amenity shall be at the option of the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, according to the procedures herein and according to the following standards: 1. The dimensions of any proposed on-site public amenity sufficiently allow for a variety of uses and activities to occur, considering any expected tenant and future potential tenants and uses. 2. The public amenity contributes to an active street vitality. To accomplish this characteristic, public seating, outdoor restaurant seating or similar active uses, shade trees, solar access, view orientation and simple at-grade relationships with adjacent rights-of-way are encouraged. 3. The public amenity and the design and operating characteristics of adjacent structures, rights-of-way and uses contribute to an inviting pedestrian environment. 4. The proposed amenity does not duplicate existing pedestrian space created by malls, sidewalks or adjacent property, or such duplication does not detract from the pedestrian environment. 5. Any variation to the design and operational standards for public amenity, Subsection 26.575.030.F., promotes the purpose of the public amenity requirements. Staff Findings: The proposed development does not change the footprint of the building and therefore is exempt from the requirements of this section. Staff finds that these criteria to be not applicable. B. Utility, delivery and trash service provision. When the necessary logistical elements of a commercial building are well designed, the building can better contribute to the overall success of the district. Poor logistics of one (1) building can detract from the quality of surrounding properties. Efficient delivery and trash areas are important to the function of alleyways. The following standards shall apply: 1. A trash and recycle service area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum size and location standards established by Title 12, Solid Waste , of the Municipal Code, unless otherwise established according to said Chapter. 2. A utility area shall be accommodated on all projects and shall meet the minimum standards established by Title 25, Utilities , of the Municipal Code, the City’s Electric Distribution Standards, and the National Electric Code, unless otherwise established according to said Codes. 3. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be co-located and combined to the greatest extent practical. P21 VI.A. Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 3 of 14 4. If the property adjoins an alleyway, the utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be along and accessed from the alleyway, unless otherwise approved through Title 12, Solid Waste , of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review . 5. All utility, trash and recycle service areas shall be fenced so as not to be visible from the street, unless they are entirely located on an alleyway or otherwise approved though Title 12, Solid Waste , of the Municipal Code, or through Chapter 26.430, Special Review . All fences shall be six (6) feet high from grade, shall be of sound construction, and shall be no less than ninety percent (90%) opaque, unless otherwise varied through Chapter 26.430, Special Review . 6. Whenever utility, trash, and recycle service areas are required to be provided abutting an alley, other portions of a building may extend to the rear property line if otherwise allowed by this Title, provided that the utility, trash and recycle area is located at grade and accessible to the alley. 7. All utility service pedestals shall be located on private property. Easements shall allow for service provider access. Encroachments into the alleyway shall be minimized to the extent practical and should only be necessary when existing site conditions, such as an historic resource, dictate such encroachment. All encroachments shall be properly licensed. 8. All commercial and lodging buildings shall provide a delivery area. The delivery area shall be located along the alley if an alley adjoins the property. The delivery area shall be accessible to all tenant spaces of the building in a manner that meets the requirements of the International Building Code Chapters 10 and 11 as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen. All non-ground floor commercial spaces shall have access to an elevator or dumbwaiter for delivery access. Alleyways (vehicular rights-of-way) may not be utilized as pathways (pedestrian rights-of-way) to meet the requirements of the International Building Code. Any truck loading facility shall be an integral component of the building. Shared facilities are highly encouraged. 9. All commercial tenant spaces located on the ground floor in excess of 1,500 square feet shall contain a vestibule (double set of doors) developed internal to the structure to meet the requirements of the International Energy Conservation Code as adopted and amended by the City of Aspen, or an air curtain. 10. Mechanical exhaust, including parking garage ventilation, shall be vented through the roof. The exhaust equipment shall be located as far away from the street as practical. 11. Mechanical ventilation equipment and ducting shall be accommodated internally within the building and/or located on the roof, minimized to the extent practical and recessed behind a parapet wall or other screening device such that it shall not be visible from a public right-of-way at a pedestrian level. New buildings shall reserve adequate space for future ventilation and ducting needs. 12. The trash and recycling service area requirements may be varied pursuant to Title 12, Solid Waste , of the Municipal Code. All other requirements of this subsection may be P22 VI.A. Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 4 of 14 varied by special review (see Chapter 26.430.040.E, Utility and delivery service area provisions ). Staff Findings: The proposed development contains existing trash/recycle/utility areas. There is no change to the size or use of the existing operations, and therefore may maintain the existing operations for this proposal. Staff finds these criteria to be not applicable. 26.412.070. Suggested design elements. The following guidelines are building practices suggested by the City, but are not mandatory. In many circumstances, compliance with these practices may not produce the most desired development, and project designers should use their best judgment. A. Signage. Signage should be integrated with the building to the extent possible. Integrated signage areas already meeting the City's requirements for size, etc., may minimize new tenant signage compliance issues. Common tenant listing areas also serves a public way- finding function, especially for office uses. Signs should not block design details of the building on which they are placed. Compliance with the City's sign code is mandatory. Staff Findings: The project will comply with all signage requirements. Staff finds this criterion is met. B. Display windows. Display windows provide pedestrian interest and can contribute to the success of the retail space. Providing windows that reveal inside activity of the store can provide this pedestrian interest. Staff Findings: The existing windows are proposed to remain the same. Many of the spaces already contain large display windows on the first floor. Staff finds this criterion is met. C. Lighting. Well-lit (meaning quality, not quantity) display windows along the first floor create pedestrian interest after business hours. Dynamic lighting methods designed to catch attention can cheapen the quality of the downtown retail environment. Illuminating certain important building elements can provide an interesting effect. Significant light trespass should be avoided. Illuminating the entire building should be avoided. Compliance with the City's Outdoor lighting code, Section 26.575.150 of this Title, is mandatory. Staff Findings: The project will comply with all lighting requirements. Staff finds this criterion is met. Commercial Design Guidelines – Commercial Area, Conceptual & Final Review Design Guidelines This parcel is designated as the Commercial Area in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Objectives and Guidelines. The Commercial Area is located immediately adjacent to the Commercial Core and often influenced by large lodge development in direct contrast to the smaller, predominant scale within other adjacent areas. It contains a strong grid network of streets and alleys with building height varying from one to four stories. Buildings define the street edge on the south and height and scale reduces to the north. Materials vary but are P23 VI.A. Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 5 of 14 predominantly masonry. The existing street edge is less defined that the Commercial Core with varied setbacks and more open space. The design objectives for this character area are: 1. Strengthen the sense of relatedness with the Commercial Core Historic District. 2. Maintain a retail orientation. 3. Promote creative, contemporary design. 4. Encourage a well-defined street wall. 5. Reflect the variety in building heights seen traditionally. 6. Accommodate outdoor public spaces while establishing a clear definition to the street edge. 7. Promote variety in the street level experience. Conceptual Review includes the following guidelines: Street & Alley System Staff Findings: The existing development contains multiple entrances, both facing Durant Avenue and the alley. The primary entrance faces the alley and is clearly defined with a large staircase leading directly toward the doorway. The existing network of streets and alleys will remain and are open to the sky. The existing development also contains a public through court that connects Durant Avenue to the alley. The alley façade contains as much detail as the Durant façade, if not more, using varied setbacks, balconies and building entrances. Staff finds this portion of the Guidelines met. Staff finds the following Guidelines are met: 1.1 Orient a primary entrance toward the street. • A building should have a clearly defined primary entrance. • Providing secondary public entrances to commercial spaces is also encouraged on larger buildings. 1.2 Maintain the established town grid in all projects. • The network of streets and alleys should be retained as public circulation space and for maximum public access. • Streets and alleys should not be enclosed or closed to public access, and should remain open to the sky. 1.3 Public walkways and through courts should be designed to create access to additional commercial space. • These may be shops that face onto walkways or courtyards. • See also: Public Amenity Space design guidelines 1.4 Develop an alley façade to create visual interest. • Use varied building setbacks and changes in materials to create interest and reduce perceived scale. • Balconies, court yards and decks are also appropriate. P24 VI.A. Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 6 of 14 • Providing secondary public entrances is strongly encouraged along alleys. These should be clearly intended for public use, but subordinate in detail to the primary street-side entrance. Parking Staff Findings: The existing development already contains underground parking. The entrance is located off the alley. The entrances are recessed and secondary in nature to the rest of the building. The details and materials will be improved as part of the proposal. Staff finds this portion of the Guidelines met. Staff finds the following Guidelines are met: 1.5 The visual impacts of structured parking should be minimized. The access shall be: • Located on an alley when feasible or a secondary street, designed with the same attention to detail and materials as the primary building façade, and integrated into the building design. 1.6 Structured parking should be placed within a ‘wrap’ of commercial and/or residential uses. Public Amenity Space Staff Findings: The existing development already contains a significant amount of public amenity space. It has recently been renovated to improve drainage as well as overall design. The amenity space is located above grade, but is directly accessible from the sidewalk and alley. There are few features such as street furniture and public art currently in the amenity space, however these are in the current proposal. The mid-block walkway is much wider than 10 ft. However, it is an existing feature that is not proposed for change, and currently provides additional commercial space frontage and excellent pedestrian access. Staff finds this portion of the Guidelines met. Staff finds the following Guidelines are met: 1.7 A street facing amenity space shall meet all of the following requirements: • Abut the public sidewalk • Be level with the sidewalk • Be open to the sky • Be directly accessible to the public • Be paved or otherwise landscaped 1.8 A street-facing public amenity space shall remain subordinate to the line of building fronts in the Commercial Area. • Any public amenity space positioned at the street edge shall respect the character of the streetscape and ensure that street corners are well defined, with buildings placed at the sidewalk edge. • Sunken spaces, which are associated with some past developments, adversely affect the street character. Where feasible, these should be replaced with sidewalk level improvements. P25 VI.A. Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 7 of 14 1.9 Street facing amenity space shall contain features to promote and enhance its use. These may include one or more of the following: • Street furniture • Public art • Historical/interpretive marker 1.10 Mid-block walkways shall remain subordinate in scale to traditional lot widths. • Mid-block public walkways shall be between 8 ft. and 10 ft. in width. 1.11 A mid-block walkway should provide public access to the following: • Additional commercial space and frontage within the walkway • Uses located at the rear of the property that are commercial in nature. Staff finds the following Guidelines are not applicable: 1.12 An alley side amenity space shall be designed to have these characteristics. • Direct public access to commercial space at ground or second floor levels • Maximize solar access to the alley side amenity space • Enhance the attractiveness and use of the rear alley • Minimize the adverse impacts of adjacent service and parking area 1.13 A second floor amenity space should meet all of the following criteria: • A second floor amenity space should meet all of the following criteria: • Be dedicated for public use • Provide a public overlook and/or an interpretive marker • Be identified by a marker at street level 1.14 Second level space should be oriented to maximize solar access and views to the mountains or other landmarks. 1.15 Second level space should provide public access by way of a visible and attractive public stair or elevator from public street, alley, or street level amenity space. 1.16 Second level dining may be considered. • If the use changes, the space must remain accessible to the public so long as it is to be considered meeting the Public Amenity Space requirement. 1.17 Front and side yard amenity space should be provided in the context of a historic one story residential type building. Building Placement Staff Findings: The proposed development does not affect the existing building placement. The building alignment varies for both structures, however they retain a strong street presence from both the alley and Durant Avenue with upper floors cantilevering to the property lines. The P26 VI.A. Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 8 of 14 building facades are parallel to the street network with entrances facing the streets. Staff finds this portion of the Guidelines met. Staff finds the following Guidelines are met: 1.18 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk’s edge. • Place as much of the façade of the building at the property line as possible. • A minimum of 60% of the front façade. • Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate. 1.19 A building may be set back from its side lot lines in accordance with design guidelines identified in Street & Alley System and Public Amenity Space guidelines. 1.20 Building facades shall be parallel to the facing street(s) and primary entrances shall be oriented toward the street. Staff finds the following Guideline to be not applicable: 1.21 Orient a new building to be parallel to its lot lines, similar to that of traditional building orientations. Building Height, Mass & Scale Staff Findings: Most of the existing development’s height and mass are proposed to remain the same, which already contains a high level of height and massing variation with balconies and varied setbacks. The applicant is proposing two different designs for this development. The applicant’s preferred design (Design Option 1) proposes the addition of parapet walls that face the alley and Durant Avenue on the top floor. The top of these will measure at 32’ 4”. This is considered additional development above the allowable height in this zone district (28’, increasable to 32’ with Commercial Design Review). Approval of this design would require a height variance from City Council to allow the proposed parapet walls. The other design (Design Option 2) does not include the parapets and would not require a height variance. Staff recognizes that Design Option 1 is intended to modernize the appearance of the building, and the parapets are an integral part of the design. This also reinforces the appearance of a flat roof, which is the dominate roof form in the city center. However, the proposed parapets do not inherently help achieve any of the Guidelines and increase the perceived mass of the building. There are no unique site features or constraints that would warrant a variance for this design. The existing buildings create variation of height and building mass through varied roof forms and parapet edges. Design Option 1 eliminates much of this variation by hiding the variation behind new parapets and further creating the perception of tall flat walls. Staff finds this portion of the Guidelines not met for Design Option 1. Design Option 2 does not alter the form or height of the existing building and would be unreasonable to meet this portion of the Guidelines. P27 VI.A. Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 9 of 14 Staff finds the following Guidelines are not met in Design Option 1: 1.22 Height variation should be achieved using one of more of the following: • Vary the building height in accordance with traditional lot width. • Set back the upper floor to vary the building façade profile(s) and the roof forms across the width and the depth of the building. • Vary the façade (or parapet) heights at the front. • Step down the rear of the building towards the alley, in conjunction with other design standards and guidelines. 1.23 On sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths, the façade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. • The façade height shall be varied to reflect traditional lot width. • Height should be varied every 60 ft. minimum and preferably every 30 ft. of linear frontage in keeping with traditional lot widths and development patterns. • No more than two consecutive 30 ft. façade modules may be three stories tall, within an individual building. • A rear portion of a third module may rise to three stories, if the front is set back a minimum of 40 feet from the street façade. (e.g. at a minimum, the front 40 feet may be no more than two stories in height.) 1.24 Building on sites comprising more than two traditional lot widths shall achieve a minimum of two of the following: • Variation in height of building modules across the site • Variation in massing achieved through upper floor setbacks, the roofscape form and variation in upper floor heights • Variation in building façade heights or cornice line Staff finds the following Guidelines to be not applicable: 1.25 Building façade height shall be varied from the façade height of adjacent buildings of the same number of stories by a minimum of 2 feet. • If an existing structure is three stories and 38 ft. tall for example, then adjacent new infill may be three stories, by must vary in façade height by a minimum of 2 ft. 1.26 A new building or addition should reflect the range and variation in building height of the Commercial Area. • Refer to the zone district regulations to determine the maximum height on the subject property. • A minimum 9 ft. floor to ceiling height is to be maintained on second stories and higher. • Additional height, as permitted in the zone district, may be added for one or more of the following reasons: o In order to achieve at least a two-foot variation in height with an adjacent building. P28 VI.A. Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 10 of 14 o The primary function of the building is civic. (i.e. the building is a Museum, Civic Building, Performance Hall, Fire station, etc.) o Some portion of the property is affected by a height restriction due to its proximity to a historic resource, or location within a View Plane, therefore relief in another area may be appropriate. o To benefit the livability of Affordable Housing units. o To make a demonstrable (to be verified by the Building Department) contributed to the building’s overall energy efficiency, for instance by providing improved daylighting. 1.27 A new building should step down in scale to respect the height, form and scale of a historic building within its immediate setting. 1.28 New development adjacent to a single story historic building that was originally constructed for residential use shall not exceed 28 ft. in height within 30 ft. of the side property line adjacent to the historic structure within the same block face. Final Review includes the following guidelines: Building Design & Articulation Staff Findings: Most of the existing development is remaining largely the same, including fenestration, storefronts and floor-to-floor heights. The proposed development is mostly just updating the materials. The existing development provides a good amount of articulation through clear distinction between floors, varied façade setbacks, and generous first floor storefronts. The proportions of openings and detailing are appropriate and will remain in the proposed development. The first floor is not visibly taller than the upper floors, however this is an existing condition. There are highly transparent storefronts located on the first floor that reinforce the commercial aspect of the development. The third floor is currently set back and has low sloping or flat roofs that reduce the visual impacts. Design Option 1 increases the appearance of the third floor with additional height from the proposed parapets. Staff finds this portion of the Guidelines generally met, with the exception of Guideline 1.36 for Design Option 1. Staff finds the following Guidelines are met: 1.30 The detailed design of the building façade should reflect the traditional scale and rhythm of the block. This should be achieved using all of the following: • The fenestration grouping • The modeling of the façade • The design framework for the first floor storefront • Variation in architectural detail/or the palette of façade materials P29 VI.A. Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 11 of 14 1.31 A building should reflect the architectural hierarchy and articulation inherent in the composition of the street façade. The following should be addressed: • The design and definition of the traditionally tall first floor • The vertical proportions of the upper level fenestration pattern and ratio of solid wall to window area. 1.32 A building should reflect the three-dimensional characteristics of the street façade in the strength and depth of modeling, fenestration and architectural detail. 1.34 Maintain the distinction between the street level and upper floors. • The first floor should be the tallest floor to floor height in the building • The first floor of the primary façade should be predominantly transparent glass • Upper floors should be perceived as being more opaque than the street level. Upper story windows should have a vertical emphasis. • Highly reflective or darkly tinted glass is inappropriate • Express the traditional distinction in floor heights between the street levels and upper levels through detailing, materials and fenestration. The presence of a belt course is an important feature in this relationship. 1.37 The first floor façade should be designed to concentrate interest on the first level, using the highest quality of design, detailing and materials. • A strong and distinctively designed retail framework for the first floor of the building • An entryway designed to use the full height of the storefront • A distinct change in the palette of materials used for the first floor design framework • The depth and strength of the modeling of elements and details 1.38 The retail entrance should be at sidewalk level. • All entrances shall be ADA compliant • On sloping sites the retail frontage should be as close to a level entrance as possible 1.40 Window area along the first floor shall be a minimum of 60% of exterior street façade area when facing a principal street(s). 1.41 Where appropriate a building shall be designed to maintain the character and transparency of the traditional street level retail frontage. 1.42 Design of the first floor storefront should include particular attention to the following: • The basic elements and proportions of storefront design • Depth and strength of modeling • The palette of materials and finishes used in both the structural framework and the storefront window • The concentration of architectural detail to ensure a rich visual experience P30 VI.A. Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 12 of 14 • The complimentary use of signage and lettering to enhance the retail and downtown character • The use of lighting to accentuate visual presence 1.43 Retail frontage facing onto side courts or rear alleys should follow similar design principles to the street frontage, adjusted for the scale of the space. • It should be designed with a similar attention to architectural articulation, detail and materials. • These should have a richness of detail that is inviting to users. 1.44 A large building should reflect the traditional lot width in form and variation of its roof. This should be achieved through the following: • A set back of the top floor from the front façade • Reflect the traditional lot width in the roof plane 1.45 The roofscape should be designed with the same design attention as the secondary elevations of the building • Group and screen mechanical units from view • Locate mechanical equipment to the rear of the roof area • Position, articulate and design rooftop enclosures or structures to reflect the modulation and character of the building • Use materials which complement the design of the building facades • Design roof garden areas to be unobtrusive from the street • Use ‘green roof’ design best practice, where feasible Staff finds the following Guideline is not met in Design Option 1 (met in Design Option 2): 1.36 Minimize the appearance of a tall third floor. • Where a third floor’s floor to ceiling height is in excess of 12 ft., it should be set back a minimum of 15 ft. from the street façade to reduce the apparent height. • Increase the parapet height to screen the visual impact of a tall top floor. • The design of a setback third floor shall be simpler in form, more subdued in modeling, detail and color than the primary façade. Staff finds the following Guidelines are not applicable: 1.29 A new building shall reflect the traditional lot width (30 ft) as expressed by two or more of the following: • Variation in height at internal lot lines • Variation in the plane of the front façade • Street façade composition • Variation in architectural detailing and materials to emphasize the building module 1.33 Any new building shall be designed to maintain a minimum of 9 feet from floor to ceiling on all floors. P31 VI.A. Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 13 of 14 1.35 A new building should be designed to maintain the stature of traditional street level frontage. • This should be 13-15 ft. in floor to floor height on the first floor • The minimum required first floor height must be maintained for at least the first 50 foot depth of the lot, and may only be dropped to a lower height beyond that point for areas that are devoted to storage, circulation, offices, restaurant kitchens, alley commercial spaces, or similar secondary uses. 1.39 Incorporate an airlock entry into the plan for all new structures. • An airlock entry that projects forward of the primary façade at the sidewalk is inappropriate • Adding temporary entries during the winter season detracts from the character of the historic district • Using a temporary vinyl or fabric “airlock” to provide protection from winter weather is not permitted Architectural Materials Staff Findings: The proposed new materials include structural steel columns and beams, variegated aluminum siding, composite siding and polished CMU with split face CMU accent course. These are durable modern materials, but do not convey the range and quality of materials seen traditionally which includes brick, natural stone and wood. Composite and CMU are intended to mimic wood and granite, which are natural materials that are more consistent within the Commercial Area and other nearby development. Predominate materials in the Commercial Area include high quality brick with occasional natural stone accent. Wood is often used for earlier residential buildings. The Guidelines call for continuing the combination, quality and variation that is traditionally found in these materials. Staff has concern about the durability and quality of composite siding, but would be supportive of a composite material that has long durability and high quality. As such a large building, the use of large amounts of metal siding in Design Option 1 – although somewhat detailed at a human scale – increases the overall perceived scale of the building, particularly with the additional parapets. Materials on the third floor in Design Option 1 are the same as those on the first two floors, however they will be horizontal in design and are already set back from the street facades, making them more subdued. Design Option 2 eliminates the metal siding, using composite siding only. Staff finds this portion of the Guidelines to be met. Staff finds the following Guidelines are met: 1.46 High quality, durable materials should be employed • The palette of materials should be specified, including samples of materials as required 1.47 Building materials should have these features: • Convey the quality and range of materials seen traditionally • Reduce the perceived scale of the building and enhance visual interest of the façade • Convey a human scale P32 VI.A. Exhibit A – Commercial Design Review Page 14 of 14 1.48 A building or addition should reflect the quality and variation in material seen traditionally. 1.49 Where contemporary materials are use they shall be: • High quality in durability and finish • Detailed to convey a human scale • Compatible with a traditional masonry palette 1.50 Materials used for the third floor accommodation set back from the street facades should be more subdued than primary facades Paving & Landscape Staff Findings: The paved public amenity area was recently updated to improve drainage and overall design quality. The update already enhances the existing development, as well as the proposed development. Staff finds this portion of the Guidelines to be met. Staff finds the following Guidelines are met: 1.51 Paving and landscaping should be designed to complement and enhance the immediate setting of the building area. P33 VI.A. 9 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen , Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A pe r s p e c t i v e f r o m C i t y M a r k e t ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o EXHIBIT C P34 VI.A. 9 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A pe r s p e c t i v e f r o m D u r a n t a v e n u e ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P35 VI.A. 9 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A co n c e p t u a l p e r s p e c t i v e o f p l a z a a t d u r a n t a v e n u e ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P36 VI.A. 9 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A co n c e p t u a l p e r s p e c t i v e o f p l a z a a t d u r a n t a v e n u e ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P37 VI.A. 9 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A co n c e p t u a l p e r s p e c t i v e o f p l a z a a t a l l e y ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P38 VI.A. 9 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A co n c e p t u a l p e r s p e c t i v e o f p l a z a a t a l l e y ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P39 VI.A. 9 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A co n c e p t u a l b u i l d i n g e l e v a t i o n s ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P40 VI.A. 9 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A co n c e p t u a l b u i l d i n g e l e v a t i o n s ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P41 VI.A. 09 June 2015 Post office box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2015 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc. RO B E RT G . S I N C L A I R ARCHITECTURE, INC. DMA perspective from City Market ~ No parapet change ASPEN, Colorado EXHIBIT D P 4 2 V I . A . 09 June 2015 Post office box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2015 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc. RO B E RT G . S I N C L A I R ARCHITECTURE, INC. DMA perspective from Durant avenue ~ No parapet change ASPEN, Colorado EXHIBIT D P 4 3 V I . A . 09 June 2015 Post office box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2015 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc. RO B E RT G . S I N C L A I R ARCHITECTURE, INC. DMA conceptual perspective of plaza at durant avenue ~ No parapet change ASPEN, Colorado P 4 4 V I . A . 09 June 2015 Post office box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2015 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc. RO B E RT G . S I N C L A I R ARCHITECTURE, INC. DMA conceptual perspective of plaza at durant avenue ~ No parapet change ASPEN, Colorado P 4 5 V I . A . 09 June 2015 Post office box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2015 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc. RO B E RT G . S I N C L A I R ARCHITECTURE, INC. DMA conceptual perspective of plaza at alley ~ No parapet change ASPEN, Colorado P 4 6 V I . A . 09 June 2015 Post office box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2015 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc. RO B E RT G . S I N C L A I R ARCHITECTURE, INC. DMA conceptual perspective of plaza at alley ~ No parapet change ASPEN, Colorado P 4 7 V I . A . 09 June 2015 Post office box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2015 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc. RO B E RT G . S I N C L A I R ARCHITECTURE, INC. DMA conceptual building elevations ~ No parapet change ASPEN, Colorado P 4 8 V I . A . 09 June 2015 Post office box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2015 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc. RO B E RT G . S I N C L A I R ARCHITECTURE, INC. DMA conceptual building elevations ~ No parapet change ASPEN, Colorado P 4 9 V I . A . 29 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A pe r s p e c t i v e f r o m C i t y M a r k e t ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P50 VI.A. 29 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A pe r s p e c t i v e f r o m D u r a n t a v e n u e ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P51 VI.A. 29 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A co n c e p t u a l b u i l d i n g e l e v a t i o n s ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P52 VI.A. 29 j u n e 2 0 1 5 Post of fi ce box 8114 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 925 4269 p 970 925 5478 f rob@rgsarchitecture.com © 2014 Robert g. Sinclair Architecture, inc.ROBERT G. SINCLAIR ARCHITECTURE, INC. DM A co n c e p t u a l b u i l d i n g e l e v a t i o n s ~ P a r a p e t a d d i t i o n AS P E N , C o l o r a d o P53 VI.A. Page 1 of 4 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sarah Rosenberg, Special Projects Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 1475 Sierra Vista Drive MEETING DATE: July 7, 2015 APPLICANT /O WNERS : Allen and Janet Hodges REPRESENTATIVE : Zone 4 Architects, Dylan Johns and Bill Pollock LOCATION : 1475 Sierra Vista Drive CURRENT ZONING & USE : R-15 zone district, Single Family Residence PROPOSED LAND USE : The property will continue to be used residentially. SUMMARY : The Applicant requests the Planning and Zoning Commission approve a variance from the Residential Design Standards to maintain the existing garage location. The current configuration has the garage forward of the front-most wall of the house and is street facing. This variance is necessary because the demolition threshold is to be exceeded requiring any existing nonconformities, in this case the garage location, to be brought into conformance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the variance request to maintain the existing garage door location. Figure 1: Image of property. P54 VI.B. Page 2 of 4 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES : The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval: Variance from the Residential Design Standards –pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.410.020.D, Variances (Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review board for this request). The applicant is requesting a variance from L.U.C. Section 26.410.040 C.2.b. which states: “The front façade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house.” PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND : The subject property is located off of Cemetery Lane, outside of the designated Aspen Infill Area, on Sierra Vista Drive at the end of the cul-de-sac. The lot was improved in 1968 with a single family home, which still exists today. The parcel is located in the R-15 zone district and is 16,001 sq. ft. in size. PROJECT SUMMARY : The current owners purchased the property in 2013 with the intent to remodel the existing two story residence. In May 2014, a request to extend the depth of the existing garage towards the street was submitted. The request would have increased the nonconforming condition of having the garage forward of the front-most wall of the house, rather than being set behind the wall of the house. The property owners decided not to proceed with the variance as staff was unwilling to administratively approve the request and due to the fact that a nonconformity is typically permitted to be maintained when a property is remodeled. In June 2015 a building permit was submitted that would exceed demolition allowances, where more than 40% of exterior walls and roof structure above grade is demolished, therefore requiring any existing nonconformity to come into compliance. The Applicant is proposing to salvage the existing foundation (to minimize construction costs) and the existing footprint is proposed to be maintained. Three variances were initially requested: building orientation, Figure 2: Property and lot Sierra Vista Dr. 1475 Sierra Vista P55 VI.B. Page 3 of 4 location of the garage, and the design of the front porch. Since applying the building orientation variance has been granted administratively and the Applicant has stated that the porch design will be amended to be compliant with Code. Figure 3: Proposed garage location STAFF ANALYSIS : The Applicant proposes to maintain the garage in its current location due to the existing foundation; however, when demolition is triggered on a nonconforming structure, it is required to meet the Residential Design Standards. There are two design options for this property’s garage to meet the residential design standards. One option is to 1) permit “the garage or carport may be forward of the front façade of the house only if the garage doors or carport entry are perpendicular to the street (side-loaded)” or 2) have “the front facade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house.” The proposed design of the front façade has the house set back from the garage. The Residential Design Standards were created with the intent of preserving “established neighborhood scale and character”, to promote the pedestrian experience, and to contribute to the streetscape in the neighborhoods throughout the City. Staff has examined the variance request in terms of the criteria for Variances from Residential Design Standards (Exhibit A). P56 VI.B. Page 4 of 4 There are two criteria to base a residential design standard variance request on – 1) Does the request provide an appropriate pattern of design based on the context of the surrounding neighborhood and the purpose of the particular standard, or 2) Is the request clearly necessary for reasons of fairness due to unusual site-specific constraints. Only one of the two criteria must be met in order for a variance to be granted. Staff Comment: Many of the houses in the Sierra Vista Drive neighborhood were built before the Residential Design Standards were established, resulting in some existing nonconforming houses. Out of approximately 25 houses, 14 of them have street facing garages and are not compliant with the Residential Design Standards. Although some of the structures in the neighborhood are nonconforming, this does not mean that a property should maintain its nonconforming design when demolition occurs. Examples of redevelopment that meet the standard are also within the neighborhood. Since the subject property is going through redevelopment and triggers demolition, it should become a conforming structure. The Residential Design Standards were established to ensure that a home contributes the streetscape. Specifically, with garage design and location, the intent of the standards is to “minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist.”By meeting the standard, the presence of garages will be minimized as redevelopment of older properties continue in the neighborhood. Staff does not believe the shape of the lot to be a significant detriment to the redevelopment. RECOMMENDATION : In reviewing the proposal, Staff believes that the request does not meet the variance review standards that are set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.410.020 D, Variances, for the Parking, garage and carport variance request as there are examples of residences meeting the standard and there is not a site specific constraint. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny this application. The Resolution is written in the affirmative, approving the request. Changes may be necessary depending on the motion. RECOMMENDED MOTION (A LL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE ): “I move to deny the request for a variance from the Residential Design Standard as noted in Resolution ___, Series of 2015.” ATTACHMENTS : • EXHIBIT A – Review Criteria • EXHIBIT B – Neighborhood Images • EXHIBIT C – Application P57 VI.B. RESOLUTION NO. __ (SERIES OF 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN APPROVING ONE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT 33, WEST ASPEN SUBDIVISION, FILING 1, AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1475 SIERRA VISTA DRIVE Parcel Identification Number: 2735-111-05-006 WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Allen Hodges, as owners of 1475 Sierra Vista Dr., submitted a request for one Residential Design Standards Variance for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, WHEREAS, the property is located in the R-15 Moderate-Density Residential zone district and is Lot 33 of the West Aspen Subdivision, Filing 1; and WHEREAS , the Community Development Director has reviewed the request and has submitted a recommendation to deny the variance request; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on July 7, 2015; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the one request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and , WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Residential Design Standards Variance Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the variance request from the following Residential Design Standard that is underlined below, as represented in the application presented before the Commission and included as an exhibit to this resolution: P58 VI.B. A. 26.410.040.C.2.b. Parking, garages and carports. The front façade of the garage or the front-most supporting column of a carport shall be set back at least ten (10) feet further from the street than the front-most wall of the house. The approval permits the placement of the garage forward of the front most wall of the house by approximately eight feet, as it provides an appropriate design considering the context of the neighborhood. Section 2: Building Permit Application Other than any variance granted, the building permit application shall be compliant with all other standards and requirements of the City of Aspen Municipal Code and all other adopted regulations. Section 3: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 7th day of July, 2015. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Planning and Zoning Commission _______________________________ ______________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Ryan Walterscheid, Chair ATTEST: _______________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager Exhibit A: Site Plan P59 VI.B. 1 Exhibit A Review Criteria 26.410.020.D Variances Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not meet this Section may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.415. An Applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use review by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An Applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted would: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or Staff Response: Many of the houses in the Sierra Vista Drive neighborhood were built before the Residential Design Standards were established, resulting in some existing nonconforming houses. Out of approximately 25 houses, 14 of them have street facing garages and are not compliant with the Residential Design Standards. Although some of the structures in the neighborhood are nonconforming, this does not mean that a property should maintain its nonconforming design when redevelopment occurs. Examples of redevelopment that meet the standard are also within the neighborhood. Since the subject property is going through redevelopment and triggers demolition, it should become a conforming structure. The Residential Design Standards were established to ensure that a home contributes the streetscape. Specifically, with garage design and location, the intent of the standards is to “minimize the presence of garages and carports as a lifeless part of the streetscape where alleys do not exist.”By meeting the standard, the presence of garages will be minimized as redevelopment of older properties continue in the neighborhood. Staff does not find this criterion met. b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Response: The subject parcel is a 16,001 sq. ft. lot at the end of a cul-de-sac. The Applicant is requesting a variance from the Residential Design Standards to maintain the existing footprint of the garage and the door location. Staff is aware that the cone shaped lot does produce difficulties in redevelopment, however, Staff does not believe the shape of the lot to be a significant detriment to the redevelopment. Staff does not find this criterion met. P60 VI.B. 1320 Sierra Vista 1325 Sierra Vista 1345 Sierra Vista Exhibit B P61 VI.B. 1354 Sierra Vista 1390 Sierra Vista 1395 Sierra Vista P62 VI.B. 1410 Sierra Vista 1412 Sierra Vista 1417 Sierra Vista P63 VI.B. 1425 Sierra Vista 1430 Sierra Vista 1445 Sierra Vista P64 VI.B. 1450 Sierra Vista 1460 Sierra Vista 1465 Sierra Vista P65 VI.B. 1470 Sierra Vista 1480 Sierra Vista View towards Cul-da-sac P66 VI.B. 1475 Sierra Vista 1475 Sierra Vista 1475 Sierra Vista P67 VI.B. P68 VI.B. P69 VI.B. P70 VI.B. P71 VI.B. P72 VI.B. P73 VI.B. P74 V I . B . P75 V I . B . P76 V I . B . P77 V I . B . P78 V I . B . P79 V I . B . P80 V I . B . P81 V I . B . P82 V I . B . P83 V I . B . P84 V I . B . P85 V I . B . P86 V I . B .