Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20150616Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2015 Ryan Walterscheid, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members, Skippy Mesirow, Kelly McNicholas, Jasmine Tygre, Brian McNellis, Keith Goode, and Ryan Walterscheid. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Justin Barker. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES The draft minutes for May 26th were discussed. Several corrections and a clarification was requested. The minutes will be updated and presented at the next meeting. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no conflicts expressed. 100 S Spring St – Growth Management and Commercial Design Review – Continued from May 26, 2015 Mr. Walterscheid asked if public notice had been provided. Ms. Quinn stated notice had been provided at the May 26th hearing. Mr. Barker, Community Development Planner Technician, opened with a review of the application. The application is proposing a remodel of the structure including exterior materials and a relocation of the affordable housing unit from the south side to the north side of the building. The application requires a growth management review and a commercial design review. At the May 26th meeting the commission felt mostly comfortable with the design of the building as well as the relocation of the housing unit, but the applicant had presented last-minute amendments regarding the deed restriction of the property as to what would happen if the unit was out of compliance. The commission wanted the Aspen\Pitkin County Affordable Housing Authority (APCHA) to have time to review the proposed changes prior to moving forward with a motion. Since the meeting, APCHA has reviewed the proposed amendments and recommended in favor of all the proposed amendments. Staff is still recommending for approval with the restrictions as presented in the draft resolution. 1 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2015 Ms. Quinn wanted to clarify the restriction as specified on p 20 of the packet. She stated the changes make it consistent with existing APCHA policies other than forcing the sale of the unit. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions of Staff. There were none. Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. David Johnston of David Johnston Architects represented the applicant. He stated they are comfortable with the language presented and asked P&Z if they had any further questions. Mr. Walterscheid was not in attendance at the previous meeting, but had reviewed the materials and feels he has an understanding of the application. Mr. McNellis asked Ms. Quinn if there was a way APCHA could verify the unit is in compliance with a renter. Ms. Quinn stated it is APCHA’s standard procedure for a tenant to qualify for the unit. Right now the owner gets to pick the tenant, but the tenant would still be qualified through APCHA. If the unit is vacant for a period of 45 days, then APCHA can place a qualified tenant in the unit. Mr. McNellis is concerned the unit may go unoccupied. Ms. Quinn replied there is a standard procedure in the deed restriction which allows APCHA to inspect the unit with proper notice. Ms. McNicholas asked if the commission had finalized the inclusion of the zinc doors. Mr. Barker replied the original language presented by Staff still remains in the resolution because the commission had not provided a direction regarding the zinc doors. Ms. McNicholas stated her position has changed since the previous meeting. After further thought, she agrees with Staff’s recommendation that the doors not be allowed on the building. Mr. Johnston stated from the applicant’s perspective, they are not challenging the removal of the doors. The applicant assumed they would not be included in the design and will not be challenging Staff’s recommendation. Mr. Mesirow thought the design including the doors was cohesive, but is okay if they are removed. Mr. Walterscheid asked for public comment. There was none so he closed that portion of the hearing. Mr. Walterscheid opened for discussion to discuss any possible modifications to the resolution. Ms. Tygre motioned to approve Resolution 10, Series 2015 first for the growth management review and then approve Resolution 11, Series 2015 for the commercial design review concerning 100 S. Spring St. Mr. Goode seconded the motion. Ms. Tygre, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Ms. McNicholas, yes, Mr. Walterscheid, yes. The motion passed with a six to zero (6-0) vote. Mr. Walterscheid then closed the hearing. 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2015 710 & 720 E Durant Ave – Commercial Design Review – Public Hearing Mr. Walterscheid asked if the public notice had been provided. Ms. Quinn asked the applicant for the affidavits. She did review the affidavit showing the publication occurred and then asked if notice had been posted on the property at least 15 days prior to the hearing. Mr. Robert Sinclair, RGS Architecture, representing the applicant stated he has photos of the postings, but not the affidavits with him at the hearing. Ms. Quinn asked if notice had been mailed in accordance with the requirements of the notice. Mr. Sinclair stated he did mail the notice. She then asked him to provide the affidavits to staff first thing the next morning at which stated he would. Ms. Quinn stated based on his representation, the hearing could proceed since it appears notice was provided, but not documented at the time of the hearing. Mr. Walterscheid then opened the public hearing turned the floor over to Staff. Mr. Barker, Community Development Planner Technician, opened with a review of the application. The property is located on E Durant Ave between Spring St and Original St next to City Market. The lot is approximately 16,500 sf and is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC) with a Planned Development (PD) Overlay. On site there are two existing three story structures on a raised plaza. These are nonconforming in height in some areas. The NC zoned district has an allowable height limit of 28 ft which can be increased up to 32 ft with a commercial design review. The height may be maintained, but not increased. Any new construction must conform to the limitations of the zoned district. The applicant’s proposal is to replace the exterior materials on the existing two buildings. There are two design options described in the agenda packet. Both the options would replace the existing timber frame with structural steel frame. The existing stone base would be replaced with a combination of split face and polished concrete masonry units (CMU). The first option is the applicant’s preferred design option. The first option replaces the wood siding on the existing structures with a combination of vertical aluminum siding and horizontal composite siding. It also adds additional height thru the additional parapet faces on the third floor on the sides facing the alley and Durant Ave. the additional construction extends beyond the 32 ft by about 4 inches. If approved by P&Z, it would still require a height variance through City Council. The second option would replace the wood siding with a composite siding. There are no additional parapet walls included. The project is subject to the Commercial Character Area design guidelines. This character area consists mostly of buildings with variation in height. It has somewhat of a fragmented street edge as well. Staff recognizes the proposed parapets are very critical to the design for option one. However, the increase in height for the perceived mass and scale with the parapets does not further any of the design guidelines as well as creates a larger perceived building overall. The parapets create a uniform height across the front of the buildings which contrasts with what the buildings currently provide. Staff also sees no site constraints warranting a variance for this project. The proposed materials do not reflect the materials traditionally seen in this character area which include natural wood, brick and stone. Staff does feel comfortable with what has been provided so long as the quality of the proposed materials is adequate and there is a proven durability. 3 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2015 Staff is supportive of the second design option with the conditions proposed in the draft resolution. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions for staff. Mr. Mesirow asked if the project would be subject to a public vote for the variance should it be voted on by Council. Ms. Phelan stated no, because the application was submitted prior to the referendum. Ms. Tygre stated she walked around the property and is having difficulty determining how much of the building will be open and how much will be glassed in based on the pictures provided in the packet. Mr. Barker stated all the finished windows and doors will remain the same. Mr. Walterscheid thought the applicant may be able to provide additional insight on her question. Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Rob Sinclair, RGS Architecture, represents the applicant, the Durant Mall Condominium Association. The proposal as presented does not increase the floor area ratio (FAR), increase or decrease glazing, or replace windows. Mr. Sinclair provided information which allowed Ms. Tygre to better understand the pictures provided in the agenda packet. Mr. Sinclair provided slides to share their ideas regarding the design and why the elements are important. He feels they have an opportunity with the current owner to basically save the building. The physical condition of the current structure is such that it could be torn down as similar buildings in town have been torn down. The current sentiment is to rehabilitate the structure, maintain all the existing commercial and retail components and enhance the public plaza. The building was designed 40 years ago and the new design takes into consideration the current overlays and standards which were not in place when it was originally designed. He then reviewed the existing buildings and surrounding properties. The building was designed in 1975 and built in 1975 and 1976. He noted he has been a tenant of the building for almost 10 years. The detailing at the time and the method of construction were immediately a problem. The external timber braces created challenges with the snow. Similarly the plaza structure which has a parking structure beneath it has a system of beams which the timber structure rests upon. There have been leaks in the garage for some time prior to the recent project to repair. The original plaza surface had no water proofing. The small pony walls which acted to define the street edge, created a visual and physical barrier to access the plaza and the retail shops. The rotted stone pony walls have been replaced with a transparent stainless steel mesh and railing. The superstructure had no flashing or caulking so snow has rotted the structure away over the past 40 years. The plaza surface and deck was fixed last summer including a water proof drainage system as phase one. Phase two includes the vertical superstructure skeleton of the structure. He then showed a slide and discussed the existing parapets running north and south on the east building. They are not closed east and west. The applicant is proposing to close in the parapets and mirror the design on the west building. The west building has a pitched roof which happens to be green in color and is somewhat contrary to their ideas of preferred esthetic and colors for the project. The parapet will unify the two structures. He understands based on the design guidelines the structure 4 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2015 should have variations but he addressed this in the three vignettes of the building. The existing parapet is 32 ft 4 in. he does not want to go through a process of a variance and they can easily reduce the height to 32 ft. Adding parapets to the west building would partially hide the pitched roof and would contemporize the building. In regards to durability of the materials he guaranteed the ownership group wants a whole lifecycle out of this upgrade project. Their goal of using the proposed materials would be to break up the scale and mass of the buildings. He showed slides of the public plaza which he stated is an important part of the application. They are ordering new tables for Jour De Fete, planters, and benches for the plaza. Part of the repair project realigned the stairs up the plaza from the alley to orient it with the entrance of the building. He showed another slide of an area under the Grog shop. This area is misused with broken bikes and he wants to define it as an urban edge. The also rebuilt the trash area on the alley. He stated they are in code with everything on the alley. He then showed elevations of the buildings. He stated they sent out 300 notices and the only public comment he has received was from the Butcher Block owners. They asked how they would approach the project logically. He received no negative public comment. He then discussed the second design option. He described it as an option provided by Staff only and the applicant does not endorse it as an option. He showed slides depicting no parapets added. He stated the building would effectively look like as it does currently. With option 2 they would end up with the same building with a slightly different skin. He does not feel option 2 enhances the public experience. He stated he will have a hard time telling his client to move forward with the public amenity enhancements with option 2. He then provided slides depicting both the existing building and the building with the option 1 proposed changes as well as option 2. Ms. McNicholas asked if the parapets enclose the decks. Mr. Sinclair stated it does not but will extend the face of the deck by approximately 2.5 ft. In regards to materials, Mr. Sinclair stated their intent is to have a variegated surface. He has samples, but did not bring them to the meeting. Mr. Sinclair concluded that the proposal complies with the spirit of the design standards and the contemporary design. Mr. Walterscheid asked the commissioners for any questions for the applicant. Ms. McNicholas asked if you would be able to see through the parapets on Durant Ave. She asked if the material would be the same as the siding. Mr. Sinclair stated it is a solid aluminum material. Greys were selected and should soften over time. When the green roof fades, it will look old. 5 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2015 Mr. Sinclair wanted to clarify they are showing the superstructure with a bold color, but it is shown in a bold color just to demonstrate the structure. The color would complement the palette. Mr. Mesirow asked if they would be white or greyscale. Mr. Sinclair replied greyscale. Mr. Goode asked from the view from City Market depicted on p 172, would the gables remain. Mr. Sinclair stated they are not demolishing any of the building. The intent is to mask part of the gabled roof. He added there are residential units on the top floor and they have no plans to remove or alter the height of the current building. Mr. Walterscheid asked when changing the siding if there was an option to change the color of the roofing. Mr. Sinclair stated the roof is maybe five years old so there are no plans to change it for some time. They discussed painting it, but it would look worse over time when the paint flaked off. Mr. Walterscheid asked Staff if they would like to speak to their concerns of the materials. Ms. Phelan wanted to clarify the building is condominiumized and she does not believe it would demolished even though it is nonconforming in some aspects. Commercial design allows for 28-32 ft. the applicant has proposed bringing the overall height of the building down to 32 ft. Staff has concerns the parapets would add more mass to a somewhat already big building. Staff requested material samples be provided because they are suggesting composites and because of the high solar in the area, need to be of high quality that will maintain over time. They are not opposed to composites and the renderings do not relay much about the materials to be used. Mr. Walterscheid asked for any public comment. Mr. Gary Beach is the manager of the Durant Mall Condo Association. He was involved with the earlier project at this location to replace the decking which turned out to be an incredibly complex project. They were forced to remove the pony walls due to their condition and replaced them with something that would visually allow you to look into the building which improved the overall view of the building. The columns supporting the exoskeleton had 70%-80% rot in them. They looked into replacing the existing exoskeleton with similar timbers, but realized there was no way to change the design of the joints so they would not rot in the future. Steel became a logical choice. They do not want to use material for the siding that would require painting every five to seven years so they decided on a metal skin which should last 25-40 years. The owners for the first time in 40 years are interested in upgrading the building to make it more attractive and functional. They have replaced a lot of systems including the boilers and electrical systems. Ms. Jacqueline Mastrangelo, is one of the owners of the neighboring Butcher’s Block building. They own all the gap between the buildings except for four inches and are concerned how they plan to work on the siding without getting on their property. Mr. Sinclair they plan to work with the owners regarding the logistics of the project. He stated it is typical to compensate for an encroachment during construction. He offered his contact information so they could follow up after the meeting. He also stated they are committed to having Phase two go more smoothly than Phase One. Ms. Mastrangelo is also concerned their tenants not be adversely affected. Mr. Tom Secunas of the 450 S Original Condo Association. He stated there are ten owners to the east of this project. The owners have concerns regarding the height of the building which he feels has been adequately addressed in the meeting. The other concern is the choice of siding and the glare factor. Mr. 6 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2015 Sinclair stated the material itself should be completely non-reflective. They looked at several options before deciding selecting the one they did. Mr. Sinclair showed an elevation slide of the east end of the building to point out where the siding would be installed. Mr. Walterscheid then closed the closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. McNicholas asked if the sample material presented would be installed on the dark brown portions of the elevations provided at which Mr. Sinclair confirmed and demonstrated on the perspectives. Mr. Mesirow asked what color would be for the superstructure in option 2. Mr. Sinclair stated the color has not been decided. Mr. Goode asked if the sf of the building would be increased. Ms. Phelan replied only the height would be affected along with mass. Mr. Walterscheid opened for commissioner discussion. Ms. Tygre referred to the seven criteria listed on p 174 of Exhibit A to be considered for the application. Based on the applicant’s statement the glass will not come out to the front building line helps her. She still has concern with what seems to be a very monolithic massing on the Durant side. She described how levels one and two are broken up by design, but feels the design creates a two story horizontal line along a very large building. She feels adding the parapet walls do not help the mass of the building and does not feel the design is acceptable in this building. She wished there could be a little more variety between the ground level and the second level. Mr. McNellis stated his main heartache was seeing the timber structure going away. He understands why after the discussion at the meeting. He feels the current design is a true mountain contemporary design. He understands Staff’s position regarding the parapets adding to the bulk and mass, but he also understands the desire to add elements to make the building more contemporary. He may be able to get on board and believes he is generally in support of design option one. Ms. McNicholas feels there may be something between option one and two. She likes the updates with the metal siding but feels it is unfortunate it seemed to go away in option two. She would like to retain some of the angles in roof lines and believes it fits better with the adjacent neighborhood buildings. She thinks this building has the opportunity to provide a transition from the commercial core to residential areas the by not including the parapets. She feels the building would look better without parapets which make it look blockish and adds to massing. Mr. Goode agrees with Staff regarding the massing from the proposed parapets and is in favor of option two. He doesn’t feel the applicant is happy with option two and hopes the applicant could expand on the option two. Mr. Mesirow concurs with Staff and feels option one increases the mass and scale of the buildings that he feels do not meet the commercial design review criteria. From general look and feel standpoint, he would prefer stone and wood instead of metal and mesh near the base of the mountain. Mr. Mesirow would be much more comfortable maintaining the existing roof forms and massing. He would also need more detail on what superstructure would look like going forward regarding the color 7 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission June 16, 2015 and detail design. He feels the proposed design is more urban contemporary instead of mountain contemporary. Mr. Walterscheid does not mind the existing parapet walls and understands wanting to have it on all four sides. He recommends pulling the height down to 32 ft. On the west building he recommended keeping the pitched roof. He has no problems with the rest of proposed changes and would help combine the buildings at the base level into one complex. He has no problem with the combination of siding products as presented. Mr. Sinclair stated he would like to continue the hearing to provide an opportunity to continue working with Staff. Ms. Phelan stated the next available dates are June 30th (special meeting) and July 7th. Mr. Sinclair stated he would prefer July 7th. Ms. Tygre moved to continue the public hearing to July 7th, seconded by Mr. Mesirow. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 8