Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20231017 REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17TH, 2023 Commissioners in attendance: Maryann Pitt, Tracy Sutton, Marcus Blue, Eric Knight, Ken Canfield, Jason Suazo, Tom Gorman, and Teraissa McGovern. Staff present: Haley Hart, Long Range Planner Amy Simon, Planning Director Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney Tracy Terry, Deputy City Clerk COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Haley Hart told the board that the lighting code second reading is going to council on October 30th, so if anyone wants to vocalize support or interest in the lighting code, they can do it in person at the meeting or submit public comment via email. She also said that the 11/7 meeting is cancelled. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. MINUTES: Mr. Canfield mo�oned to approve the minutes for September 19th, 2023, and the mo�on was seconded by Mr. Blue. Ms. McGovern asked for a roll call: Ms. Suton, yes; Mr. Blue, yes; Mr. Knight, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes, Mr. Suazo, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of seven (7) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The mo�on passed. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: No Conflicts. SUBMISSION OF PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson said that notice was provided. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 360 Lake Ave, Hallam Lake Bluff Review and Residen�al Design Standard Varia�on Review Applicant Presenta�on: Chris Bendon - Bendon Adams Chris Bendon introduced himself and Tom and Lisa McKelvey, owners of the property and principals of Lake Avenue Partners LLC. He introduced Chris Eigelberger, Aaron Aeschilman, and Alex Brown with Eigelberger Architecture, and Don Carpenter with Project Resources. He asked Tom and Lisa to introduce themselves. Tom McKelby introduced himself and said they have been coming here for years and their family. Mr. Bendon spoke about the property’s history. The previous owner had long ongoing design and construction, redesign, construction, etc. They owned it for 10 years and had a 2016 permit to develop the property. The construction fence has ben around the property for years. There was site excavation, and major drainage improvements. This is a Hallam Lake bluff review, established to protect Hallam Lake. This project complies with the 15-foot setback. He explained the Residential design standards. There are a series of items they are asking for variation on, the first is a window well, they are discouraged in the front facade because they create a visual break between the street and house. Staff is supportive on this finding the window well is 150 feet from the street. The others relate to the entrance, the porch is needing to be not more that 10 ft deep and ours is 20 feet deep. The entire REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17TH, 2023 building is a large one story, the plate height is 13 t with a pitched roof above that. we had counted the entire front patio area as one story, but staff is counting just the area of the door. The 4th is the windows along the front porch at go up to the 13-foot plate height. He said in their perspective the relationship to the street dissipates because you can’t see these things. What should really apply it should be focused on what you do see from the street. Ms. McGovern asked what the change in grade between lake Avenue to the front door. The design team said there is a 1-foot drop at 350 and another 18-24 inches at 360. Mr. Canfield asked if they considered that the plan does not meet residen�al design standards as far as the literal applica�on. The dispute is what is the intent of the design standards. Mr. Bendon said yes, the commission can provide varia�ons, the ques�on in front of them is the relevance of the design standards in this set of circumstances. Mr. Canfield asked if they have an eleva�on that shows the side of 360 Lake Ave that can be seen from Lake Avenue itself. Mr. Bendon showed the photos. Mr. Canfield asked if the 13-foot high windows are visible or would be visible if there were no trees. Mr. Bendon said you cannot see them with the trees but would if the trees were not there. Mr. Gorman asked if 350 can eventually be sold. Mr. Bendon said yes, they are 2 individual legal lots, 2 titles. The applicant views the 2 lots as one and have no interest in selling 350. Mr. Gorman asked if there are any complaints or concerns from the neighbors. Mr. Bendon thinks there will be relief about development. They reached out to direct neighbors and ACES and hadn’t heard anything. Staff said they haven’t had any public comment. Ms. Pitt asked the sq ft of 350. Mr. Bendon said it is 3,487 sq ft and 25-foot height. Staff Presenta�on: Haley Hart – Long Range Planner Ms. Hart gave a presentation. The history of approvals started in 2013 with double basement that was constructed in 2016/2017. In 2018 next set of approvals with new architects. Plan does not comply with 4 elements. Residential Design standards are either flexible or not flexible so staff can either review them for alternative compliance as an administrative case or they must go to P&Z. These are all flexible standards but are being presented to P & Z as a combined review for P & Z. They didn’t bring the RDS standards to staff first they just presented as a combined review. Staff probably wouldn’t have approved them as an administrative review. She then gave the background on Hallam Lake bluff and environmentally sensitive areas, it’s very similar to stream margin review. It ensures we are looking at slope erosion, landslides and minimize runoff. In this project there is no development in top of slope, there is compliance with the 45-degree angle and with bluff review standards, there is no development past setback and buffer area, no exterior lighting emitting down the bluff, and the vegetative screening of no less than 50% of development is met. She showed the review criteria for Hallam Lake Bluff and said that staff finds design meets review criteria. Parks and Engineering did bluff review with no concerns. The second request is for RDS variations. The RDS standards were created to create and ensure a strong connection between residence and streets, ensure buildings provide articulations to break up bulk and mass, and to preserve historic neighborhood scale and character. It is important that REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17TH, 2023 staff holds the standards to strict scrutiny for new development to create consistency with past approvals and desired outcomes within the city. She went over the RDS standards shown in the packet for variations to RDS. She spoke about the variations and gave the staff recommendations. The first variation is for One story element, the intent is that it seeks to establish human scale building features as perceived from the street and express upper and lower floors on the front façade to reduce perceived mass. There are 3 options for this standard and the applicant wants to pursue option two, which is loggia. Staff finds the current design does not meet the general definition of a loggia, but rather a front porch. The second variation is the entry porch height which promotes porches that are built at a one story, human scale, that are compatible with historic Aspen residential building. Staff does not find it compatible with the 10-foot standard. The third variation is for window placement, the intent of this standard is to preserve the historic architectural character of Aspen by preventing large expanses of vertical glass windows that dominate street-facing facades. They are requesting to increase the height from 10 feet to 13 feet 6 inches and staff does not find the criteria is met. The final request is for alternative placement of a lightwell, this standard seeks to minimize negative visual impacts to the street and discourage visual and physical disconnection between buildings and streets. Staff does support this one as it does not increase bulk and mass. Generally, staff does not support variation requests in new construction unless there are site specific constraints that limit design flexibility. In this case staff did not feel there were any site-specific constraints but rather viewed the 4 variation requests as design choices. Ms. McGovern asked if Gillespie Street can ever be extended. Mr. Bendon said it has been vacated. BOARD QUESTIONS: Mr. Gorman asked if there is a request to add a crawl space. Staff said crawl spaces are allowed at that depth. Ms. Sutton asked if they are all flexible and not viewable from the street except the window well. Mr. Bendon said from their standpoint that is why they are asking for the flexibility. Ms. Hart said they need to take from the street view out of the conversation as they cannot tie what may be built in front of it into consideration. Mr. Bendon said they are developing the 2 parcels together, but they are not legally joined. Ms. Sutton asked if it’s more just design aesthetics as the purpose for these variations? Mr. Bendon said the McKelvey’s have worked hard to come up with a design they love. Mr. Canfield asked if it makes any difference whether the variations are visible from the street. Ms. Hart said she believes so if they are only thinking of 360. RDS standards remain the same no matter what the setback is to create consistency and fairness across the lot. Even if there was a large setback they would still be held to the same standard. Mr. Canfield asked if there is any room when interpreting the intent of RDS standards to consider that the construction will not dominate the street. Ms. Hart replied that perhaps on a lot that is not new construction and not in the West End they may look at that and that is why they are flexible and why they would do administrative compliance. But when looking at new construction very rarely are they allowing for variation on front entry and dimensional standards. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17TH, 2023 Ms. Simon said when the RDS was put in they did a review of every home in town. They decided on a set of principles that everyone should follow. If they meet standards, you go on your way, if not, you go to a board or change the design. Staff feels the building needs to stand for itself or an explanation of why it’s not met. Ms. Pitt asked what the height of the roof is. Ms. Hart said they are only thinking about the windows. The standard is 10 feet, and the windows are 13’-6”, 20 feet to the top of the roof. Ms. Pitt asked if there was any lighting down the bluff. Ms. Hart said that they are only looking at exterior lighting. Mr. Bendon commented that they are subject to the lighting code. Ms. McGovern said that she thinks there may still be some confusion with the one-story element and the front porch element, and thinks they are getting mixed up. Ms. Hart again explained the RDS standards for those elements. PUBLIC COMMENT: None Mr. Bendon sensed that there are a few commissioners that are thinking whether they need to base their decision on the development of 350. He said it is their full intent to develop 350 and 360 simultaneously. To the extent is it reassuring in their consideration of the variations on 360, to know 350 will happen. They will go as far as to say they will get the building permit on 350 before 360 and get a CO on 350 before 360 so they can be sure the development will happen. Mr. Canfield asked if they could condition a resolution that approved the variations on the building of 350. Ms. Johnson cautioned the board that they cannot limit 350 development abilities in the future. She said they can require a building permit and CO but that does not accomplish the overall guarantee that impacts to the street will be mitigated because there is a building there. She understands the offer and intent, but it is not necessarily any assurance in the long term. Mr. Blue asked if the properties could be merged. Ms. Johnson said they can, but it will require land use approvals and the intent of those properties. Ms. Hart said that if they were merged there could not be 2 single family residence. Mr. Bendon offered that because the representation of the applicant is important. There could be a need in the future to sell off 350 but that is not the intent. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ms. McGovern explained they are tasked with reviewing two separate things and one of them has four different variations. Hallam Lake bluff, staff supports as they have complied with everything. Then there are two different resolutions, one of them is what staff recommends approval on which is approving of Hallam Lake Bluff and the location of the Lightwell. The other is approving the Hallam Lake Bluff and all the variations. If they think they meet a b c but not d, they have the purview to come up with another resolution that says what they will and will not approve. Ms. McGovern asked if any commissioner feel the app didn’t meet Hallam Lake bluff? No REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17TH, 2023 Ms. McGovern asked if anyone is concerned with the light well placement. No Ms. McGovern asked about the one-story element. This is the added roof, it must be between 6-10 feet recessed and it’s 20, and it must be 20% of façade and its 9%. Ms. Pitt said its abnormal but if it works for the owners great, she is in support. Mr. Blue said in terms if al lot of other factors, they usually don’t have one back off the street. It’s a giant wall of trees and everything is well hidden. He would be in support of this variation despite it not meeting the standard. Mr. Canfield view all variations in same way. Haley has demonstrated they do not meet the standards and if this place were close to Lake Ave, he would say she is absolutely right. Whether or not the condition approvals on 350, its still back 120 feet, will anyone know the difference between a 10-foot or 13-foot window or a Loggia or a patio. He said if the commission were to deny the variation, they are being hyper technical to a point beyond reason. He would support all of them. Mr. Suazo supports staff recommendation, everything comes down to 10 ft, it’s easy enough to design to the standards. Ms. Sutton supports all 3 variations. Mr. Gorman agrees with Haley that the buildings need to be considered separately. He would be stricter to make sure both buildings comply to the standard as written. He is in favor of city’s position. Mr. Knight agrees with Tom having to look at it separately and agrees with staff decision. Ms. McGovern said she is in favor of staff recommendation. While it’s a beautiful home they are tasked with reviewing this very strict set of regulations, a 13ft tall window is not human scale. She cannot see how it was presented that it meets intent of code, nor does it provide fairness or consistency and she is not in position to approve. Ms. Johnson said they have 2 proposed motions, to be clear the motion would refer to the resolution alternative B. The applicant wanted to state that they can have 13’-6”, there just has to be a 1-foot break at the 10- foot plate. Ms. McGovern said there are two options, someone at the table will make a motion to accept alternative B, approving the lightwell but not the rest, or they can continue the meeting to redesign to see if the commission will approve. Mr. Bendon said they want to continue on with this process and asked if it’s based on code or could they be nudged if it was close. Ms. McGovern said they cannot design anything, but if it was closer to meeting the intent there may be more wiggle room. Mr. Bendon asked what the date would be in a continuance and asked for a 5-minute recess. Ms. Hart said the next date would be 11-21 or 12-5. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 17TH, 2023 5-minute recess Mr. Bendon said they would like to continue to 11-21. MOTION: Mr. Gorman motioned to continue to 11-21. Ms. Sutton seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Suton, yes; Mr. Blue, yes; Mr. Knight, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes; Mr. Suazo, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes. 7-0 vote, mo�on passes. Mr. Canfield motioned to adjourn. Mr. Gorman seconded. All in favor. Meeting adjourned Tracy Terry, Deputy City Clerk