Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20210518Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 18, 2021 Page 1 of 7 Chairperson McKnight called the regular meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Brittanie Rockhill, Rally Dupps, Sam Rose, Scott Marcoux, Teraissa McGovern, Spencer McKnight and Ruth Carver (4:39pm). Staff in Attendance: Amy Simon, Planning Director Garrett Larimer, Sr Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. McKnight noted Mr. Rose’s presence at the meeting and welcomed him the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z). Mr. Rose thanked him. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Simon asked Mr. Rose to introduce himself which he did. Ms. Simon also stated tonight will be the last meeting for Mr. Dupps because he is relocating out of the City. She thanked him for his many years of service on several City boards. PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES None DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. McKnight asked if proper notice was provided for both hearings. Ms. Johnson stated proper notice was provided. 225 Smuggler St – Residential Design Standard (RDS) Variations Mr. McKnight turned the floor over to Staff for a high-level review of the applications. Mr. Larimer introduced the application as a redevelopment of a single-family residence on a 6,000 SF lot in the R-6 (moderate density) Zoned District. He noted they comply with all design standards except two which they are requesting variations for the articulation of building mass (non-flexible variation) and the window placement standard (flexible Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 18, 2021 Page 2 of 7 variation). He noted typically the window placement is an administrative review, but staff is combining the reviews for efficiency. He then reviewed the two criteria for the RDS variation review. Mr. Larimer first reviewed the standard for the articulation of building mass. He reviewed the following three options provided for compliance with the standard and the intent statement of the standard. He added this standard applies to all lots in the Infill Area. Option 1: Maximum Sidewall Depth of 50 FT sidewall max and no additional design restrictions Option 2: Off-set with one-story ground level connector with the one-story connector within 45 FT of front most wall, setback 5 FT from either side and a minimum 10 FT distance between the two elements. Option 3: One story step down at the rear of the property with a step down within 45 FT of front most wall and setbacks of 5 FT from primary structure sidewall. Mr. Larimer next reviewed the standard and intent for the window replacement. He then outlined the three general intent statements for the RDS. 1) Connect to the street regarding residential character 2) Respond to the Neighboring Properties regarding setbacks and context 3) Reflect Traditional Building Scale providing a human scale and not overwhelming neighboring properties Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners if they had any questions for staff. Seeing none, he then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Carson Davis, EYRC Architects, introduced himself as representing the applicant. He noted the owners selected this site because they really loved the character of the neighborhood and the scale of the houses, it’s location adjacent to a park, and it’s views of Red Mountain to the north and Aspen Mountain to the south. He displayed an elevation of the proposed front side of the residence from the park across the street (north). He stated they wanted a house that fits their needs as well as fits the scale of the neighborhood. The design uses a simple material palette with heavy stone walls at the base with lighter volumes above to help break down the mass and relate to the scale of the neighborhood. The different masses are built with different materials to articulate them. He pointed out the large window on the second story and a smaller window downstairs to provide views of the park with more privacy. He also pointed out the entrance on the right side and the location of the windows requiring the variation. A set of north facing windows cover the stairs which are set back from the front façade, providing a one-story element. In order to bring as much light into the stairs as possible, the stairs are enclosed in glass which is then covered with a perforated metal to obscure the stairs. He stated there will be a horizontal mullion in the window, but it will be hidden by the metal screens. Mr. Carson-Davis next displayed an elevation of the east side of the proposed residence. He pointed out the length of the mass on the second story that is longer than the RDS guidelines. He added the actual Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 18, 2021 Page 3 of 7 enclosed area is only 50 FT long with extensions to accentuate the front façade and articulate the mass. He pointed out a set of windows on the side. Mr. Carson-Davis then displayed an elevation showing the back of the building. He pointed out a step between the upper and lower levels breaking down the mass. He stated the façade will not be visible straight on except for the next-door neighbor because it is screened by a row of Hemlocks on the neighbor’s property. There is a mix of materials used and there is a four FT overhang on the back of the building. Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners if there were any questions of the applicant. Mr. Dupps asked if they are pursuing option 2 or 3, they could achieve the 45 FT length by removing the overhangs so why do they feel the need to request the variance. Mr. Carson-Davis stated the overhang on the south side will provide protection from the sun and elements. He stated for the overhang on the front side, it helps to articulate the masses, block the elements, and provides a little privacy on the second floor. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to staff. Mr. Larimer stated Staff has not found any site-specific constraints prohibiting compliance with the RDS, so Staff investigated if a design alternative was provided to meet the intent. Mr. Larimer displayed a plan view of the proposed residence and pointed out the side wall on the west side measures just under 44FT before it steps down. There is also a five FT setback measuring at least 10 FT. The west side of the structure complies with Option 2. On the east side, the length measures 54 FT which exceeds the 45 FT maximum. There is a 13 FT setback from the primary side wall. He noted the key was determining if the east façade met the overall intent. He believes there are some design elements to help provide articulation on both sides. He stated there is a one-story garage accessed off the alley with a primary two-story mass to the front of the building which aligns with Option 3. Mr. Larimer displayed a couple of renderings of the front and back of the building and an elevation of the east façade. There is a 79 FT overall length of the first floor including the garage. He pointed out the multiple setbacks located on first and second floors as well as the stair element and entry. He then displayed renderings showing the east façade. Staff agrees although it exceeds the 45 FT maximum, there are design elements including the materials, variation of the wall plane and fenestration to help break up the façade. Staff also feels the setback to the garage is larger than what is typically required. In viewing all of this information together, Staff believes this façade and the entire design does meet the intent of the articulation of building mass standard. Staff is supportive of a variation for the articulation of the building mass standard. Mr. Larimer then discussed the variation for the window placement. He displayed a plan view and pointed to the location of the windows. He stated the standard requires no window exceed 10 FT. The proposed window measures 21.5 FT. The reviewed the intent regarding expanses of vertical glass on a Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 18, 2021 Page 4 of 7 street facing façade. Next, he displayed a few additional perspectives of the window located on the front façade. He stated Staff has found the screen in front of the window and the mullion provide some articulation even though it is not enough to comply outright with the standard. Staff also feels the entry feature helps to provide some demarcation between the stories. Staff feels the intent of the window standard is met even though the window exceeds the allowable height. Staff is supportive of a variation of the window placement. In closing, Staff is recommending approval of the resolution. Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners if there were any questions of staff. Ms. McGovern asked if the 54 FT is a little misleading and she feels it should be 59 FT. Mr. Larimer responded for articulation of mass, the length is measured from the front most wall to the rear most wall. She asked why the overhang in the rear is included but the overhang in the front is not included. Mr. Larimer stated the measurement should state 50 FT noting architectural projections are not included in the measurement. He added he would correct the resolution prior to signing. Ms. Carver doesn’t see how the massing and articulation conveys form similar to historic residential homes in the area. Mr. Larimer stated Staff’s finding determined the west side façade meets the articulation of building mass standard. On the east façade, it doesn’t meet the 45 FT maximum sidewall, but generally the building form with the step downs at the front and rear and the primary two-story mass forward, step downs on both the sidewall and height is consistent with residential architectural development patterns in Aspen. He added it is not consistent with the RDS dimensional requirement for Option 3. Staff considered other items besides the length to determine the intent was met. Ms. Simon added Aspen has two Historic Districts, one is Main St and one is downtown. She added these are the only places in town where there is a requirement for a development to fit into a neighborhood. So, this house can be developed with any style as long as it meets the RDS. Mr. McKnight then opened for public comment. Seeing none, he closed public comment. Mr. McKnight opened commissioner discussion. Mr. Dupps wondered if length requirement should be increased to 50 FT or if there was another way to handle these types of applications so the applicants would not have to come before P&Z. He feels it is a fine piece of architecture. He is supportive of the application. Mr. McKnight agreed the board has been seeing some good projects, but also feels there is a reason for P&Z to review these projects. Ms. McGovern stated the comments brought up by Mr. Dupps should be a discussion outside of this hearing. She does not feel it should be brought up in front of the applicant and as part of the discussion, she feels the design requirements drive better architecture because it forces them to articulate the mass to meet the intent. She feels having a defined threshold and the review mechanism helps to drive better architecture. She doesn’t feel it would be a quick process to change the RDS. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 18, 2021 Page 5 of 7 Ms. McGovern stated in regard to the application, she feels the window and the stairs meet the intent. The mullion and screen help as well as its position set back from the front of the building. For the east side wall, she believes it meets the intent with the articulation. She feels it meets the intent. Ms. Carver agrees with Ms. McGovern regarding P&Z’s variation review process. She believes applications will always ask for more length than what is allowed. She thinks its an interesting building, but she cannot agree with the increased height of the window. She believes the architecture could easily be changed to eliminate the need for a variance. She is not supportive of the window. Mr. Marcoux agrees with the other commissioners regarding the review process and feels applicants will always ask for more. He added perhaps if the RDS is modified, a hard no could be used for applications exceeding the length. He likes the architecture of the project. Mr. Rose feels the application does meet the intent but agrees with Ms. Carver regarding the window. Mr. McKnight asked for another image to be provided showing the window. He agrees the applicant did a creative job meeting the intent. He is in favor of the application. Mr. Carson-Davis provided another view and stated they are allowed to have the tall windows on the side of the structure. They have a horizontal mullion on the side, and they intend to plant Aspen trees on the side. They want to continue the horizontal mullion around to the front. They felt with the metal screening it wouldn’t be that visible. They could add a one FT band on the front to make it comply with the standard, but it wouldn’t change the exterior esthetic much and you would have a similar light bleed. From the interior, they feel it keeps a nice horizontal alignment. Ms. Rockhill likes the design and feels it meets the criteria for a variance. Mr. Rose feels it meets the intent and is in favor of the variance. Ms. Carver stated she will never vote for a variance on windows. The light bleed is fierce and needs to be addressed in Aspen. She is opposed to the request. Ms. McGovern motioned to approve the Resolution Number 6, Series 2021, approving a variation to the Articulation of Building Mass and Window Placement Residential Design Standard, in order to redevelop the property with a single-family residence, as depicted in exhibit A of the resolution. Mr. Rose seconded the motion. Ms. McGovern amended her motion to clarify the resolution to include the correction of the length and was seconded by Ms. Rockhill. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call: Mr. Dupps, yes; Ms. Carver, no; Mr. Rose, yes; Mr. Marcoux, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of six (6) in favor – one (1) not in favor. The motion passed. Mr. McKnight thanked the applicant and staff. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 18, 2021 Page 6 of 7 Silver Circle Ice Rink – Minor Amendment to Detailed Review Mr. McKnight turned the floor over to Staff for a high-level review of the applications. Ms. Simon stated the Silver Circle Ice Rink is a public amenity that was required as part of the Aspen Mountain Planned Development (PD) approval. The applicant was allowed some waived fees and other items in exchange for the ice rink. The Grand Hyatt owns the site and is responsible for general maintenance and they lease out to CP Burger. The Environmental Protection Agency phased out the coolant used for the ice cooler. A synthetic surface was proposed as a long-term replacement and used for one year. After community complaints were received regarding the functionality and overall experience with the synthetic surface, the applicant proposed using a chiller which has been sitting in the corner of the property for the past two years. City Council allowed the use of this chiller under a temporary use that has been extended a couple of times. The applicant wants to permanently use the onsite chiller. City Council wants the ice rink to be functional and available. Mr. Bendon, Bendon Adams, stated the original chiller system is no longer usable. The current chiller is a rental put in place next to the rink and has worked really well. Originally there were concerns about the noise and the aesthetics of the chiller next to the rink, but it was found to not be noisy because it is air cooled and the aesthetics is still a work in progress. The Condo Association originally purchased and used a synthetic surface but the approval for it has been revoked. There is a pending appeal of that decision which is on hold. Now the temporary rented chiller has been used and the applicant would like to make it permanent. Mr. Bendon displayed pictures of the current temporary chiller which is surrounded by a wooden fence. The applicant would like to make the surround a brick structure similar to other features on the property. The Condo Association is looking to purchase a chiller because the temporary one is not available for purchase. The new unit will be installed slightly lower than the temporary one so it will not be as visible. He stated this request is to make an amendment to the PD for the location to be permanent. He stated this unit is much more efficient than the original cooler which was water cooled and located in the parking garage. He noted you used to see a large steam plume coming out of the CP Burger building from the original cooler in the garage. Mr. Bendon identified Bob Weisman as the lead board member for the project, John Brilbeck as another board member, Jamie Champagne as the interim property manager and Tim Williams as the incoming property manager. He stated they may be on the call. Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners if there were any questions of the applicant. Mr. McKnight asked why they decided to place the new one beside the rink instead of the garage. Mr. Bendon stated if the new one was in the garage; it would have to be custom built in place. With the reduced expense and reduced energy usage, the Condo Association decided it’s best to locate the new unit next to the rink. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 18, 2021 Page 7 of 7 Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Simon stated Staff is recommending approval and she reviewed the conditions included in the draft resolution. Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners if there were any questions of Staff. Mr. McKnight asked the location of the new wall surrounding the unit. Mr. Bendon stated it will be the same height as the existing rear wall with similar bricks and cap. Mr. McKnight then opened for public comment. Seeing none, he closed public comment. Mr. McKnight opened commissioner discussion. Mr. McKnight stated the photo of the temporary unit looks terrible, but he admitted it was the first time he realized it was there. He feels the new situation will be much better. Ms. McGovern stated she looked at the site earlier in the day and thought it was really ugly and she hoped they could put a wall around it. She feels the requested amendment is the best solution. She would like to see the unit in the garage but it’s not possible at this time. Ms. Carver stated she has never noticed or heard the cooler unit so the new proposal will make it look much better. Mr. Marcoux motioned to approve the Resolution Number 7; Series 2021 as presented granting approval of a minor amendment as identified herein. Mr. Rose seconded the motion. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; Mr. Marcoux, yes; for a total of seven (7) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Mr. McKnight thanked staff and the applicant. He then asked for a motion to adjourn. Ms. McGovern motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Ms. Carver. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 pm. OTHER BUSINESS None Cindy Klob, Records Manager