Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20200818Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 18, 2020 Page 1 of 7 Chairperson McKnight called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in Attendance: Brittanie Rockhill, James Marcus, Rally Dupps, Scott Marcoux, Teraissa McGovern, Don Love and Spencer McKnight. Commissioners not in Attendance: Ruth Carver Staff in Attendance: Amy Simon, Deputy Planning Director Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Michelle Bonfils-Thibeault, Project Manager II / Planner Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Bryan informed everyone that this will be her last P&Z meeting with the City as the Assistant City Attorney. She stated it has been a pleasure to work with everyone. Ms. Simon reminded the board of two upcoming meetings. One on September 15th is a special review for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and on September 21st there will be a joint meeting with City Council to discuss proposed redevelopment of the N Mill area near Clarks Market and the Post Office. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. McGovern motioned to approve the June 2, 2020 minutes and was seconded by Mr. Marcus. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS None DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None PUBLIC HEARING 743 and 745 Cemetery Ln – Residential Design Standards Variation. McKnight opened the hearing and asked Ms. Bryan if proper public notice was provided. Ms. Bryan stated it was properly noticed. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to Staff. Ms. Michelle Bonfils-Thibeault introduced herself. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 18, 2020 Page 2 of 7 Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault reviewed the location of the project is towards the southern area of Cemetery Ln. It is a duplex currently under construction. The project has a previous land use approval to construct the duplex with garage doors that are side loaded. The neighborhood is zoned R-15 moderate density residential and the site is outside the infill zone. The garage placement standard under consideration is the garage is subordinate to the principal building and located behind or side loaded. The applicant is proposing to change the garage doors to be front loaded and create a more landscaped area in the courtyard. Another option to meet the garage placement standard would be to locate the garages 10 ft back from the façade of the principal building which may not be a practical option. She noted the buildings approved in the recent years generally have side-loaded garages or the garage is set back from the main façade of the building. There are also buildings that have not had any changes since the most recent Residential Design Standards (RDS) were adopted in the late 1990’s She provided a photo showing duplex property with both a side-loaded garage and one that is set back 10 ft from the principal building. She noted if the applicant is unable have side-loaded garage or set it back from the front façade, there needs to be an unusual site constraint. Staff did not find any such constraints on the property. She concluded her presentation noting the existing approval includes the side-loaded design and therefore Staff is recommending a denial of the request. Mr. McKnight asked the commission if there were any questions for staff. Mr. Marcoux asked how far the garage for the north duplex is located off Cemetery Ln. Ms. Bonfils- Thibeault responded the required setback is 25 ft from Cemetery Ln and currently the garages meet the setback requirement. Mr. Love asked if it would be difficult or not practical to have the garage façade set behind the building façade. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault stated the applicant is very far along in construction and the building would have to be demo’d. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Mitch Haas introduced himself along with Ms. Gretchen Greenwood as the architect. He also introduced Mr. Chet Winchester as the applicant. Mr. Haas displayed a survey of the site before the project began and noted the applicant demolished a duplex on the property that had two driveway curb cuts providing access to front-facing garages. He then displayed a plan showing the new structure under construction showing the property and setback lines. He pointed out the existing side-loading garages, noting this design was found to be compliant with the RDS. During the permit review and construction process, the access to the garages has been determined to be somewhat problematic from a functional standpoint. They also feel it does Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 18, 2020 Page 3 of 7 not meet the intention of the RDS as well as it could. They feel the front-facing garages will provide a better design for everyone and is now the favored approach by the applicant. They feel the new design better addresses functionality, safety and the intent of the design standards. He added forty or so neighbors also feel the same and have provided letters of support. Mr. Haas stated to request the variation be granted, they needed to provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard for the garage as well as the general intent of the RDS. They are not claiming a site-specific constraint requires the variation. He stated the only relative and applicable question is whether the proposed design meets the intent of the garage placement standard and the overall intent of the RDS. He then displayed a text section of the garage placement RDS code with “This standard seeks to prevent large expenses of unarticulated facades close to the street” in red text. He then displayed renderings showing the project from multiple angles for the compliant side loaded garages and proposed alternative front-loading garages. He noted the approved design required no variation as a result of the setback requirement and the need for two access driveways with one permissible curb cut. He noted the example shown by Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault with one side-loading garage and a front-loading garage had two curb cuts. The City Engineering department is not allowing two curb-cuts for this project which eliminated the option of placing the garages on the side or back of the structure. In addition, the property backs up to the Municipal Golf Course. The structure was designed to take advantage of the views and have accessible outdoor space in the rear yard away from the Cemetery Ln traffic. He also mentioned, the only two available options are the side-loading garages or the front-loading garages. He stated the compliant design result in large expanses of unarticulated walls on the sides of the garages being the most prominent portion of the building viewed from the street. This also lacks a connection to the entry from the street as well. He then displayed a rendering as shown from above the lane onto the front of the site noting the differences in the hardscapes between the existing and proposed designs. Another rendering showed the approved plan with 3,560 sf of hardscape and the proposed plan with 2,085 sf of hardscape. The proposed design reflects a reduction of 42% of the hardscape. With the proposed design, the area between the garages can be landscaped to soften the views and a sidewalk will improve the connection with the streetscape. He then showed a rendering of the approved and proposed landscape plans. They feel the proposed design meets the overall intent and spirit of the garage placement standard more than the approved design. He displayed a text portion of the RDS in section 26.410.010A regarding intent and highlighted “ensure a strong connection between residences and streets; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass; and preserve historic neighborhood scale and character”…..”require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute positively to the streetscape” and stated the proposed design is far more successful at meeting the intent as highlighted. Mr. Haas then displayed a map of the neighborhood identifying the project site along with other properties as front garage, side garage or no garage. He noted the alternative design is far more Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 18, 2020 Page 4 of 7 consistent with the established neighborhood character than the compliant design. He stated code specifically calls for preserving the neighborhood character. He stated Staff’s position makes sense for properties in the West End where there are alley access and few properties have garages along the street. The map reflects the applicant survey of 202 neighborhood sites with 155 with front-loading garages, 19 do not have a garage and only 28 have a side-loaded garages. He noted the side-loading garages are more practical for single family residences than duplexes. He believes the side-loading garages are more out of intent with the neighborhood. Mr. Haas reviewed the improvements including an improved street experience for pedestrians and vehicles and an architecturally interesting articulation of the garage doors while having the same height, massing, scale and setback of forms. He stated the City has received 40 plus letters in support of the proposed changes and only one in opposition. He closed his presentation asking if there were any questions and he also asked Ms. Greenwood or Mr. Winchester if they had anything to add. Ms. Greenwood thought Mr. Haas covered the application beautifully regarding what is being requested and the RDS. She added neighbors and other architects have noted the landscaped courtyard between the two masses gives it a more residential single-family quality to it. After the applicant decided he wanted to pursue this process for a variation, she studied duplex development on Cemetery Ln and the garage placement standard. Generally, she feels the standard places the garage faces right on the setback and one important aspect of this is that he decided to move the buildings back 25 ft from the front setback of the property which makes the north unit 80 feet from Cemetery Ln and the south unit 73 feet from the front setback. The owner has decided to take away the development from the rear of the property where the views are to create some distance between the structure and Cemetery Ln. She added the RDS for garage placement would have the structure closer to the street. Ms. Greenwood also mentioned the 35 trees that will be planted for mitigation. With the landscaping, she believes you will only see two individual one-story buildings. She provided a picture of a duplex property with two front-facing garages the applicant currently lives in. She added the structure was approved a number of years ago for an internal courtyard and is not as far back as the current project and the courtyard is shallower than the current project. She stated the current project is using different materials, but it is almost identical to the applicant’s current residence. Mr. Winchester stated he has lived on Cemetery Ln since 1977 and he loves it. He has received many comments on the landscaping and appearance of his current residence. He purchased the project property about 14 years ago. He stated they pushed back the structure on the project property to allow for more landscaping between the sidewalk and parking in front of the garage. He has talked with a lot of people in the neighborhood about the design and estimates about 43 letters sent in. Ms. Greenwood added the proposed design gives up visitor parking and they feel this design defines why RDS exists to provide a better site plan for the community. She hopes it will be supported. Mr. McKnight asked if there were any questions from the commissioners for the applicant. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 18, 2020 Page 5 of 7 Ms. McGovern asked Mr. Haas if he knew the number of front-loading garages that conform with the 10 ft setback in the RDS. Mr. Haas said they did not gather that specific information. Ms. Greenwood replied the design regulations do allow front-loading garages and it expects the living space and porch to be in front of the garage. Her analysis of this indicates this creates a direct conflict with the RDS by not having a solid façade all the way across. This also creates a lot of conflict with people going entering the unit and the cars. She reiterated the proposed design has less concrete than other compliant designs. She does not feel the RDS allows for good garage placement on duplex properties. Mr. McKnight asked Ms. McGovern to repeat her question. After doing so, Mr. Haas feels the majority do not comply. Ms. Greenwood stated the applicant’s current residence has a variation. Ms. McGovern feels the RDS has some areas that were missed, one being the idea that it is a pedestrian interface with the street and not a vehicle interface so pushing the front of the buildings back and having the only real view of the building is from the garage doors doesn’t make it inviting from a pedestrian’s perspective. She doesn’t feel it meets this and the other part of the garage standard is that it is supposed to be subordinate to the main house. In her opinion, making the garage doors the only visible portion of the building does not make it subordinate to the house. She understands from a design standpoint, exactly why they want to do this and feels it is unfortunate this did not come up in the permit process. Mr. Marcoux asked what the distance is between the north and south facing garage doors and what is the turning radius when you pull straight in and then turn. He also asked what is not working now that worked on the plans. Ms. Greenwood replied 32 ft to his first question. She added the current design requires you to make a couple of turns to pull in and to pull out and it is like a five way turn. This issue came to light when the construction vehicles were onsite. She said the design is doable, but it is problematic. Mr. Marcoux asked if the neighbors that wrote letter were shown Poss’s renderings or the print elevations with the stone veneer and larger gable windows on the front east-facing garage wall. He believes the renderings are different than what is existing. Mr. Winchester replied they did not have renderings available when interacting with the neighbors. Ms. Greenwood noted the neighbors know his current home located three doors down and it is identical to the current building. Mr. Haas noted all the renderings displayed at the hearing were included in the application. There were two photographs shown during the meeting of the applicant’s current property and one of the new development. Mr. Marcoux asked if it had been discussed to place landscaping on the east facing garage walls to limit the hardscape and keep the concrete on the inside. Mr. Haas pointed out the areas needed for vehicle maneuvering on the site plan. Mr. Love stated with all due respect, he is sort of surprised this is being addressed now. He feels this is basic land planning to figure out turning radiuses and to have it come up from a field experience doesn’t make sense to him. He doesn’t want to hammer anyone but wonders if he is missing an agenda with the desired change once the framing has been done. Mr. Haas replied that once there was more than one pickup on site, it became obvious what a conflict it is in practice. He added on a plan, the turning radiuses work for a single car but if multiple vehicles or weather conditions are considered, it becomes Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 18, 2020 Page 6 of 7 problematic. Ms. Greenwood noted a study she completed regarding how garage doors work with duplexes and in her professional opinion, she finds the proposed design the best solution on the property. Mr. Love asked if there is a design standard for the garage door itself. Mr. Haas replied the door is required to be designed so that it appears as two separate single car entries. Mr. McKnight then opened for public comment. Ms. Cathy Meyer, 775 Cemetery Ln, noted when she first saw the property she was attracted by the plantings and walking up to the front doors with the feeling you were at a home. She likes the proposed planting in the front by the doors and it makes it feel like a home. Mr. Gary Hughes, 743 Cemetery Ln, discussed the additional proposed landscaping between the houses will be more subtle for pedestrians walking down the road. Ms. Jo (surname not provided), previously lived on Cemetery Ln and stated from a design perspective, the courtyard is more appealing and believes it will be challenging to have side loaded garages and prefers the forward-facing garage design. Mr. Luis Hernandez, contractor for 743 Cemetery Ln, commented on the challenges of backing out of the side-facing garages and believes it is not functional. Mr. McKnight then closed public comment and opened for commissioner deliberation. Ms. Rockhill believes it makes sense to move the garage doors and it could possibly avoid some vehicle – pedestrian as well as vehicle – vehicle safety issues. Mr. Love stated the aesthetics of the front-facing garage doors provides a more interesting design. He thinks the proposed change is fine. Mr. Marcus agrees from a functional aspect, it makes more sense to have front-facing garage doors and he also likes the reduction in hardscape. It will look better from a pedestrian’s point of view. He feels although it does not technically meet the standard, this is a good example to find a better solution that generally resembles what is found in the community. Clearly the neighbors support it as well so he would feel good supporting it as well. Ms. McGovern stated it is hard to say it meets the intent of the design standard. Mr. Marcoux agrees with Ms. McGovern and believes it is too late in the game. This should have been thought over back in the design stage. Mr. McKnight stated is also in line with Ms. McGovern and Mr. Marcoux. He agreed with Mr. Love regarding the board being in a position to agree to a better-looking rendering. He feels it is challenging Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission August 18, 2020 Page 7 of 7 for the board to have approved design standards to be followed and then be asked to go against them. He is leaning toward them sticking to the original design. Mr. Marcus added that he appreciates Mr. Love bringing up the timing of the request and clearly it would have made more sense to have asked for the variance pre-construction. But he feels it is important to keep in mind is the applicant is the most impacted by the change because they will need to incur the costs of work that has been completed and the costs to make the change. He does not feel the current design is not functional for everyday living. Mr. McKnight agrees with Mr. Marcus but at what point are they going against what the board is charged to due. Mr. Dupps feels they are getting off track and he feels the proposed design is clearly better. The design standards exist, but he feels the board is there to improve the standards because the standards are not a complete, perfect document and it needs citizens input and board volunteers to address the imperfections. He feels the garage standard has always been imperfect and clearly Cemetery Ln is an exception. He added with the support from the neighbors the commission should give a gift to the applicant including a better pedestrian experience. He will vote for it. Mr. McKnight reviewed where the commissioners stand at this point. Mr. Dupps, Mr. Marcus, Mr. Love and Ms. Rockhill have expressed they support the application request. Ms. McGovern, Mr. Marcoux and Mr. McKnight are against the request. Mr. Bryan wanted to confirm with Mr. Dupps that he could hear and see the presentations from both the applicant and staff as well as the discussion. Mr. Dupps replied he was able the hear and see the presentations. Mr. McKnight asked for someone to make a motion to approve the resolution as written. Mr. Dupps motioned to approve the resolution as written and was seconded by Mr. Marcus. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call. Roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Marcus, yes; Mr. Marcoux, no; Ms. McGovern, no; Mr. McKnight, no; Mr. Dupps, yes; Mr. Love, yes; for a total of four (4) in favor – three (3) not in favor. The motion passed. Mr. McKnight thanked everyone and asked for someone to motion to adjourn. Ms. McGovern motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Mr. Marcus. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 5:22pm. OTHER BUSINESS None Cindy Klob, Records Manager