Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20201006Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2020 Page 1 of 9 Chairperson McKnight called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in Attendance: Brittanie Rockhill, James Marcus, Rally Dupps, Scott Marcoux, Teraissa McGovern, Ruth Carver, Spencer McKnight and Kimbo Brown-Schirato. Commissioners not in Attendance: Don Love Staff in Attendance: Amy Simon, Deputy Planning Director Jim True, Assistant City Attorney Kevin Rayes, Planner Garrett Larimer, Planner II Michelle Bonfils-Thibeault, Project Manager II / Planner Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Simon noted the October 20th meeting has been cancelled as of now but will see if any action from tonight’s meeting requires a meeting to be held on the 20th. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. McGovern motioned to approve the August 18, 2020 minutes and was seconded by Mr. Marcus. All in favor, motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS None DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Ms. Brown-Schirato stated she lives near the 225 N Mill St property and will need to recuse herself from this hearing. Ms. Simon stated she lives near the 214 Cottonwood Ln property and will need to step out for that hearing. Mr. Larimer will take her place. PUBLIC HEARING 225 N Mill St – Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development & Commercial Design Review McKnight opened the hearing and asked Mr. True if proper public notice was provided. Mr. True stated he reviewed the public notice and it was appropriate. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2020 Page 2 of 9 Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to Staff. Mr. Kevin Rayes, Community Development Planner, introduced himself and provided background of the project. The project is a rectangular lot located on an 18,000 sq ft parcel in a Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone district with a Planned Development (PD) overlay. On the lot is a two-story commercial building facing Mill St. He provided a picture of the Mill St façade of the building noting the driveway along the north property line providing access to 20 parking spaces at the rear of the building. The building was originally constructed in 1978 for the Aspen Savings and Loan Association. It was zoned NC with a specially planned overlay (SPA) which is the same as a PD. Following the approval of the SPA, a development agreement was never recorded, so some details of this are a bit spotty. Moving forward, there have been various amendments approved for the site. In 1992, City Council approved an elevator up to 324 sq ft and the building contained just over 8,000 sq ft of floor area and just over 9,000 sq ft of net leasable area. Today, the building is home to several office uses and the accessibility to the office is not intuitive and less than ideal. He then showed the location of the Mill St entry way on a site plan which only provides access to one office in the building. Visitors must access other businesses from the north side or rear of the building. This project will provide a larger entry on the Mill St façade. Mr. Rayes provided a picture of the proposed entryway noting it will provide a stairwell and an elevator for accessing all the floors of the building. The offices will be reconfigured on each of the floors to accommodate the new entryway. Changes will also be made to address ADA accessibility, including the restrooms. Mr. Rayes the reviewed the relevant insubstantial PD amendment criteria and noted staff finds both to be met. The proposed development will not fundamentally change the building which will continue to be used as an office with an improved layout and pedestrian access. He noted in regard to the 1992 approval for an elevator, a site plan was never recorded but further shows the project is following what had been previously approved for the site. • The request does change the use or character of the development. • The request is consistent with the conditions and representation in the project’s original approval, or otherwise represents an insubstantial change. Mr. Rayes then discussed the general criteria of the Commercial Design Review. Building Mass, Height & Scale – On lots larger than 6,000 sq ft, break up mass into smaller modules Mr. Rayes provided a picture of the existing and proposed entry ways. He stated staff finds the existing entry way more linear and less broken up than the proposed design. The proposed design highlights the building from the sidewalk and street. The proposed design is more inspirational while maintaining modest massing that doesn’t overpower the neighborhood. The new structure will be two feet taller than the existing building at just above 26 ft and it still below the maximum height of 28 ft. Street Level Design – Incorporate an internal airlock or air curtain into first floor commercial space. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2020 Page 3 of 9 Staff finds this criterion met as shown in the project design. Remodel – Consider updating windows, doors and/or primary entrances to better relate to the Character area and pedestrian experience. He stated staff finds this criterion met. The expansive use of fenestration is a positive point for the pedestrian experience. The entrance design is more welcoming than what exists today. Mr. Rayes next reviewed some design criteria speaking specifically to the character area of the building. The site is located in the River Approach Character area. The area is defined in the commercial lodging & historical district character guidelines. Historically, this area has functioned as an industrial zone. In the 19th century, it was the location of the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad station, a hydro-electric plant and various mining functions. In 1963, a lot of the freight hauling ended in the area and it was replaced with a new industrial park, so it is important for new designs to reflect the history of the area. He discussed the following criteria. River Approach Area Commercial Design Criteria – Larger, more industrial sized fenestration is appropriate here. Mr. Rayes stated the applicant has achieved this with the glass enclosure. River Approach Area Commercial Design Criteria – Enhance the natural environment and funky character through materials and details. Mr. Rayes believes the design contributes to the funky character of the neighborhood. Mr. Rayes then discussed the criteria related to the Pedestrian Amenity Space which states street level pedestrian amenity areas shall be open to the sky. He displayed a diagram showing a proposed overhang that slightly approaches the pedestrian open space that had been previously approved for the site which contradicts the criteria. He wanted to point out street level amenity space may be covered if approved by P&Z. If the entry way is to remain covered, then the street facing portion of the structure would need to remain open, which it does. Staff is supportive of the design. In conclusion, Mr. Rayes stated staff recommends approval of an Insubstantial Amendment to a Planned Development & Commercial Design Review. He wanted to point out the applicant has requested some modifications to the proposed resolution. Section 3: Conditions of Approval – Modify the content to below to eliminate the need for another review if minimal changes were necessary. The Floor Area is represented at 7,738 sq ft, the net leasable area is represented at 8,985 sq ft and the height is represented at 26 ft, 2 in. For the purposes of this project, minimal changes of a technical nature may be approved at building permit. Any subsequent amendments impacting Floor Area or Net Leasable Area will require Planned Development and/or Growth Management Review. Mr. McKnight asked if there were any questions of staff. Ms. McGovern stated when she reviewed the drawings in the packet and the height was something different than 26 ft 2 in. She wants to make sure the correct height is included in the resolution. Mr. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2020 Page 4 of 9 Rayes noted his calculation was 26 ft 2 in but wants to hear from the applicant regarding the height and will confirm the correct height is in the resolution. Ms. McGovern noted the drawings have an actual height identified. Mr. McKnight asked the applicant to begin their presentation. Mr. Alan Richman introduced himself as well as Charlie Eckert and David Brown with Stryker/Brown Architects as representing the client. He noted both he and Stryker/Brown have the offices at the project site. They have reviewed staff’s report and with the proposed changes to the resolution, they are comfortable with the analysis and staff’s recommendations. He felt the original resolution language was a bit constraining and noted the building is built well below the maximum allowable floor area and net leasable area. He stated Mr. Eckert had suggested to him the 26 ft 5 in measurement was the more height measurement and should be the one included in the resolution. Mr. Richman reiterated the primary purpose of adding the glass entry along Mill St is to provide elevator and stairway access to all floors and the basement of the building. Currently, visitors access the building from the parking area in the rear of the building which is the exact opposite of what the design guidelines identify. The proposed changes will bring the building into compliance with the design guidelines. Mr. Richman stated by providing access to the all the floors, including the basement, it also provides an opportunity to remodel the floors. The restrooms will be made ADA compliant, but the current underutilized basement area will make second-tier commercial space available. Mr. Richman stated the building is currently filled with local serving offices and named some of the current tenants. He feels this building will complement the new City Office building. The floor area of the building is 1.5:1 which would allow over 25,000 sq ft and the current floor area is under 8,000 sq ft making the building a very underdeveloped property. This proposal will not expand the building. He hopes P&Z will approve the proposed changes. Mr. Brown wanted to add in order for the character to be consistent with the River Approach District, the framing is steel exposed channels and I-beams which they feel ties in with the bridge down by the old Art Museum. Mr. Brown wanted to point out the 26 ft 5 in height of the entry way was to help differentiate the entry from the rest of the building and to provide elevator overrun space. Mr. McKnight thanked them for their presentation and asked if there were questions of the applicant. He then asked Ms. McGovern if her question had been addressed. Ms. McGovern stated the applicant did address her earlier questions regarding the height. She stated she has no issues with the height and wants to make sure the resolution is correct. Mr. Rayes stated he Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2020 Page 5 of 9 amended the resolution. Ms. McGovern pointed out both the drawings and dimensional requirements form list the height as 26 ft 7 in. Mr. McKnight then asked for public comment to which there was none. Mr. McKnight opened the commissioner deliberation. Mr. McKnight stated he feels this is an appropriate application. Mr. Dupps stated it was a slam dunk to which Ms. McGovern agreed. She added it doesn’t oversize the building, makes the restrooms ADA compliant, allows for second-tier spaces and provides a welcoming entrance to the building. Ms. Carver feels it’s a positive update and she likes the airlock, the appearance, the proposed overhang and makes the Mill St look more inviting and open. The interior and restroom upgrades will be great. Mr. McKnight asked for someone to make a motion to approve the resolution as written. Mr. Marcus motioned to approve the resolution with the conditions to include the identified modifications to Section 3 and was seconded by Ms. McGovern. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call. Roll call for Resolution 6, Series 2020: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Mr. Marcoux, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; Mr. Marcus, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of seven (7) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Mr. True wanted to ensure the motion was to approve the resolution in the packet with the modifications provided by Mr. Rayes. Mr. McKnight asked if anyone felt this was not the case and no one responded. Mr. McKnight thanked the applicant and staff. PUBLIC HEARING 214 Cottonwood Ln – Residential Design Standards Variations Mr. McKnight asked staff to proceed with their presentation. Ms. Michelle Bonfils-Thibeault introduced herself and stated this hearing is for Residential Design Standard (RDS) Variation requests for build-to, one story element standard, garage placement standard and entry connection. The property is located in the Smuggler Mountain Park subdivision which is a R-3 High Density Zone. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2020 Page 6 of 9 She stated the two types of variations to be reviewed are below. Flexible – Generally approved administratively 1. Build-To requirement 2. One-Story Element Non-Flexible - Require P&Z approval 3. Garage Placement 4. Entry Connection Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault next explained the Build-To requirement intent and standard. She stated in Smuggler Park, which is part of a previously approved Planned Development (PD), three on-site parking spaces are required with a zero ft (0) front yard setback. This changes the ability to place the front façade within five ft of the front yard setback because of required parking spaces. The intent of having the front façade of the building as close to property line as possible is generally met. Staff finds this variation criterion to be met. She then reviewed the intent and standard of One-Story element variation. For this project, the garage is the one-story element which meets all the dimensional requirements. The lot is located in the R-3 zone and the maximum building height is 15 ft. The garage has a pitched roof with a height of 12 ft and slopes down to 10 ft which meets the zone height standard. The design meets both the one-store intent and the dimensional criteria of the standard. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault then reviewed the intent of the Garage Placement standard. She displayed a site map noting these lots are narrow and there are site specific constraints that make it very difficult to have either a side entry garage or to place the garage 10 ft behind the front of the building. Staff finds this variation criterion is met. She then reviewed the intent of the Entry Connection Standard noting this standard is addressed in the code specifically for Smuggler Mountain Park which allows for a side entry into the building and side porches. For this project, the entry is approximately 42 ft from the front wall of the garage which is not with 25 ft from the front wall of the building as specified in the standard. Staff finds this criterion is not met. In summary, staff is recommending approval of three of the variation standards including the build-to, one-story element and the garage placement. Staff is recommending denial of the entry connection variation request as it is not within 25 ft of the front most wall and a porch provided. She then reviewed the approval options for P&Z: 1. Approve all variations as written in the draft resolution. 2. Conditionally approve requiring the applicant to comply with the Entry Connection standard which would require amendments to the resolution and staff review of the compliance (not requiring the applicant to come back to P&Z). 3. Continue the hearing to provide the applicant time to demonstrate compliance to the commission (next available date likely in January 2021). Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2020 Page 7 of 9 Mr. McKnight asked the commission if there were any questions for staff. Mr. Marcoux asked if the entry was to remain and a porch be added, would it go into the setback. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault said it likely would be within the 10 ft setback on the side of the building where the pathway is located. She stated they could perhaps have a small porch. She pointed out a small cantilevered roof over the door, but it doesn’t meet the code definition of a porch. On another rendering of the project, she pointed out the location of the small element over the door and said it is not potentially visible from the street view and doesn’t have three enclosed walls per the definition of a porch in the land use code. Ms. Carver noted the entry way is 20 ft back from where it should be located and wanted to know if this was common in the area. Mr. Larimer there was a PD amendment to allow for the 25 ft condition, but he was not aware of any variations to this extent. There has been some discussion to allow some allowance based on the site constraints for lots in this subdivision. Ms. McGovern noted two of the parking spaces seem to extend over the property line and wanted to know if this was allowed and still considered as providing three parking spaces. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault replied this is allowed in the subdivision. The space between the property line and the curb is considered limited common area and specified to be used for the parking requirement. Ms. McGovern noted the plans included with the application show a fence forward of the entry door but seems to have been amended in the presentation. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault responded it is her understanding the fence is behind the entry door, but it would be good to have applicant confirm. Ms. McGovern stated they received some public comment today discussing the height of the building and she wanted to make sure the commission did not need to address it. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault stated the height of the building and garage meet the zone requirements. She understood there may have been a project in the past that exceeded the height so there may be some sensitivity to height in the area. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Scott Hmielowski introduced himself and his sister, Katie Hmielowski of Z-Group Architects as representatives for the applicant. Mr. Hmielowski stated in regard to the height issue, they went through an extensive approval process with the HOA and their other approval board. They have not modified anything from that approval process, and they have all the documents from that approval. He believes some folks may have seen the notice for requesting a variance and it raised a concern regarding the height of the building. He noted the lots in this area are tight and there are constraints. The RDS works great for properties in the West End and he knows the City has made some modifications for the properties in this neighborhood, but it is still tough. The clients have purchased the property and intend to raise a family Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2020 Page 8 of 9 here and want to try to squeeze in what they can to accommodate their future family. He stated the zero setback on the west side and 10 ft setback on the east side does not provide a great deal of room to fit in a home. He noted staff has recommend approval of three of the four variation requests. The one item to address is the entry porch. Given the setbacks, it is challenging to add anything that doesn’t take away valuable sq ft on the main level. He agrees with the RDS and knows it is to define the entry of the home and they feel they are accomplishing this with what little they have to work with. He stated the added the small entry roof over the door. The initially had the fence pulled to the front for privacy, but they moved it back beyond the front door which he believes makes it more welcoming. He stated this is a common way to approach a home in this neighborhood using a side door entrance. Architecturally, it not as magnificent as having the entry facing the street, but given the constraints of the site, they feel they are guiding visitors with the change of materials, the sidewalk, the setback fence and small roof structure. Ms. Hmielowski displayed a rendering showing the front and entry side facades of the structure. She stated they moved the parking as close as possible to the garage to create a visible walkway from the street. They noted the house is right up to the setback on the entry side of the house so the roof element above the door is limited to 14 in. Mr. Hmielowski stated it would be extremely difficult to add a porch element without taking away valuable living space. Mr. McKnight asked Mr. True if proper notice had been provided. Mr. True responded he had reviewed the notice and it was appropriate. Mr. McKnight asked if there were any questions from the commissioners for the applicant. There were no questions for the applicant. Mr. McKnight then opened for public comment to which there was none. Mr. McKnight noted the commission did receive an email regarding the height of the building and feels the subject was covered during the presentations. Mr. McKnight then opened for commissioner deliberation and reminded them of their options. Mr. Dupps stated this project is similar to the Cemetery Ln application viewed at a previous hearing in that he finds the proposed solution is better than what is allowed by the code. He feels this fits in well with the neighborhood. He is in favor of approving all the variation requests. Mr. Marcus seconded Mr. Dupps and is in favor of approving all the variation requests. Mr. Marcoux agreed as well and stated he likes the addition of the entrance door on the side of the garage which plays a part in his decision. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2020 Page 9 of 9 Ms. McGovern agrees with the other commissioners. Her only concern with the fence location in the submitted drawings, but she believes based on the applicant’s presentations it is planned to be beyond the entry door. She is in favor of approving all the variation requests. Ms. Carver, Ms. Rockhill and Ms. Brown-Schirato agree with the other commissioners. Mr. McKnight noted everyone seems to be on the same page and asked for someone to make a motion to approve Resolution 7, Series 2020 as written. Ms. McGovern asked if the resolution was written to approve all four variation requests. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault confirmed the resolution is written to approve all four variation requests. Ms. McGovern then motioned to approve the resolution as written and was seconded by Mr. Dupps. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call. Roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Marcus, yes; Mr. Marcoux, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; Ms. Brown- Schirato, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of eight (8) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Mr. McKnight thanked everyone and asked for someone to motion to adjourn. Ms. Carver motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Ms. McGovern. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned. OTHER BUSINESS None Cindy Klob, Records Manager