Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20151117Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 Mr. Walterscheid was part of the design team for the applicant so he was not present. Mr. Goode served as the Acting Chair. Mr. Goode called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jason Elliott, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Skippy Mesirow, Jesse Morris and Keith Goode. Spencer Morris, Jasmine Tygre, and Brian McNellis were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan, and Justin Barker. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan stated Michele Holder would like to take about 10 minutes to introduce the Citizens Academy. Mr. Goode stated she would be provided time after public comments. Ms. Holder, Management Analyst for the City, introduced herself. She was hired on approximately six months ago to create a Citizens Academy for the City of Aspen. She is at the meeting this evening to let P&Z know what she is doing with the academy. She stated the academy will serve to teach the people in the community about how the city works. It will provide an overview of how government works including being a home rule municipality, the City Charter, how decisions are made by Council and how goals are determined at each annual Council retreat. It will also include structural information such as who is the City Manager and the employee hierarchy. Different service areas will be covered such as how the Police keep Aspen safe, how Parks and Recreation works. The idea is to inform people and it provides an opportunity for the City to tell their story. A hopeful outcome would be to have people more interested and involved in local government such as more applications for boards and commissions or have more people comfortable attending council meetings to express their thoughts. She stated they are at the end of their input gathering phase and are now determining when it may be appropriate to start the program. She finished stating she would provide additional information when they are ready to launch. Mr. Goode asked if it is to be a continual program and Ms. Holder replied they are planning a pilot program next year and then continue them annually. She stated they are still trying to identify the needs for Aspen and will be considering offering it in different formats in the future. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if this was inspired by some dissatisfaction expressed in community involvement. Ms. Holder replied not that she is aware of at this time. It is her understanding it was conceived about four years ago in a partnership with Pitkin County, Snowmass and Aspen. The partnership fizzled out and then the City decided to pursue it by hiring someone to work on it. She stated it was Mr. Barry Crook’s idea originally with the intent to inform people. She asked P&Z to contact her with any ideas or concerns. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES October 20, 2015 Minutes - Mr. Mesirow moved to approve the minutes for October 20th and was seconded by Mr. Elliott. All in favor, motion passed. 1 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. 200 S Aspen St (Hotel Lenado) – Commercial Design Review – Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2015 Mr. Goode opened the continued public hearing and turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director, stated it is a continued public hearing for the Hotel Lenado. Since the last hearing on October 20th, a number of design changes have occurred for the project. She reviewed the application proposes to demolish the existing lodge and replace it with a new mixed use building containing four lodge units that may be configured for a total of nine keys, two affordable housing units, two free market units as well as lodge amenity space and underground parking. At the last hearing, P&Z raised some concerns on a couple of issues. One concern was the Hopkins façade relating better with the residential character across the street. Another concern was the height of the building. Previously proposals asked for the height to be allowed up to 32 ft, which is permitted in the mixed use zone district. Ms. Phelan then stated she would cover some components of the application since there have been a number of hearings. In regards to the Hopkins façade, there have been some changes since the last hearing. On the corner closest to the park, the second story balcony has been removed which reduces some of the mass of the building. The park level has been redesigned with a balcony along it and there has been a reduction in the glazing. All these changes help reduce the mass and improve the relationship of the façade with the residential buildings across the street and also helps to create a couple of individual modules. Staff feels there has been good progress, but it still needs some to continued refinement. One area in particular is the center module encompassing the gable and the flat story next to it. With regard to height, the proposed structure has been reduced to 28 ft so it meets the underlying mixed use zoning. The only two elements exceeding the 28 ft are the top of the rooftop stairwell and elevator which both meet the height exemptions. Although it meets the 28 ft height, the floor to floor ceiling heights increase as you go up the floors of the building. Staff feels this creates a top heavy feel to the building. For a typical lodge commercial building, the first floor or entry floor should have the most prominence in floor to floor ceiling height. Staff feels there should be continued work on the floor to floor ceiling heights in the building. Regarding the overall design, Staff feels this is a transitional neighborhood from the commercial core to a residential neighborhood. There is quite a bit of residential area in the neighborhood including designated historical landmarks across the street. There are also single family residences, multi-family across the alley, and a small lodge nearby. The building is getting bigger, but the actual lodge rooms are being reduced. Staff feels the overall design has improved, but does not believe the current proposed building design does not include enough to respect the neighborhood and its surroundings, particularly in regards to mass and scale which Staff feels should be reduced. Ms. Phelan then discussed growth management, which she stated is essentially the required affordable housing for the lodge and the free market component. She stated things keep moving with each iteration of the proposal and currently the two affordable housing units being proposed more than meet 2 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 the requirement for affordable housing mitigation but they do need to be amended a bit to meet the above grade requirements for the amount of sf required. Staff is still recommending one unit be designated as a for sale unit and the other be a for rent unit. She explained one of the affordable units mitigates for the lodge while the other unit mitigates for the free market. Staff recommends the unit mitigating for the free market component be a for sale unit. Ms. Phelan continued stating this is the fourth iteration of the project and there has been some progress. She does feel some of the goals for the small lodge character area are to have a lodge where the dimensions and character respect the surroundings. There are single family residences with historic character and development pattern that should be respected. Staff believes there could be changes made to better meet the guidelines by creating more modulation in the form of the building and by reducing the mass. By addressing these two things, the application would meet guidelines 5.5 and 5.7 of the small lodge character area. At this point, Staff recommends denial as they feel the guidelines are not met. If P&Z feels comfortable with the changes and move to approve, Staff suggests certain conditions to be considered: 1. Continue to work with the floor to floor heights to emphasize the entry level 2. Amend the mass, scale and design along Hopkins and the overall mass of the building 3. Meet the growth management requirements for the affordable housing and have one unit as a for sale unit. 4. Verify the dimensional requirements when the next application is submitted. Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions for Staff. Ms. McNicholas Kury noted there is a combined 1,049 sf of affordable housing net livable area proposed above grade where 1,080 sf is required for the above grade requirement. In regards to the growth management review, she asked how this has changed from earlier proposals. Ms. Phelan stated with the changes in the floor plans, the amount required to be above grade has changed. She feels it something that can be handled if it goes to the final design because some things will move a little bit, but she wanted to outline the requirement to be met. Ms. McNicholas Kury then stated her understanding of the height differential between the lower story to the upper story has been consistent throughout the design and she wanted to confirm this was the case with Staff. Ms. Phelan stated the design has always had the top story taller than the other stories. There have been changes with a reduction over time, but Staff feels the entry level, particularly a hotel, should be the most prominent level. Having the height on upper floor creates a top heavy design. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the reduction was fully absorbed by lowering the height of the first floor height. Ms. Phelan replied it would be best if Mr. Wilson reviewed the heights. Mr. Mesirow stated there are conceptually plenty of things not to like about the project, but their job is not to figure out what is conceptually right and not design the building. He asked what specifically does not meet the guidelines. Ms. Phelan replied Staff feels the building is too large for the site and neighborhood and the sf should be reduced, but she could not point to a specific guideline that is not met in this regard. Mr. Morris asked if it is in the small lodge character area design objectives. Ms. Phelan replied the design objectives discusses projects should be sensitive to the neighborhood and to fit into the neighborhood. She added sometimes the maximum floor area allowed is not achievable because of the design guidelines. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. 3 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 Mr. Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, represented the applicant. He initiated his presentation with a picture of the Aspen Street façade. Ms. Phelan observed the façade does not represent what was submitted with the most recent application, noting there was an additional gable included one level above the entry level. Mr. Wilson remarked it was different. Mr. Wilson feels they are getting closer with the most recent proposal. He displayed a list of items he described as facts regarding the project. He stated the building hasn’t changed materially, they are shuffling sf in an attempt to provide variegation on the building. He acknowledged the need to meet the additional 31 sf of above grade space and feels it can be achieved in the final design. He displayed a slide showing the FAR ratios and stated they are still considerably lower than the allowable FAR. Mr. Wilson displayed a slide depicting where the property is located and described the type of neighboring properties. He stated everyone would agree it is a transitional neighborhood. Mr. Wilson then described what would be included on each floor. On top is a roof deck including mechanical units. Directly below are the two free market units. On the next two levels down there are walk out levels to the park and on Aspen St there is a mix of lodge units and affordable housing. All the building services including parking, mechanical, employee lounge, and catering kitchen are located in the basement. He then referred to the Commercial Design Standards (Staff memo: Exhibit K) and noted he would discuss the deficiencies as identified in Staff’s memo. A. Mixed use character area: Public amenity space. Mr. Wilson displayed pictures looking up Aspen St of the existing and proposed public amenity spaces and described what is included in the proposed space. B. Small Lodge Character: For guideline 5.5, he feels they have established it is a transitional context and the areas along Hopkins St are really what they are focusing on making it relate to the residences across the street. He displayed a west rendering of the building and described how the façade is broken into three distinctly separate parts. The first part being 30 ft wide with a five ft setback, the middle portion being approximately 31 ft wide stepping down to the larger setback on Aspen St. They are also varying the heights of the building along the modulated façade with a very much recessed deck portion. They feel they are modulating both from a material and height perspective and taking on more of the neighborhood character. C. Building height: For guideline 5.6, he provided slides demonstrating the height of the proposed building as it relates in height to neighboring buildings in each direction. For each slide the building was either at or below the height of neighboring buildings. He noted the higher sections of the building are not on the Hopkins St side. The higher sections are in the back of the building along the alleyway where there is a taller context. He also provided slides demonstrating they meet the minimum nine ft floor to floor heights for each level showing the building from different perspectives. He noted the modulation matches the sloping topography. Near the park, one of the ADUs has a 10 ft 1 in ceiling and the lodge units on the walkout to the park have the same height. The Hopkins side of the building has 9 ft 9 in height respecting the lower height to that side of the building. Along the alley, the heights move up to the 11 ft 5 in heights. From the Hopkins St to the alley, the heights all meet the 9 ft minimum and then again taller near the alley side of the building. 4 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 D. For guideline 5.7, he noted it has a lot to do with the same standards in guideline 5.5 respecting the modulated façade along Hopkins façade. They feel the application meets this component. Mr. Wilson then referred to the points identified in the minutes from the previous hearing. A. He stated last time they heard from P&Z they need to stay at 28 ft in height. He added they have abandoned the request for 32 ft and meet the underlying code in regards to height. B. The next item identified was the Hopkins façade. They have varied the materials and including angulation to help the façade. The have been eroding the corners of the building to give the neighbors a better view and moving elements back from the edge and closer to the alley. He provided a slide comparing the existing, previous and current façades. They pulled the entire corner back and created a half story balcony with a cover to bring it back further. The amount of glass was reduced by about 25%. Mr. Wilson then wanted to address the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) commentary and suggestions included in the Staff memo. APCHA recommends both units be for rent and the applicant would like them to remain as rentals. The applicant feels passionately about having a good rental environment for the people who will be working at the hotel. In closing, he feels they have addressed the conditions and would prefer to address mass, scale, and neighborhood compatibility in the final review process. He stated they know they will have to meet the growth management net livable space considerations for affordable housing. He would prefer to keep APCHA’s recommendation regarding the units. They’ve tried really hard to keep this from becoming a duplex or single family home with a bunch of empty, lights turned off, empty windows. It may not be the 19 keys, but the proposed keys are better than none. Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the building is required to remain a lodge. Mr. Wilson replied no. Ms. Phelan stated if approved, it would be approved as a lodge. She added they could demolish it and build a single family home and a duplex on the site. Mr. Morris asked if the key count has remained the same throughout the review process. Both Mr. Wilson and Ms. Phelan stated it the number of keys has remained the same. Mr. Morris asked if the decision regarding the for sale vs rental unit was subjective and not driven by policy. Ms. Phelan stated APCHA is a recommending body and P&Z is the decision making body. She continued stating the land use code requirements state affordable housing is to be for sale. However, if it is a commercial lodging project, they are encouraged to be rentals. Staff’s position is that one unit mitigates the free market component and the other mitigates the lodging component. Mr. Mesirow asked if Staff is concerned if the units will not end up being used by a hotel employee. She reiterated one unit is mitigating the free market and should be a for sale unit. Mr. Wilson added although they appreciate Staff’s position, he feels there not be a whole lot of employee housing need for the folks living in the free market units and both units would be better served for the lodging component. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the height variations could change through the final review. Ms. Phelan stated it could if identified as a condition. 5 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 Mr. Goode then opened for public comment. Ms. Karen Day was the interior designer for the original Hotel Lenado in 1983. She feels there is huge contingent in the community emotionally attached to the existing lodge. She stated the logs on each side of fireplace were cut by the people who live in Lenado. There was a photograph in the hotel of the people cutting and carrying the logs. She asked the logs be saved. On a personal note, there are a lot of folks heartbroken that a piece of Harry Teague architecture will be demolished. She does feel the rendering is better than she thought it would be. Mr. Goode then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Goode then opened for commissioner’s discussion. Mr. Morris wanted to hear from fellow commissioners, assuming the affordable housing items could be dealt with, where they are at on community character and mass. Mr. Goode stated it is a lodge and will be big. He loves the improvements and noted the displays Mr. Wilson used during his discussion included a gable that was not included in the packet. Ms. Phelan stated the latest iteration of the proposal does not have the gable above the gabled entry level. Mr. Goode reiterated what they approve will not have this additional gable. He feels it is not the perfect small lodge P&Z wanted, but he would approve it as submitted. Mr. Mesirow stated they have asked a lot and a lot has been delivered. He feels there is not a lot outside of just mass and scale to not like about the project, but he felt they provided pretty specific directives to the applicant who has met those directives. While he feels it is not a perfect project, it is important for the process that not just the community, but the applicant have trust in P&Zs willingness to follow through on their word, so he will be supportive of the application. Ms. McNicholas also feels the project has come a long way but is sad to see photos comparing the proposed hotel with the existing hotel. She feels Aspen is losing a quaint piece of architecture that provided a lot more lodging for something is very modern looking and doesn’t provide any of the same character. Mr. Mesirow stated it is also important to take into account that while there is the paragraph that gives P&Z some credence to adjust size, the FAR is significantly lower than what is allowed. As the applicant pointed out it could be single family homes. Mr. Elliott agrees with Mr. Mesirow in that the commission had previously outlined items to be addressed and it would not be fair for P&Z to change it now. From a factual standpoint, he is fine with it. The only remaining item he would be open to enforcing would be the affordable housing. Mr. Goode asked the commissioners where they stand on defining the one unit for sale. Mr. Morris stated Staff’s logic makes sense for one rental and on for sale unit given the use of the building. Mr. Mesirow stated he is generally comfortable with APCHA’s position and feels they have studied this situation. Although he also agrees Staff’s position make sense given the use, he would tend to let APCHA take the lead on it. He feels language should be added to the resolution to confirm the required amount of above grade area is met for final review. Mr. Goode stated he would go with Staff’s recommendation. 6 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 Ms. McNicholas Kury stated she would support APCHA’s recommendation. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Goode why he defer to Staff. Mr. Goode stated he is concerned with having a for sale unit in the building because APCHA does not have a method in place to verify who is renting properties. He feels the guidelines are not very tight and there may not be anyone available to audit the compliance. Mr. Mesirow asked Staff is they have similar concerns. Ms. Phelan stated she would stick with the mitigation requirement, but she has seen compliance issues in the past on other properties. She stated the mitigation requirement generated for the free market is actually more than one two bedroom unit. The mitigation requirement for the lodge component is actually less than one two bedroom unit. Mr. Goode asked the commissioners where they stand regarding the floor to floor ceiling heights. Ms. McNicholas Kury would like to see it retained as proposed. Mr. Mesirow agreed. She added she would not want to see something at final that is drastically different than what has been agreed to today. Mr. Goode asked if the commission wanted to include conditions previously recommend by Ms. Phelan to add to the resolution including the entry level, the Hopkins area and growth management. Ms. Phelan wanted clarification if the commission wanted to see continued work on the Hopkins façade or not. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated although she appreciates the varied materials used and the setbacks provide a sense of differing widths requested by P&Z, she would like to see additional work on the middle section. She is not sure she can persuade the applicant to change it however. Mr. Goode feels all the commissioners are on that same page. Mr. Elliott asked where the commissioners where they stand on APCHA’s recommendation and added he is with APCHA and the applicant. Mr. Goode felt a majority of the board is behind APCHA. Mr. Morris added if there is a problem with compliance it should be dealt with using another mechanism. Ms. Phelan suggested adding a third paragraph with the following items under Section 1 of the draft resolution. She referred them to p. 17 of the Staff memo and stated the resolution already states the affordable housing units will be rental units. Prior to submission of Final Commercial Design Review the Applicant shall: • Meet the growth management requirements for above graded net livable space for the affordable housing units. • Verify dimensional requirements are met, specifically Floor Area Calculations. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the resolution could also encourage the applicant to come back with improvements to the Hopkins façade. Mr. Mesirow asked if this would be required at which she responded no. Ms. Phelan stated they could add that further review of the façade would be encouraged at which Mr. Goode agreed. Mr. Mesirow wanted to state the applicant has done a good job and it is not the job of P&Z to create policy, but to follow the code and he feels the building meets the code. He will vote in favor of the project, but he also feels it has to be recognized this is a poor project for this town. He feels it is unfortunate that it goes from 19 hotel rooms to four, with less use, and less vitality. In the bigger discussion in regards to if the code meet our values as a community, he hopes this project will be a catalyst for further discussion around the LP overlay. He feels if this project can go forward, clearly the code does not meet the community values. He wants to applaud the design team for their good work, 7 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 but he also feels the developer needs to have trust in the process too. He thinks it will be a positive outcome and hopes in the future they are dealing with a different set of criteria. Mr. Goode agreed. Mr. Elliott motioned to approve resolution #20, series 2015 adding the following conditions identified by Ms. Phelan as a third paragraph of Section 1. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mesirow. • Meet the growth management requirements for above graded net livable space for the affordable housing units. • Verify dimensional requirements are met, specifically Floor Area Calculations. • The applicant is encouraged to further review the Hopkins façade. Mr. Goode requested a roll call. Roll call vote: Mr. Morris, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Mr. Elliott, yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; and Mr. Goode, yes. The motion passed with a total five (5) yes – zero (0) no. Ms. Phelan requested Mr. Wilson to provide an electronic copy of the presentation. Mr. Goode then closed the public hearing. OTHER BUSINESS Residential Design Standards. Code Amendment Check-In Mr. Justin Barker, Community Development Senior Planner, stated he wanted to check in with P&Z regarding proposed code amendments pertaining to the City’s Residential Design Standards (RDS). Mr. Barker provided background on the RDS and stated Council directed Staff earlier this year to look into updating the RDS to make it more appropriate for the current designs and timeframe. Staff has been working with a consultant as well as an advisory committee to identify possible updates. After multiple discussions and meetings, two issues were identified with the current version of the chapter. • Lack of clarity in the administrative review process • Lack of flexibility in the existing standards Mr. Barker then reviewed the administrative review process. The process is confusing as is the standard for the reviews that occur during the process. He referred to Exhibit A which diagrams the existing and proposed review processes. With the new review process, they are proposing all projects come in for an administrative review for all standards. Administratively, they would receive an approval or denial to be included in their building permit providing them assurance they have a signed off approval. This would also removes the three design request limitation. Staff will look at all the standards combined and whether they are met collectively or not. If the proposal is denied, the applicant has the opportunity to request a variation from P&Z or mend their requirements to meet the RDS. When an application comes in, there are set standards based on the location and topography of the site that must be met to the letter. The application may also go through an administrative or a P&Z variance review. Staff recognizes not all the standards have equal importance and he provided an example of the location of the structure on the lot may not be as important as the overall mass of the building. The proposed changes prioritize the standards and identifies three standards as the nonflexible standards as 8 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 listed on p. 75 of the agenda packet. These must be met as per stated in the code and any variance must be taken to P&Z for review. All the other standards are reviewed with flexibility in mind and Staff will determine the intent of the standard is being is met. He discussed the two examples on pp 79 and 80 of the packet. There are a few more updates Staff has been working on including the following. • Reorganizing the entire chapter to make it more readable • Define some terms not previously defined or are unclear • Updating and improving the graphics to be more understandable • Adding new graphics to further assist with explaining topics For public outreach, there was an open house at the end of September that approximately 20 people attended. There was an overwhelming positive response to the idea of the proposed changes. The proposed changes were also included in the Community Development Newsletter which goes out to almost 600 professionals in the valley to which there has been mostly positive responses as well. The next steps include the proposed changes going to Council for policy resolution in early December. There will also be one more public open house on the same date to obtain additional feedback prior to the meeting with Council. If the policy resolution is approved, they will proceed with an ordinance reading for the specific language to amend the code. Mr. Barker asked if P&Z supports the proposed amendment or has any concerns. Mr. Mesirow asked who made up the audience at the open house. Mr. Barker answered it was a lot of local architects and designers. Mr. Mesirow stated it seems very counter to the general feeling of the community to hold to very specific guidelines with no flexibility in granting anything to anybody. Mr. Morris asked if the audience receiving the newsletter was also primarily architects and designers at which Mr. Barker stated the newsletter is viewed by architects, designers, real estate agents, attorneys and others involved with land use code review and enforcement. Mr. Morris wondered how we could get some from the other side to show up and participate in the review. Ms. Phelan stated there needs to be guidelines in place and the values of the town are so high that if there were no requirements, you would see 10 ft walls around houses turning them into compounds and the public streetscape would be negatively impacted. What Staff heard is that some of the requirements are not flexible. Staff is trying to identify those standards that are sacred and there can’t be an administrative variation unless you go to a board for review. Mr. Barker added they want to focus on the design and the overall intent of the applicants instead of looking at the extreme details such as your window is 9 ft tall instead of 9 ft 3 in tall. Staff does not feel it is necessary for an applicant to come to P&Z to ask for a window that is 3 in taller than allowed per the code. Mr. Goode remarked P&Z has seen plenty of such examples. Mr. Goode other commissioners stated they feel the changes will be good for the process. Mr. Mesirow appreciates the direction and finding more competence in the process for everyone is important. He also feels the intent to focus on use is really healthy oppose to it looking as though the standards are being relaxed. Mr. Morris also feels it will be important to articulate the reasons behind amending the code. Mr. Mesirow does see a red flag when it comes to the prioritization. He understands why it is being done, but is concerned they may be drawing a roadmap for architects and designers to figure out which things they need to abide by. Ms. Phelan added the proposed process may be able to dial in the intent 9 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 to match the location more appropriately to match the development pattern of the area. She added there are certain design principles that will be upheld. She gave the example that Staff feels very strongly about the placement of a garage at a site. For instance, on Cemetery Lane they may allow side loading where they typically do not allow for it. Mr. Mesirow asked for the process to revisit this based on changing community priorities. Mr. Barker stated it would be easier to change the priorities in the future should the need arise. Mr. Barker stated a lot of designers have figured out a loophole process to meeting the standards which creates a worse design in the end. These amendments will help Staff focus on the overall design and allow the applicant to focus on a holistic design rather than just meet the standard. Mr. Mesirow reiterated having check-in mechanisms would ultimately make the process better. It would also encourage trust with the community. Mr. Goode felt opening it up to look at the entire design from the beginning would be helpful. Mr. Barker reiterated currently an applicant may present up to three items for administrative variances from three different standards. If they request more than three, it currently goes to P&Z for review. With the amendments, there will no longer be a limitation on the number requested for administrative review. If the administrative review is not granted, the applicant would have the option of taking their request to P&Z. Mr. Mesirow asked if it was a requirement or opportunity for the applicant to currently ask for administrative review. Mr. Barker replied currently it is reviewed for RDS when someone submits for a building permit. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked how Staff makes their decisions defensible in regards to intent. Ms. Phelan stated there are some standards that are a bit loose and it is harder to define the intent but she feels the more something can be explained, the more you can define where it meets or doesn’t meet the standard. Mr. Barker stated there will always be subjectivity in design, but it important to gather as much information as possible. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated some statements raise red flags for her. She cited a statement Section 26.410.010.A.3, which states to encourage creative and contemporary architecture in keeping with Aspen’s history. She stated statements like this are extremely difficult to interpret and noted the application approved earlier and how it will change the character of the neighborhood impacting any future review under that criteria is different. She feels there is a tension between what Aspen was and what it is becoming. She is concerned the direction in which it is heading is very unclear and doesn’t feel in terms of design, it is something that’s been articulated. Mr. Goode brought up that the aspect of messy vitality that has driven change in Aspen. Mr. Mesirow feels Ms. McNicholas Kury wants better confines to direct the change that will occur. He added change includes not only what it will look like, but also what it act and feel like. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels the change should be tied to an intent whether it be messy vitality or something else. Mr. Barker understands Ms. McNicholas Kury’s concerns, but unfortunately it is not in the scope of the update being discussed. He does feel the proposed amendments will help support the intent going forward to the specific standards. He suggested perhaps the standards could be reviewed for their relevance sometime in the future. 10 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 Elevator Overrun Code Amendment Check-In Mr. Barker reviewed the current code allows for elevator overruns for anything but single family homes and duplexes has the capability to be five and in some cases up to 10 ft taller than what code allows based on the setback from the street to reduce visibility. Staff has heard complaints it is difficult to achieve a workable design based on the requirements and Council has directed Staff to look into it. Mr. Barker stated they asked through their newsletter for realistic numbers. From their responses, it seems most standard elevator designs range from 14.5 to 20 ft in height for the entire assembly. This is measured from where you exit the elevator to the very top of the roof of the enclosure. A typical height is 16 ft for a structure available for purchase from vendors serving the valley. Staff is asking if P&Z is interested in increasing the height for an elevator enclosure. He added one of the difficulties identified in regards to the design is currently they end up with awkward elevator ramping systems to get to the actual top and stay under the height limit. For an example, with a 16 ft enclosure the floor would have to be dropped approximately 6 ft below the roof line or have a custom, expensive structure built to achieve the five ft or 10 ft height limit. Mr. Goode doesn’t see the cost as an issue for those who typically build in Aspen. Mr. Morris asked for the typical costs to comply with the existing code requirements. Mr. Barker stated he has not received any specific input regarding how much it costs for a closure requiring ramping for the 19 ft enclosure. Ms. Phelan reminded P&Z this is only to access the roof and this wouldn’t be an issue if they don’t need roof access. Mr. Barker added rooftop views are a hot item lately. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the elevators are used to transport people or a commercial elevator. Mr. Barker answered it is for people. Mr. Barker stated the elevator overrun example provided in the packet is for commercial use and not residential use. Mr. Mesirow asked if this code amendment was applicable to commercial core or other zone districts. Mr. Barker stated the amendment discussion it is not tied specifically to zone district but he would welcome any input from P&Z. Mr. Mesirow looking objectively at the recently approved projects and noted they all had elevators on top conforming to the 10 ft requirement. He feels it is clearly doable and while he doesn’t feel it makes sense to impose superfluous costs on developers, he doesn’t feel 20 ft elevators would be popular with the community. He felt additional height may be possibly allowed if the structure was not visible from the closest structure at street level in each direction. Mr. Elliott supports having roof access but feels the current standard is working. He feels taller structures would impede the views of the mountains. Although the cost to make it possible currently may be higher, he feels there is also a visual impact cost to the community with higher towers. Mr. Mesirow remarked the Sky Hotel will have a roof top access. He stated if the roof takes up 200 sf for ramps to make the 10 ft tower design work. If allowing a higher tower would improve the public amenity space and not a visual impact from the street, he would not have a problem with it. Mr. Elliott feels it is necessary to look for impacts other than from the street. He feels the developers have been able to work out solutions to make it work. Mr. Goode asked how long the rule has been in place. Ms. Phelan believes it has changed somewhat in the last 10 years. Mr. Goode feels technology may provide for opportunities going forward. 11 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission November 17, 2015 Ms. McNicholas Kury doesn’t feel roof access is a pressing public need at this time. In summary, P&Z does not support an increase in height. Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 12