Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit C_225 N. Mill Draft MinutesExhibit C- 225 N. Mill P&Z Hearing Draft Minutes Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2020 Page 1 of 5 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 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. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to Staff. Exhibit C- 225 N. Mill P&Z Hearing Draft Minutes Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2020 Page 2 of 5 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 that provides 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 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 then 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 if 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. Staff finds this criterion met as shown in the project design. Exhibit C- 225 N. Mill P&Z Hearing Draft Minutes Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2020 Page 3 of 5 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 that speak 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. Rayes noted his calculation was 26 ft 2 in but wants to hear from the applicant regarding the height. Ms. McGovern noted the drawings have an actual height identified. Exhibit C- 225 N. Mill P&Z Hearing Draft Minutes Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2020 Page 4 of 5 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 that by providing access to the all the floors, including the basement, 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 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 that 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 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. Exhibit C- 225 N. Mill P&Z Hearing Draft Minutes Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission October 6, 2020 Page 5 of 5 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.