Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20161101Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 1, 2016 1 Mr. Ryan Walterscheid, Acting Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members, Brian McNellis, Spencer McKnight, Jasmine Tygre, and Ryan Walterscheid. Kelly McNicholas Kury arrived late to the meeting. Jesse Morris, Skippy Mesirow and Keith Goode were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Jim True, Andrea Bryan, Jennifer Phelan, Ben Anderson, Jessica Garrow, Phillip Supino and Justin Barker. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES October 18, 2016 – Ms. Tygre motioned to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. McKnight seconded the motion. All in favor, motion approved. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS 501 W Hallam St – Residential Design Standards – Variation - Continued Hearing Mr. Walterscheid re-opened the continued hearing and turned the floor over to Staff. Mr. Ben Anderson, Planner, noted this is a continuation from the September 6, 2016 meeting. He provided a slide depicting the location of the application at the corner of 4th St and W Hallam St. It is an existing duplex to be redeveloped as a single family residence. He stated P&Z is considering a variation to the residential design standards (RDS). As a whole, the standards are meant to connect properties to the street, make sure the properties respond to neighboring properties and reflect traditional building scales. In the text of the code, it states the standards are not attempting to prescribe architectural style but requires the design to contribute positively to the streetscape in the following two areas. 1. Form/mass/scale 2. Orientation of the building and its connection to the street Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 1, 2016 2 He noted for buildings in the Infill Area, they are looking for structures with a principal mass that is scaled back in bulk and building forms as seen in historic residential buildings. He also stated this is a non-flexible standard which means P&Z must review it. He the described the three options available for meeting the standard and noted option three is the most applicable for this application. It is described as having the principle mass of the building at 45 ft and then steps down to a one story element with increased side setbacks of five ft at rear of the property. The new design is similar to the previous design but with some important differences. He stated it gets closer to the standard than the earlier submission. He displayed the floor plan of second level and noted the length is just over 59 ft. A green vertical line on the floor plan indicated where the building should step down to the one story element. He then provided a slide of the ground level floor plan and noted the approximate location of the side and rear setbacks required of option three. On the 4th St side, it steps back approximately eight ft. On the west side, it is about a four ft setback. He then provided views of the building from 4th St and from Hallam St noting a two car garage. He stated an important difference between the previous and current design is the one two car garage instead of the two one car garages in the earlier design which prohibited the side setback. He stated there are two items for P&Z to consider in their review. 1) The applicant states they meet the intent of the standard. 2) There is something with the property creating unusual site constraints. Staff does not feel item #2 is applicable so it really comes down to evaluating the intent and dimensions identified by the standard. The intent of the standard seeks the following:  Promote light and air access between adjacent properties – Staff agrees  Articulate building walls by utilizing multiple forms to break up large expansive wall planes – Staff agrees  Include massing and articulation to convey forms similar in massing to historic residential buildings – Staff does not agree  Change the plane of a building’s sidewall stepping the primary building down to one story at the rear portion of the structure – Staff feels there are references to this in the design Staff feels the importance of the dimensions noted in the intent requirements do not allow the design to meet the intent as described. He feels the standards was particularly written for 6,000 sf lots in the west end. He did note if this application was outside the infill area, Staff would have administratively approved it back in April. The location of the house and the dimensions provided are the cause for Staff’s recommendation of denial. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were questions for staff. Mr. Walterscheid asked because this is a corner lot, could it be evaluated as 4th St being the front. Mr. Anderson replied in terms of what establishes the front façade of a building, the definition clearly identifies Hallam St as the front facing façade. He added there is an argument to be made for the central staircase element establishing the front as 4th St, but it doesn’t fit the definition. Mr. Walterscheid then turned the floor over to the applicant. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 1, 2016 3 Mr. Chris Bendon, BendonAdams, is representing the owner, Mr. Scott Hoffman. Mr. Bendon stated Mr. Hoffman is very passionate his contemporary design and living framework. He noted Mr. Anderson had already mentioned the RDS doesn’t get into a specific architectural style. Mr. Hoffman continues to believe his design has some merit instead of redesigning for an administrative approval. Mr. Bendon provided a slide of the previous design and current form. He noted there are two individual forms as well as two individual car bays in the back on the original submission. The back has been changed so the distance is now 59 ft on the upper level which was accomplished by pulling the two forms closer together. The 4th St entry courtyard on the previous design to break up the two masses has been removed. There are a few additional modifications. He then displayed an elevation and pointed to the differences in the massing including an indent in the upper level. Next, he provided a slide depicting a three-dimensional overhead view showing how the masses have been condensed in current design. Mr. Bendon noted Mr. Hoffman also considered the context with the neighboring properties in the design. He started with direct outreach with the neighbors. The neighbor to the west has built right to the property line and actually overhangs onto Mr. Hoffman’s property. It was important for him to understand and respect the neighborhood conditions. In regards to the standard, it is his understanding the base level of the design is raised to an acceptable level. It really came around in 1995 when there were some greater changes happening with the pace of changes occurring and the character of new residential development. It was very different from the traditional development pattern. He feels there needs to be some basic tenets being observed. Obviously, they are struggling a bit with the articulation standard. Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Bendon believed the original design addressed the standard with materials and form. The measurement is taken at the full extent of the plan instead of the individual masses. Mr. Bendon then discussed the standard noting how the project effectively addresses each part of the intent. The also feel the application addresses the infill area standard element. In regards to design, they feel the design addresses the following:  Change the plane of a buildings sidewall – the project has multiple planes  Step a primary building height down to one story in the rear portion or limit the overall depth of the structure – the design does step down to one story in the rear of the building Mr. Hoffman pulled the following two quotes from the Staff’s comments. He went around the entire west end and took photos of every corner lot. He found 21 examples where the second story sidewall length exceeded 60 ft. Of those, 16 are between 60 -70 ft and five that are over 70 ft. Mr. Bendon provided photos of some of these examples. A question raised at the previous hearing that Mr. Hoffman felt was important questioned how the prior standards would have treated this application. Mr. Bendon asked the board to keep in mind the reformulation of the standard was a re-pack of the same standard, eliminate ambiguity, provide better options and guidance. It wasn’t necessarily to invent new policy. 1. This standard and its intent is particularly important in this case, as the project is located on a corner lot with two, street-facing building planes. 2. ...historically established patterns and the community’s desired qualities of residential massing in the Aspen Infill Area. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 1, 2016 4 Some of the examples included the following:  Studio B project with the garage being the secondary detached mass.  House that is 8-10 years old – house has clear masses that have been broken down. If measuring the second floor end to end, it would be larger than the proposed house.  House on 2nd St & Hallam St that was just completed with two different masses connected. The second floor is a continuous plate. Overall, they feel they have a beautiful design. It’s been designed to complement the neighborhood they feel it has articulation and the massing is broken down to meet the intent of the RDS. Mr. Walterscheid asked for questions of the applicant. No one had questions so he closed this portion of the hearing. Mr. Walterscheid noted there were no members of the public present to provide public comment. Mr. Walterscheid then opened for discussion. Ms. Tygre stated she agrees with staff’s position. Mr. McNellis is unsure. He had previously asked the applicant to step down the middle portion which steps up. Although he understands why the applicant wants it this way, he also understands the intent of the code. He is having a hard time in that they are 15 ft over the allowable length. In some ways, he appreciates some aspects of the previous design more because of the separation of the masses was more clear. There was more flexibility to allow the articulation and differentiation of the front and back spaces. The current design is more condensed. It is his understanding this is primarily about mass and making sure the broken up appropriately. He also wants to give credence to the architect’s style which is a product of its time. He leans toward it not meeting the intent of the code. He asked Staff if they had kept it back 15 ft on the second floor, could they have met the allowable FAR on the property. Mr. Anderson replied as it is currently designed, they meet all the dimensional requirements of the Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district and they are under the FAR. He believes some of the choices made in the footprint were made to deal with the neighbor on the west side. The setback on that side of the building is more than it needs to be. If the second story mass is reduced, the first floor would probably become larger. Mr. McNellis asked Mr. Bendon the same question. Mr. Bendon replied Mr. Anderson is right in there was a choice made due to the contact with the neighbor to the west. Mr. Hoffman continues to feel it is not the right thing to do and that it is a driving element to the design. He could go wider, but there would be a compromise the floor plan and to the expression toward the neighbor to the west. He pointed to other pushes and pulls that have been intentionally made on the ground level including the garages. Mr. Hoffman does not feel he can leave much on the table in regards to floor area. Mr. Bendon clarified he is currently below the FAR by a small amount. Mr. Bendon noted overall, Mr. Hoffman prefers the previous design over the current design. Mr. McKnight agrees with Mr. McNellis in regards to how it is broken up. He also agrees with Ms. Tygre and leans toward Staff’s recommendation. Mr. Walterscheid feels it is hard to swallow because he feels the proposed building is very articulated. He feels the applicant was caught in a poor timing situation. He feels the previous design was more articulated. He is not sure how to move the application forward and agrees with Staff. He feels it is articulated, just not in the manner required by the current code. Ms. Tygre moved to deny Resolution 10, series 2016 and Mr. McKnight seconded it. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 1, 2016 5 Mr. Bendon stated he is not sure Mr. Hoffman wants to continue or not but would like to provide him that option. He noted a withdrawal is the same as a denial. Mr. Bendon wanted to see if there was any advice to share with the architect going forward. Mr. McNellis stated it is a tough situation because it is a brand new standard. He agrees with Mr. Walterscheid. He would be willing to use his discretion if it didn’t amount to a 15 ft variance on the second story but is not sure where the threshold exists. To meet the intent of the standard, the second story needs to meet or get closer to the 45 ft standard. Perhaps the compromise is to at least meet the five ft setback on each side. Mr. Bendon asked if there was any value exploring the separation of the masses and lowering the center piece. Mr. McNellis feels there may be and feels that was a common issue shared with Mr. Walterscheid and Mr. McKnight. Mr. Walterscheid felt it was difficult with the previous design because the ridgeline was continuous. A break may have made the project more palatable in regards to the intent. Mr. Walterscheid noted if P&Z votes the motion on the floor, it may be over. He asked if there is any interest in modifying the motion as presented. Mr. McKnight and Mr. McNellis both stated they would be open to allowing the applicant to modify his design. Ms. Tygre then withdrew her motion. Mr. McNellis felt they had been clear with Mr. Hoffman at the previous meeting regarding what needed to be addressed. Mr. Walterscheid stated it needs a much more articulated difference in the height before he can support it. Mr. McNellis motioned to continue the hearing to December 6, 2016. Mr. McKnight seconded the motion. Mr. Walterscheid requested a roll call: Ms. Tygre, no; Mr. McKnight, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; and Mr. Walterscheid, yes for a total of three to one (3 – 1). Motion carried. Mr. Walterscheid then closed the hearing. Mr. True and Ms. Phelan then left the meeting. OTHER BUSINESS AACP – Land Use Code Amendments Mr. Walterscheid turned the floor over to Staff for a continued discussion of the proposed land use code amendments. Present from Staff were Ms. Garrow, Mr. Supino and Mr. Barker. Mr. Barker stated at the previous meeting Staff presented the introductions, general guidelines, public amenity sections of the proposed code changes. At this meeting Staff will review the proposed changes to the character areas as included in the agenda packet starting on p. 60 of the packet. Mr. Barker discussed how character areas come into play. He stated a zone district sits on a piece of property and establishes the box development, the setbacks, the height, the floor area. Character areas sit on top as an additional layer of regulation to shape what the box can look like. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 1, 2016 6 He discussed the proposed changes to the boundaries of the character areas to align with current development patterns and areas of similar development including the following:  Mountain Base Character Area - the boundary would be moved to Durant Ave  River Approach Character Area - expanded to include the sanitation district, Rio Grande Park, Theatre Aspen development and the old power house building  Neighborhood Mixed Use Area – expanded to include a small portion of the commercial area Mr. Barker then walked through each area and discussed possible changes. He noted the two historic districts are included in the packet but will only be covered with the Historic Preservation Commission. He also noted some of the more repetitive guidelines speaking to general design elements such as building orientation, roofscapes, have been pulled into a general section and are not currently reflected in the character areas. Ms. McNicholas Kury arrived for the discussion at this time (5:37 pm). Commercial Character Area (p 92 of the packet) Mr. McNellis doesn’t feel the Crandall building pictured on the slide shows any traditional commercial characteristics and asked if this represented a direction. Mr. Barker replied the idea for this particular standard was to incorporate some 19th century building concepts with the commercial frontage on the first floor and traditionally a smaller upper floor. Mr. Barker noted the building is a designated AspenModern property. Mr. Walterscheid feels the building embodies what seems to be currently promoted including local serving businesses. He does not want Staff to push style but understands certain aspects being asked for including the entry should be on the primary side. He does not have any objections to what Staff has presented. He feels it is important to have clear definition as to what the streetscape should appear as in this district would be appreciated. Mr. McNellis does not feel the Crandall building addresses both streetscapes it faces. Mr. Walterscheid asked what would be included in Staff’s list of traditional commercial characteristics. Ms. Garrow responded it may include setbacks, how it addresses the street, window patterns, form, and scale. Ms. Garrow noted on item 4.5 (p 96), the roof forms on the buildings in the character area are mostly flat roofs, but there are some gables and designated miner’s cottages. She asked if there should different types of roof forms allowed or not. Ms. Tygre responded the other forms are not precluded, so she does not have a problem with it. Mr. Barker asked for their opinion about item 4.1 (p 94). Mr. McNellis and Mr. McKnight are fine with it as written. Mr. McKnight felt it would not be appropriate to put numbers on the required setbacks. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if use would matter in regards to appropriate setbacks and Ms. Garrow responded it may. Mr. Barker asked if there were other unique characteristics to this character area that Staff had not yet addressed. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 1, 2016 7 Mr. Walterscheid stated HPC usually requests something to be added to a structure which stands out and not mimic another structure. Otherwise, the structures become diluted. Ms. Garrow suggest the guideline state relate to, but not mimic. Mr. Walterscheid agreed. Ms. Garrow stated in terms of context, examples of buildings in this character area include the Dancing Bear II, Spring Café building, Crandall building, Art Museum, Charles Cunniffe building, and Alpine Bank. She noted the area around the Butchers Block and City Market have been added. She asked if others should be included to which no one responded. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if Staff could refresh P&Z how this area had previously lacked cohesion and what they are proposing to change it. Mr. Barker stated an idea came from taking concepts from downtown and carrying it over, but not as rigid and allowing some AspenModern properties within the area. They do want a consistent pedestrian experience in the area. Ms. Garrow stated in regards to use, this area has both commercial and residential. There is an eclectic mix including stand-alone residential, liquor stores, grocery store and offices. Mr. McNellis feels the eclectic nature is what makes it interesting. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the boundary is changing and Mr. Barker responded it is changing quite a bit. Originally, it was a U-shaped area around the commercial core district and now the properties along Durant have been removed. Ms. Garrow noted the Dancing Bear is currently in this area, but won’t be going forward. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels the suggested changes bring more cohesion to the area. Neighborhood Mixed Use Area (currently listed as the Central Mixed Use Area) (p 106 of the packet) Mr. Barker described these areas as the parenthesis areas of downtown defining the transition from commercial uses to the residential uses. The area includes primarily residential structures and the roof forms begin changing to gables, smaller building masses, and more setbacks. Mr. McNellis and Ms. Tygre stated the content looked fine. Mr. Barker asked about the barrel vaulted roofs. Mr. McNellis asked why this bullet was added stating they are inappropriate and feels it is a bit out of place and doesn’t feel the need to limit the roof form options. Ms. Garrow feels the neighborhood has mostly gable roof forms and the barrel roof form would be a new type introduced to the area. Mr. Walterscheid asked if this bullet is identified with other areas and Mr. Barker believed it may also be associated with the Mountain Base Area. Mr. McKnight feels it is probably addressed in the bullet item directly above. Mr. Walterscheid feels it makes sense for the roof forms to vary as you move away from the core. Mr. McKnight stated for this area, there either needs to be a complete list of acceptable forms or list nothing. Mr. Walterscheid asked under what conditions should other forms be considered. Mr. Barker replied it depends on the context and the type of transition desired for a particular structure as Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 1, 2016 8 it relates to neighboring structures. He stated one example of view planes that may impact the determination of appropriate roof forms. Mountain Base Character Area (p 100 of the packet) Mr. Barker noted this area is being expanded to include all commercial development south of Durant Ave. The focus for this area is being able to respond to the unique topography and creating the open spaces to lead to the properties. The roof forms include more of the pitched and gabled forms that respond to the topography. Mr. Barker explained the rationale behind item 6.5. He noted this is not a particularly pedestrian friendly area and at times it is difficult to know where the front of a building is since they tend to be larger condominiums. Mr. Walterscheid does not necessarily agree with the colorful front door part of the guideline in item 6.5 and feels character defining details announcing the entry is appropriate. Mr. McNellis is not sure this item should be specific to this area. He agrees it can be a difficult area to navigate and feels the item may apply to all commercial structures. Mr. Barker stated it may make more sense to have it as a general guideline. Mr. McNellis responded it may be good to emphasize it for this area as well. Ms. Garrow asked if they wanted to do something similar in this section regarding the barrel roof form. She noted this area currently has structures with barrel roof forms. Mr. Walterscheid felt it should be removed here as well. Mr. McNellis feels drawn to emphasize horizontal elements to blend in the building with the topography. Perhaps the chalet style can be emphasized. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated the guideline ignores the A frame style a bit. Mr. McNellis believes this is one area to allow some flexibility in vertical and horizontal articulation noting the topography in the background allows this to happen. Mr. Barker stated they would look for more examples. Mr. Walterscheid is curious about the third bullet on item 6.1 since a recent application with a stepped building was not well received. Mr. Barker believes it was more the mass and scale of that particular application and not the stepped design. Mr. McNellis suggested it was the number of steps that was an issue. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if we are trying hide the future buildings or celebrate traditional architecture and feels both options may be appropriate. Ms. McNicholas Kury is not sure it should emphasize horizontal elements because it potentially doesn’t allow for the more traditional architecture. Ms. Garrow asked if it would be better to change the word from ‘emphasize’ to ‘consider’. Ms. McNicholas Kury responded changing the word to consider may provide flexibility. Ms. Tygre agreed changing the word to ‘consider’ would make all the bullets the same. Mr. Barker stated another guideline that is not in packet but has been considered is to require pauses or breaks on the incline in an effort to enhance the pedestrian experience. A relief point may include benches or flat areas. He asked if this would be an appropriate thing to suggest or not. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 1, 2016 9 Mr. Walterscheid believes it could be tricky on some of the slopes to include a flat area. For entries, there needs to be area for accessibility at the entrance. It can be challenging to meet engineering requirements as well. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if this guideline would allow for P&Z to ask an applicant to break up the massing. Ms. Garrow responded item 6.3 may be more applicable for strengthening the connection to the mountain. She asked if P&Z would ask for a guideline stating large masses are inappropriate for the area. Everyone stated a more direct guideline is better. Ms. Garrow felt this may lead to an argument defining what is large or not. Mr. Walterscheid feels it is somewhat difficult to determine what the three bullets in item 6.1 are defining. He stated it may be better to have something state the structure cannot be one long building stepped up the mountain. Mr. Supino asked if a reference to more modulation or separate buildings would be more effective to break up the massing. Mr. Walterscheid responded it could potentially help similar to requirements for lots down in town. Ms. Garrow noted the lots in this area are typically much larger and typically defined as a planned unit development (PD), a subdivision or a block of condominiums. She suggested there needs to be specific language regarding massing for the larger lots. Ms. McNicholas Kury offered the following language: Increased porosity of the site by incorporating open space around the building or break up massing among multiple buildings. Ms. Garrow asked Mr. Walterscheid and P&Z for another way of stating or describing porosity in regards to breaking up a mass. Mr. Walterscheid suggested the term speaks to creating courtyards, pedestrian pathways and other public amenity spaces through buildings. Ms. Tygre suggested using the terms ‘incorporate open space in building placement and site design’. Mr. Walterscheid noted the proposed code speaks to the Chalet Style. Wen Lift One came before P&Z with its flat roof and stepping design, he personally liked it. He believes the applicant did a really good job presenting both urban alpine vs rural alpine. As you get further uphill, he feels rural alpine makes more sense and urban alpine is better for buildings closer to town when intermixed with other buildings. He is not sure he follows the discussion of horizontal elements as presented. Mr. Supino suggested it should be presented as a relationship to lot size. Mr. Walterscheid felt it may be of benefit to describe it as it relates to the lot size. River Approach Character Area (p 114 of the packet) Mr. Barker reiterated this area is being expanded and it is an area for a lot of unique, innovative design styles, materials, and structure placement on the lot. He asked P&Z for suggestions providing more clarity and gave the example of the ‘funky character’ included in item 7.4. Mr. Walterscheid asked how far south does the area go and Mr. Barker replied it goes up to alley behind the library. He then described the boundaries of the area. Mr. Walterscheid asked Staff their opinion on raised planters vs retaining walls when dealing with the topography and pedestrian experience. Mr. Barker stated they want to prevent the blank wall façade and it may be better to rephrase item 6.2 stating retaining walls shall be incorporated into the architecture and landscaping as a design element and not just a structural necessity. Ms. Garrow noted this standard is also in the Mountain Base Character Area and asked if the change should happen there as well. Mr. Walterscheid replied it would be appropriate to change it in both places. Ms. Garrow asked Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 1, 2016 10 if language should be included for handling a wall that is perhaps at the back of the lot where it is not going to be a planter. Mr. McNellis suggested adding something in terms of materiality providing a more industrial palette. Ms. Garrow suggested using the term ‘industrial’ in place of ‘funky’. Mr. Supino asked if the materials should be included as primary materials or as secondary / accent to which Mr. McNellis replied both depending on the context such as the size of the building. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels currently the area is very associated with parks and public use and there may be room to incorporate playful design. Ms. Garrow noted this area is unique in that there a lot of civic buildings in the area. Ms. McNicholas Kury proposed copying item 7.5 to the Mountain Base Character Area and others agreed. Small Lodge Character Area (p 122 of the packet) Mr. Barker reviewed the list of lodges included in this area. He stated there are two sets of guidelines, one that applies to all the lodges and another that applies to specific to those on Main St. He added the idea is to make sure the lodge fits where it is located and what is located around the lodge. Ms. McNicholas Kury questioned the need to specify ADA compliant entrances and questioned if something should be in place to cover the entire building. Ms. Garrow replied there are some challenges with some of the lodges because they are historic homes converted to lodges. She stated the Snow Queen is a beautiful example where they have a beautiful staircase, but it is not ADA compliant and does not meet the current code. If they were to do a certain amount of work on the inside, it would trigger other requirements making for a tough balance. She added the item was included so if a lodge was updating their entrance, it should be made compliant. Mr. Walterscheid understands there are historic lodges that don’t have an ADA compliant entry access but wondered if the desire was to have them modify the historic nature or come up with another alternative. Ms. Garrow stated they want to find a balance between the building code and the best historic preservation practice. Ms. Garrow asked P&Z if the second bullet on item 8.3 should be removed and most replied yes. Mr. McNellis proposed the code mention landscaping to emphasize the architecture and feels the gardens can make the lodge a streetscape icon. Mr. Barker noted there are a number of lodges located on Main St, placing them in a Historic District. Staff thought it would be appropriate to include an additional set of guidelines for these lodges as identified on p 128 of the packet. Ms. Tygre is okay with the proposed code language. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if proposed code applies to other buildings on Main St. Mr. Barker was not sure and asked how she felt about item 8.11. She replied it seems to her the goal is to retain the consistency within the district so it would only make sense this would be carried through the district as well. Mr. Walterscheid commented in his recent research of the area, he discovered there is a lot of stone. Ms. Garrow stated items 8.11 and 8.12 emphasize for Main St the use of wood and brick as primary materials and not stone. Ms. McNicholas Kury thought the items provided enough flexibility. Mr. Barker stated in two weeks they will return with their comments. This will give them another opportunity to look over what they have provided to Staff. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning November 1, 2016 11 Ms. McNicholas Kury asked for further interpretation of the third bullet on item 8.5. Mr. Barker replied it is there to prevent having too many different materials applied across a building or being too ornate. She thought his description made sense, but perhaps it needs to be stressed this goes across the whole design of the building. Mr. Walterscheid asked to what extent are there too many materials and felt it may be a bit vague. Mr. Walterscheid felt perhaps more detail should be provided in terms of consistency or appropriateness to the historic pattern. Mr. McNellis noted it might worth encouraging the articulation of the building can come through variation in paint colors of items such as trim, siding, or soffits. Mr. Walterscheid added these items seem to be more residential in scale and feel. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the item speaks to variation or simplicity. Mr. Walterscheid felt the variation should be kept to a couple of materials and within context. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the variation is in color, material, texture, but not all of them. Mr. McNellis noted although the material palette is simple, variation can be achieved using texture, color and shadow patterns. ADJOURN Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager