Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20161213Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 13, 2016 1 Mr. Keith Goode, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Kelly McNicholas Kury, Brian McNellis, Ryan Walterscheid, Jesse Morris and Keith Goode. Jasmine Tygre, Spencer McKnight and Skippy Mesirow were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Andrea Bryan, Jennifer Phelan, Ben Anderson, and Sara Nadolny. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. McNellis stated it good to hear Mayor Skadron acknowledge P&Z’s recommendations on the Gorsuch Haus. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if there will be discussions in January, 2017 regarding chain stores. Ms. Phelan noted Staff has scheduled a check-in with P&Z regarding chain store regulations in February. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan stated she has three items to cover. 1. Staff wants to schedule a third meeting on January 24th to accommodate the number of planning cases coming up in the near future. 2. Staff wants to schedule a working lunch meeting date for a moratorium check-in before it gets finalized by Council. 3. A site visit for Caribou Condos will be scheduled next week. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES November 15, 2016 – Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to approve the minutes with a couple of modifications as presented. Mr. Walterscheid seconded the motion. All in favor, motion approved. December 6, 2016 – Mr. Goode motioned to approve the minutes as presented and Ms. McNicholas Kury seconded the motion. All in favor, motion approved. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 13, 2016 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing – 501 W Hallam St – Variation – Residential Design Standards Mr. Goode opened the continued public hearing. Mr. Ben Anderson, Community Development Planner, reviewed the standard for the commission to consider for the requested variation. He noted the standard is a non-flexible standard which requires a P&Z review and it is only applicable in the Aspen Infill Area. In meeting the standard there are three options and the proposed design is most closely aligned with option three which asks for increased rear setbacks to the rear of the building and it steps down toward the rear of the building. The maximum length before you get to the step down is 45 ft which is the basis of the requested variation. He added the second floor is longer than the 45 ft maximum. He then presented the previously submitted design reviewed by P&Z. The length of the structure is nearly 60 ft. He stated it steps down and there is an additional five ft setback at the rear of the building. In response to P&Z comments from the previous meeting regarding the roofline which included a recommendation for additional articulation of the roofline, the applicant is proposing a new design with more articulation on the second story element roofline. Mr. Anderson noted the house is very visible from the 4th St elevation. He then provided slides depicting the proposed reconfigured structure and pointed out the designed 60 ft where it should be 45 ft. Mr. Anderson identified the two standards P&Z should consider for the variation request: 1) The design provides an alternative that meets the overall intent. 2) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. He stated Staff does not feel there are unusual site specific constraints so it is really about the consideration of the intent. The intent statement in the code language states designs should: a. Promote light, air access, articulated building walls utilizing multiple forms – Staff feels this has been met b. Include massing and articulation that convey forms similar in massing to historic aspen residential buildings – Staff feels the most recent submission does not meet this c. Change the building side wall planes to step down to one story and limit the overall depth of the structure - Staff feels this has been met Staff continues to recommend denial. Mr. Goode asked for questions of Staff. No one had questions so he then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Chris Bendon, BendonAdams, was present to represent the applicant, Mr. Scott Hoffman who was also present. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 13, 2016 3 Mr. Hoffman thanked P&Z for their patience and spoke of the guidance received from P&Z regarding the massing options. They reduced the overall side wall length from 80 ft to just under 60 ft. It’s not 45 ft, but is a step in that direction. He also looked at Staff’s comments from the 2nd meeting, particularly the part discussing how the form that respects the history of the area. Based on the importance of the corner lot location, he toured the area to survey other homes with a side wall greater than 60 ft. He found 21 examples of homes with side walls greater than 60 ft and five of those with a side wall greater than 70 ft. After the most recent meeting, per the direction of P&Z, he looked at the ridgeline of the structure. Mr. Bendon noted and discussed the progression of design for each step with P&Z. He provided slides of the design iterations. He noted the applicant is passionate about the living space on the 2nd floor. He discussed the most recent change of the ridgeline to articulate the building horizontally and vertically to provide clear separation of the building masses. He also mentioned the neighbor to the west who has developed up to property line and the applicant has not stated this is a site specific issue. The applicant prefers to have a good separation and the design reflects this situation. Mr. Bendon noted the Residential Design Standards (RDS) were created to make sure the lowest common denominator was lifted at some basic core design level. Regardless of style, the commission can provide flexibility to ensure horrible structures do not get approved for development. He stated the proposed structure is a nice design including articulation and they feel it is a nice addition to the neighborhood. Mr. Bendon stated they feel you can find intent behind the articulation standard. Multiple forms are used to break up the wall planes both horizontally and vertically as well as with materials. He displayed two pictures from Mr. Hoffman’s survey and discussed how the articulation standard was applied in past projects. One being the Studio B project which is on a corner lot and the garage represents the detached portion. He noted both of these examples are longer than the proposed structure and were approved within the last five to ten years. He displayed pictures of a building on Hallam St and 3rd St. He believes it recently received its Certificate of Occupancy (CO) and noted it has a more traditional look but with a similar dumbbell massing. He closed by displaying a picture of the current design and stated the applicant plans to live here and is committed to the neighborhood. Mr. Hoffman has taken additional steps to meet with neighbors independently of the required noticing. Mr. Goode asked if there were questions for the applicant. Mr. McNellis asked if the current design included changes to the setbacks, especially on 4th St. Mr. Bendon stated the only change was to the ridgeline of the roof structure. Mr. Hoffman pointed out the changes noting the height of the right side was raised a little bit to promote the separation. Mr. McNellis asked Staff if the standard speaks to creating the separation as the applicant has presented. Mr. Anderson feels the standard speaks to articulation clearly with three concrete options. The first design was based on a variation to option one. The last two design iterations have been based on option three to achieve the articulation requirement. Mr. Anderson stated there is the intent and Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 13, 2016 4 then the hard numbers of what the forms should be under the options. Staff feels there was thought put behind the dimensions described in the code, but he agrees with the applicant there are aspects reflecting articulation. The question is whether or not the numbers defined within the standards are the measurements at which we achieve what the standards are pursuing. Staff can’t make this determination and it is up to P&Z to determine. Mr. Goode then opened for public comment. There were none appearing so he closed this portion of the hearing. Mr. Goode then opened for commissioner discussion. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels it clearly meets part of the standard but questions if it meets the traditional and historical neighborhood context part of the requirement. She feels the applicant has identified good examples of similar articulations existing within the neighborhood. Mr. Walterscheid stated he was inclined to vote in favor of the project. He feels they are meeting the intent of request to provide multiple forms and also believes it is in character with the surrounding neighborhood. He doesn’t feel the application should be judged on historic forms, and does not want to see a recreation of a Victorian home. In response to Ms. McNicholas Kury’s concerns, he wants to promote diversity over what may be deemed historic. Mr. McNellis agrees with Mr. Walterscheid. He feels the applicant has responded to P&Z’s comments and it comes down to intent for him. Because of their efforts to separate the two masses and shorten the building, he is inclined to approve the application. Mr. Morris is also inclined to move forward with the application. He doesn’t want to design the structure or make a determination regarding the historic character in the area. He feels they have moved to address the intent requirements. Mr. Goode agrees with the other commissioners. Mr. Walterscheid motioned to approve the resolution (Number 10, Series 2016) approving the requested variation. Ms. McNicholas Kury seconded the motion. Mr. Goode requested a roll call. Roll Call: Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Morris, yes; and Mr. Goode, yes; for a total five Yes votes and zero No votes (5-0). The motion passed. Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 13, 2016 5 Public Hearing – 230 E Hopkins (Mountain Forge Building) – Remand Hearing for Resolution 5, Series 2016 Mr. Goode opened the remand public hearing. Ms. Sara Nadolny, Planner Tech, noted she had provided the affidavits of notice to Ms. Bryan for review. Ms. Bryan responded she found the notices to be proper. Ms. Nadolny introduced Ms. Dana Ellis and Mr. John Rowland, Rowland & Broughton, as the applicant’s representatives. Ms. Nadolny reviewed the review history for the project. She noted it went before Council on the September 26, 2016 meeting and Council decided to remand the project for discussion on two aspects: 1. Asymmetrical roof forms found on the corners of the building 2. Massing of the building along Monarch St Ms. Nadolny then reviewed the options for P&Z and noted P&Z is the final review authority. 1. Uphold their previous decision and make no changes to Resolution 5, Series 2016 2. Request changes to the project 3. Continue the hearing to obtain further information from the applicant Ms. Nadolny reminded P&Z the building is located in a Mixed Use zone district and the height limitation is 28 ft and 32 ft can be achieved through commercial design review. The building as it exists today is nonconforming in measured height. The current height is 34 ft 8 in as measured with the existing sunken area next to the building. She then noted the nonconformity may be retained or lessened, but not expanded. She stated the applicant had previously proposed a gable form to replace the shred roof. The nonconforming area has been lessened and now measures at 34 ft 5.5 in. The applicant requested the 32 ft height variance on the other side to finish off the gable which P&Z previously granted. If the roof was to be completely symmetrical, there would be a height issue. The applicant has chosen to carry the asymmetrical gable to the alley side of the façade to create balance with the other end of the building. Ms. Nadolny then reviewed the massing of the project providing a slide of the current massing. She stated Council found the proposed massing to be too heavy, distracting from a comfortable pedestrian environment and scale. Council focused on the center element of the building and did not provide specific suggestions as to what they preferred. They did state they wanted the façade to be broken up somehow. She stated Staff has previously supported this design and have no specific concerns regarding the massing. Staff has met with the applicant to brainstorm on how to address Council’s concerns. They looked at setting back the second floor, re-dividing the building levels using dimensions and/or materials. Other ideas to be considered at final design to possibly address Council’s concerns included the following. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 13, 2016 6 1. Adding a mid-block door – She noted the proposed design currently has doors at each side of the building. 2. Change the Window size 3. Use of materials to soften the center module 4. Landscaping to help dictate the pedestrian experience with the building Staff’s recommendation is to not change the roof forms and they continue to support the current design. Staff is open to suggested changes. Mr. Goode asked if the commissioners had any questions for Staff. Mr. McNellis asked if the setbacks for the proposed building were the same as the existing building on Monarch St. Ms. Nadolny with the applicant filling in the window well, the nonconformity will be reduced. Mr. John Rowland, stated the proposed building is 18 in further back and the exterior wall will be in the same location. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Rowland stated they were left a bit sour by Council’s review, although he understands how they might perceive the massing of the proposed structure. He stated they have not prepared any changes for the P&Z hearing but are open to discussing any ideas or suggested changes. Ms. Ellis added they feel pretty strongly that a lot of their concerns can be addressed with window configurations and materiality. Mr. Rowland added first and foremost, community is number one and they want the community to be proud of the project. Ms. Ellis provided a slide exhibiting how changing the window configuration may provide the perception of a taller façade. Mr. Rowland stated because of the building’s location, they do not want a strong commercial look. He also noted they recently remodeled the interior for a tenant who plans to return after the structure remodel has been completed. Ms. Ellis pointed out the asymmetrical gables are a way to reference the gables in the direct vicinity without copying what already exists. They don’t want to copy the historic gables located nearby. Ms. Ellis provided a slide depicting possible changes with window configuration changes and proposed materials. She reminded P&Z it is a remodel and not a new building and felt perhaps Council may have been looking at it as redeveloped building. Ms. Ellis Dana reviewed how they approached gaining more sf without physically adding to the building. She hopes P&Z is supportive the small addition. She also provided examples of potential material approaches. Mr. Rowland concluded their presentation and asked for questions. Mr. Goode asked if the commissioners had any questions for the applicant. There was none. Mr. Goode asked for comment from the public. There was none so he closed this portion of the hearing. Mr. Goode then opened for commissioner discussion. Mr. Walterscheid stated he is in favor recommending approval and looks forward to the final review. Special Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission December 13, 2016 7 Mr. Morris agrees. He sees where Council may feel the massing appears to be heavy and asked the applicant to look into addressing it in the final review. Mr. McNellis does not feel the need to change the design. He understands Council’s concerns and feels there should be some attempt to respond to the tension of the mid-block of the building. He thought the middle portion may look a bit institutional, but felt the applicant could address this with fenestration and materiality. Ms. McNicholas Kury respectfully disagrees with Council regarding their concerns of the asymmetrical roof forms. She also feels the massing is appropriate for this location. Ms. McNicholas motioned to uphold Resolution 5, Series 2016. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. Mr. Goode requested a roll call. Roll Call: Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; Mr. Morris, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; and Mr. Goode, yes; for a total five Yes votes and zero No votes (5-0). The motion passed. Mr. Goode then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS None. Mr. Goode closed the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager