Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20170321Regular Meeting   Planning &Zoning Commission March 21, 2017 1         Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order for March  21, 2017 at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Ryan Walterscheid, Keith  Goode, Rally Dupps and Skippy Mesirow.    Brian McNellis, Spencer McKnight and Jesse Morris were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Andrea Bryan, Jennifer Phelan and Sara Nadolny.    COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. Tygre wanted to note the Galena shuttle no longer goes in the loop by the elevator to the parking garage. She feels it is confusing for folks who arrive to the plaza using the parking garage elevator may find it confusing to find the Galena shuttle.    Ms. Tygre also wanted to note as she heads west on Durant Ave, she sees bicycles and worries there is no place for them to go when they reach Hunter St and run into the bulb out.      STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan reviewed the upcoming schedule noting the upcoming elections.  May 2 – Regular Election – Meeting cancelled  May 16 – Regular meeting scheduled  May 23 – Possibly a special meeting if needed June 6 – Runoff Election – Meeting cancelled June 20 – Regular meeting scheduled  June 27 – Possibly a special meeting if needed  July 4 – Fourth of July – Meeting cancelled      PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments.      MINUTES Ms. Tygre stated she would provide a couple of small corrections directly to Ms. Klob.  Mr. Goode motioned to approve all the draft minutes (listed below) including Ms. Tygre’s corrections. Mr. Walterscheid seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed.    a. January 17th b. January 24th c. January 31st d. February 2nd e. February 21st      DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations.  Regular Meeting   Planning &Zoning Commission March 21, 2017 2         PUBLIC HEARINGS 433 W Bleeker St – Residential Design Standard Variation Review   Mr. Mesirow opened the hearing and then turned the floor over to staff.    Ms. Bryan stated she reviewed the notices of affidavit and found them to be adequate.    Ms. Sara Nadolny, Planner, reviewed the location of the project, noting it is a vacant 6,000 sf lot in the medium density (R‐6) zone district. She added there are four fairly large trees on the site including three Spruce trees on the front of the lot and a Douglass fir toward the rear of the lot which are not eligible to be removed per the city forester. The applicant is proposing to construct a two‐story single family home and requesting a variation of the residential design standard (RDS) dealing with the articulation of the building mass. She stated this is a nonflexible standard requiring approval by the commission.    Ms. Nadolny then reviewed the intent of the standard including what is required based on the standard. She stated the code provides three options to meet the standard (pp 43‐44 of the agenda packet). She stated the applicant is proposing a design that does not really meet any of the options, but most closely echoes the third option. She then provided a view of the proposed design from the second story (p 44 of agenda packet), adding the building is two‐story in height for over 61 ft and steps down to one‐story at the rear of the building for just over 12 ft. An additional second‐story setback is proposed on the eastern side of the property for 11 ft.    She continued stating the applicant proposed design is in response to trees on the site. No development is permitted within the survey drip lines of the trees.    She explained in order to grant a variation from the RDS, the request must be found to meet one of the two criteria listed on p 43 of the agenda packet. Ms. Nadolny then discussed the first criteria to determine if the project meets the overall intent as identified in the first standard. She stated the R‐6 zone district requires a 15 ft combined side yard setback, noting the western side of the proposed building meets the minimum of this which is five ft from the property line. The neighboring property on the same side; constructed in 2008 under different standards, also sits with a 5 ft side‐yard setback. The proposed building has very little articulation on this side. There is none at the rear of the building. She noted there is also little articulation on the north façade where the building steps down. Staff does not feel the proposed design meets the standard for articulation.    Ms. Nadolny then discussed the second criteria which deals with site specific constraints. Staff acknowledges the trees on site pose an inconvenience for the development and drives certain elements of the design. The setbacks on the eastern side of the property are a little over 16 ft where a 10 ft setback is required. Staff cannot find the case the trees impose a design that is the only way it could be developed. The property can still be developed and meet the RDS by reducing the two‐story element at the 45 ft point and increasing the side yard setbacks per the code. She displayed a picture of the  western façade on p. 46 of the agenda which shows a red dashed line indicating where second story needs to be stepped down. It may mean a smaller home is developed, but could achieve a more pedestrian scale of development.    In closing, Staff is recommending denial of the request for variation.  Regular Meeting   Planning &Zoning Commission March 21, 2017 3         Mr. Mesirow asked for questions of staff.    Mr. Dupps asked if approved, are the elevations shown indicative of the placement of doors and windows. Ms. Nadolny stated the elevations are used to indicate massing rather than details.    Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to the applicant.    Mr. Ryan Doremus, Thunderbowl Architects, introduced himself and Mr. Matt Smith, Thunderbowl  Architects and Gavin.    He stated they spoke with city forester when they started on project to establish the requirements because this is the most restrictive part of this site. The site is centrally located flat lot with alley.    He provided a slide indicating the non‐developable areas on the site based on setback requirements or the drip lines for the trees.    Mr. Doremus then read the intent of the code and stated they were unable to meet the specific standard, so their intent is to meet the overall design intent for the lot. He added they are restricted by the trees. When they looked into meeting this standard, it turned into not meeting other standards. They have attempted to design a building which represents Aspen’s style as well as a building that did not have all the mass in the front with smaller mass in the back. He noted the outline of the buildings on neighboring properties to provide a comparison. One of the buildings was built in 2008 and the other one was built closer to 2000. He noted the massing on both extends through the lot. They plan to step  their mass down at the garage. He provided an image of the proposed design noting where it would step down and pointed the area requiring the variance because it is past the 45 ft limit.    He then pointed out an area in the front which was colored green and noted it is the exact same size that would match the same area they are requesting they could in theory fit the space if not restricted by the trees. He feels the context of the site drove the design.    He provided a prospective of the proposed structure looking down on it (p. 60 from the agenda), noting it is stepped in and the walkway is covered on the front. He then pointed out the areas eligible to be developed and those that are not. He pointed out an area that is a deck. They feel they tried to fit the context of the neighborhood. He spoke with Amy Simon, Senior Planner, regarding the context of the home.    Mr. Mesirow asked for questions of the applicant.    Mr. Walterscheid asked staff if Mr. Carlson provided formal commentary regarding the trees. Ms. Nadolny stated she had asked if he wanted to provide anything formal and he replied no. He did say the drip lines looked appropriate and was mostly worried about the measurements. Mr. Doremus added they had met with Mr. Carlson onsite as well to work through what should be included in the construction mitigation plan (CMP).    Ms. Nadolny asked to clarify the hashed line on the elevation as shown on p. 46 designates the 45 ft measurement, but they must also step in five ft.    Mr. Mesirow then asked for public comment. There was none so he closed this portion of the hearing.  Regular Meeting   Planning &Zoning Commission March 21, 2017 4           Mr. Mesirow then opened for commissioner discussion. Mr. Walterscheid recognizes the site constraints.  Mr. Goode agreed with Mr. Walterscheid, but recalled a previous hearing where the applicant had to  come back multiple times with a modified design in order to obtain an approval. He believes the code is in place for a reason and wanted to hear what the others had to say.    Ms. Tygre stated she had visited the site to look at the trees. She does not see it as an unusual situation noting it may be an inconvenience, but feels they could work within the code. She does not feel the current proposal meets the massing intent. She believes they could revise the plan and meet the code.  Ms. McNicholas Kury sees the project have a blank slate to work with and concurs with Ms. Tygre. Mr. Mesirow asked the applicant if they would be interested in a continuation. Mr. Doremus replied  they have spent countless hours on the project and will need a variation of some kind because of the trees. The trees in the front of the lot impact how the structure faces the street. He stated more than  half of the front is blocked by trees. He feels the mass and scale meets the intent. They have a one‐story step down. He feels they are only missing one dimensional requirement.    Mr. Mesirow asked about the allowable floor area ratio (FAR). Ms. Nadolny feels it is a FAR issue. She does not believe it is an either or situation. She noted code states the FAR is not a guarantee, but allows for the most under the best circumstances. In order to meet the code, the floor area would have to be reduced from what was currently proposed.    Mr. Mesirow agrees with Ms. Tygre and Ms. McNicholas Kury.    Mr. Dupps asked if there was a higher position than the city forester to remove the trees. Ms. Phelan stated if they submitted the application, they could appeal it to Council. Ms. Phelan believed they should check with the Parks department.    Mr. Mesirow explained the options to the applicant and asked if they want the board to move forward or continue the hearing. Mr. Doremus would like to hear what the board expects in terms of a revision instead of going back to the drawing board. He believes it comes down to the mass and scale of one side of the building, but not necessarily the step‐down.    Ms. McNicholas Kury believes the code provides three clear options and would need to see why none of these could be met.    Mr. Dupps stated he cannot make recommendations regarding revising the design, but feels they need to meet the RDS code and recognizes the trees are an issue.    Mr. Mesirow stated the 61 ft mass is a deal breaker for him.    Ms. Tygre hesitates on how to tell them on how to design and agrees with Ms. McNicholas Kury.  Regular Meeting   Planning &Zoning Commission March 21, 2017 5         Mr. Walterscheid suggested if they do not want to change the design, perhaps they could demonstrate why it won’t work any other way.    Mr. Doremus asked for a continuance. Ms. Phelan suggested April 4th with the packet due next week or  April 18th.    Ms. Tygre motioned to continue the hearing until April 18th and was seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury. All in favor, the motion was approved.    Mr. Mesirow then closed the hearing.          OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business.        It was motioned to adjourn the meeting and was seconded. All in favor, the motion was approved and the meeting was adjourned.        Cindy Klob  City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager