Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20170418Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 18, 2017 1 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the April 18, 2017 meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Ms. McNicholas Kury, Mr. Jesse Morris, Mr. Ryan Walterscheid, Mr. Keith Goode and Mr. Mesirow. Ms. Jasmine Tygre, Mr. Rally Dupps and Mr. Spencer McKnight were not in attendance. Also present from City staff; Ms. Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Justin Barker, Senior Planner and Ms. Sara Nadolny, Planner. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS: There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were none. MINUTES There were none. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were none. OTHER BUSINESS – Pedestrian Malls Walking Tour & Discussion Mr. Mesirow turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Darla Callaway, Design Workshop, noted the purpose of today’s tour is to introduce the board to the project and its phases. She stated the project is in the inventory and analysis phase. She continued to review the project noting the utilities have been place for 60-plus years and the surface improvements need an upgrade. It is considered a historic preservation project. She noted they have stakeholder and public outreach meetings scheduled. She stated there are five phases of the project and Design Workshop is contracted for phase one and two. Phase one will wrap up towards the end of the summer and then phase two will generate three conceptual design alternatives by the end of 2017. She then introduced the team members present: • Darla Callaway, Design Workshop Project Manager • Mike Albert, Design Workshop Principal in Charge • Nate Torres, NV5 • Kevin Dunnett, City of Aspen Parks Department • Tina Bishop, Mundus Bishop Landscape Architecture (not present) Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 18, 2017 2 Mr. Morris asked them to recap the primary motivating factors for the project. Ms. Callaway replied it is both the need to update the utilities and the need to repair or replace the historic bricks. Mr. Dunnett replied the City is also running out of the bricks so they are looking into alternatives. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if there have been goals defined. Ms. Callaway replied they will be outlined in the site analysis including the following: 1. Look 50 years down the road in terms of services to the buildings and storm water management 2. Maintain the historic quality 3. Look at the programming for the space 4. Treat it as an urban park Mr. Goode asked staff how P&Z and the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) will be involved in the project. Mr. Barker replied neither board has authority over the malls, only the adjacent properties which HPC has since the it is located in the historic district. He believes P&Z will be providing feedback regarding what might be appropriate for the project and the process. Mr. Mesirow asked if there is a plan for the existing trees. Ms. Callaway replied they will be provided the highest level of preservation. Mr. Dunnett noted to the board although there have been discussions on expansion of the mall and the alleys, that is not part of this project. Mr. Dunnett then reviewed the history of how the malls were built and modified over time. The board then left for a tour of the malls. Upon return from the tour, Mr. Barker asked if there was any feedback. Mr. Goode liked the idea of using materials salvaged from Aspen, such as additional bricks, and to not be caught up in matching style and color of new bricks. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels it is important to maintain the access to the storefronts when looking at the programming of the mall. She also feels there should be more public art and available spaces are currently underutilized. Mr. Mesirow feels the more activation of the space as can be supported by the infrastructure will be healthy. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels the Cooper St planters are ugly and blocks space that could be better utilized. Mr. Goode asked if the Cooper St mall is less busy than the Hyman Ave Mall. Ms. Callaway confirmed that was a fair statement. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels the shade quality is important to retain. She also believes the banks of the ditches should be retained, but perhaps look into using different materials. Ms. Callaway thanked P&Z for their time and comments. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 18, 2017 3 Mr. Mesirow closed this portion of the meeting. Public Hearings – 434 W Bleeker St – Residential Design Standard Variation Request – Continued from March 21, 2017 Mr. Mesirow opened the hearing and Ms. Bryan reminded the board this is a continued hearing. Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to the applicant. Ms. Sara Nadolny, Planner, introduced the applicant team. • Mr. Ryan Doremus, Thunderbowl Architects • Mr. Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning She then reviewed the application including its size and location. She noted there are four large trees the Parks Department do not want to be removed. She also noted the applicant previously requested a continuance to allow for time to restudy and provide a design which more closely meets the Residential Design Standard (RDS). The application is requesting a RDS variation related to the articulation of building mass. She reviewed the three options provided by the code to satisfy the requirement (p 1 & 2 of the agenda packet). She stated both the previous and current design most closely meet option 3 for increased side setbacks at the rear and step down, but do not fully meet the standard. At the March hearing, the proposed a two- story structure that stepped down to one story around 61 ft in length with no increase in the side yard setback along the western side of the lot. The applicant has proposed some slight modifications to the former design but it still requires the same variation. The significant differences in the current design include: • Slight reduction in the floor area and building length • Increased side yard setback required by code to be 45 ft depth on both sides of the building She stated the proposed structure does not step down to a one story until approximately 56 ft of the length of the building. She stated P&Z is being asked to review the proposed design against two criteria for variation. P&Z must find either the alternative design meets the standard’s intent and the general chapter standard or the variation is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Ms. Nadolny then reviewed the general intent of the RDS is to ensure structures are articulated to break up a building’s bulk and mass as well as preserve the historic neighborhood scale and character. The intent of the specific RDS standard as related to the articulation of the building mass is to reduce the overall perceived mass and bulk on all sides of the building. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 18, 2017 4 Ms. Nadolny stated the reduction in mass and scale is not being achieved by maintaining a two-story wall on the western side of the building and reduced to one-story at the 45 ft building length. She stated the code was created with the specific requirements for increased setbacks and decreased height at the 45 ft length to ensure the reduction in scale and massing is achieved on all sides of any new building. She then displayed a picture of the neighboring structure on the western side. Ms. Nadolny then discussed the secondary variation criteria. Staff agrees the trees due pose an unusual circumstance directing the placement of a structure on the lot, a two-story structure can be successfully constructed on the site without a variation. Staff believes it is always important to proceed cautiously in regard to variation of the code prescribing the mass and scale of a structure and to uphold the RDS where the standards can be achieved. Staff continues to recommend denial of the request. Mr. Mesirow asked if there were questions of staff. There were none so he then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Doremus stated they reviewed their plans after the previous hearing and felt they wanted to achieve more of the code and address P&Z’s concerns. The looked at the site as a whole and wanted the structure to meet the intent of the code by showing how it fits in with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated the buildings on either side of the lot are two-story elements with one-story step downs in the back and they meet the intent of the code. Mr. Haas pointed out on pictures how the structures step down. Mr. Doremus pointed out from the front of the lot, there is a views along the sides is minimal because of the trees located on the eastern side of the lot and the close proximity of the house on the western side. Mr. Haas added while they recognize the intent states the perceived bulk and mass from all sides, the fact is for this particular property, you don’t perceive all sides. You only perceive it from the street and the alley given the houses and privacy fences built on the other two sides. He added you can’t perceive it from all sides unless you trespass. Mr. Doremus then discussed the articulation of the proposed structure. He stated in the current design they moved the garage over to help comply with the setback requirements. He provided a picture of the layout of the main level noting the areas and lines in red to represent the adjustments to the building’s footprint to help it comply with the code. He provided a picture of the upper level layout and noted they have met the code for a large portion of the building and made adjustments to better meet the intent. They also shrunk the building to help meet the distance requirement and moved the deck to meet the five ft setback and moved the building over to meet the 45 ft setback on a large portion of the building. Mr. Haas pointed out the area outlined in green on the alley is the one-story element. Mr. Doremus then provided some angle views of the building to show it steps in multiple planes. They also tried to reduce the mass and scale at the back of the building by removing the chimney mass and the stone on the back to reduce the heaviness of the building. Mr. Haas added the entire side wall is now articulated and reiterated you will never see this in the real world due the trees, fences and neighboring structures. Mr. Doremus noted they also made a change to the roof by adding a separation in the roof to delineate the overall length of the roof to reduce the mass and size. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 18, 2017 5 Mr. Doremus added with the removal of the chimney and change in materials, the structure does not appear as heavy as what was previously proposed. He noted they are meeting the five ft setback and the one-story step down on the back portion of the building. Mr. Doremus then displayed additional perspectives of the proposed building. He stated the perceived mass is pushed back to the required 45 ft limit although there is a portion of the gable that sticks out over the garage. He showed the front side and again pointed out you would never see it. Mr. Haas believes there is a very common mistake made regarding the code. There is a difference between a variance and a variation. He described a variance is typically because you cannot comply given some site-specific hardship or topographical condition or physical condition precluding compliance. A variance is a for a very narrow standard by which they are granted and generally done so by the Board of Adjustment. A variation is built into the code purposefully to recognize there are times when there are better solutions to address the intent of a standard than simply complying with the standard. He knows he can comply with the standard, but that is not the standard by which P&Z and staff are to review it. The code does not state if the applicant can comply, then they must do so. He believes the code states variations are perfectly acceptable providing it is necessary for reasons related to site-specific constraints or an alternative design approach which addresses the intent of the standard just as effectively as meeting it. In this case, he feels the application better addresses the intent of the standard than if they complied. Mr. Haas stated the intent boils down to the bulk and mass as perceived from the public ways. For this property, they believe the perceived bulk and mass should be viewed from Bleeker St and the alley side of the property and the narrow corridors down the sides of the structure. Mr. Haas stated there are three ways to comply with the standard. 1. Limit the overall depth to no more than 50 ft – he does not feel the lot lends itself to this because there are certain development rights afforded to the property through the zoning. The development standards and trees do not compromise the development rights. There are provisions in the code for commercial zone districts regarding dimensional standards. Given the limitation on the width of the property, the applicant can’t be limited to 50 ft in depth. They know they can’t meet standard one of the three options. 2. The third option is about the same stating you can have 45 ft in depth with increased side setbacks. He stated they have already more than doubled the side yard setback on the east side due to trees. They don’t believe they can meet this option. 3. For the second option, it states you can have a two-story mass with a one-story connector in the center of the building. They can comply with this but the result is having significantly more bulk and mass on the street and alley sides of the building. Mr. Haas then provided two site plans, one which complies with the second standard and an alternative. He stated one of the site plans shows heavy massing on the front and back ends of the structure with a one-story connector in the middle where it can’t be perceived by anyone, serves no good to the public and does not forward the intent of the standard. It also does comply with the code. Mr. Haas then discussed the second site plan with the two-story masses in the front and the one-story mass in the back. Mr. Doremus pointed out the floor area for both designs are the same. He stated if they use the connector approach, they can extend the structure the entire length of the site. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 18, 2017 6 Mr. Haas displayed additional views of the proposed structure and the version that addresses the second option. He stated they do have a site-specific constraint that does not preclude compliance, but pushed them to suggest an alternative design solution that meets the intent just as well if not better. Mr. Doremus reviewed the process to repeal the denial of the tree removal permit. They decided to try to design around the trees instead of pursuing the repeal. Mr. Mesirow asked for questions for the applicant. Mr. Goode asked staff to respond to the applicant’s presentation. Ms. Nadolny responded staff did find some relief in the articulation on the western side over the first design iteration. In regards to the statements made about the underlying zoning, she stated achieving maximum floor area is never a guarantee. It is a site-specific process and this site has some constraints which may not allow for the design to achieve 100 % of the allowable floor area. As discussed at the previous hearing, they could reduce the second-floor massing. She stated the code does speak to viewing the structure from all sides. Mr. Barker added it is important to recognize the distinction of the role of the design standards in the review process. He added the design standards are not going to guarantee the best design scenario for every lot. It is also not an option A vs option B scenario, but instead the presented option should be evaluated if it meets the intent. Mr. Doremus noted they reduced the floor area in this iteration. Mr. Mesirow asked the applicant why they did not come forward with the design which meets the code. Mr. Doremus replied to meet the intent of the code is a larger perceived mass and scale as viewed by all angles. They feel the building is better with the one-story setback. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked for the dimensions of the hashed area on the upper level floor plan shown on p 23 in the agenda packet. Mr. Doremus stated it is roughly 12 ft long by 17 ft wide. Mr. Mesirow asked why they could not simply have taken off the upper portion as he had stated in the previous hearing would allow him to find it to meet the standard. Mr. Haas replied they could meet option two but if you lop it off it has to go somewhere. Mr. Doremus stated because of the trees, they were unable to move the area near them and would make it out of compliance in other areas. Mr. Mesirow understands why the applicant prefers the proposed design over what meets the standard. Mr. Mesirow then closed that portion of the hearing. Mr. Mesirow opened the public comment. No one wanted to comment so he closed this portion of the hearing. Mr. Mesirow then opened for commissioner discussion. Mr. Morris asked staff if any letters had been received. Ms. Nadolny replied none had been received. Mr. Doremus stated they reached out to the neighbors and a park is located across the street from the lot. Mr. Morris asked is it a reasonable request to lop off roughly 200 sf of living space to adhere to the standard which he feels is a little extreme. He understands the two design options should not be compared but does find it a useful exercise to see the two options. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 18, 2017 7 Mr. Walterscheid sees the trees as a site constraint because they are located within the building envelope. He sympathizes and feels the proposed design is better than the one that meets the intent. Ms. McNicholas Kury agrees with Mr. Morris. Mr. Mesirow asked if there is concern if both adjacent lots were to be rebuilt in the future. Ms. McNicholas Kury is concerned about that situation and does not prescribe to the situation that says what happens on this lot is impacted by what the neighbors have done. She is undecided at this point. Mr. Goode does not like the option with the massing on both ends of the building and does not feel that is the intent of the code. At the same time, he does feel the building should be viewed from all sides where it is visible. He does not like the idea the applicant is proposing one design and another stating this is how bad it could be if we build what is allowed. Ms. McNicholas Kury does not feel the option showing how bad it can be was given the opportunity to be vetted by staff. Mr. Goode and Mr. Mesirow agree the trees do present a hardship. Mr. Morris stated it would have been nice to see a design that was not the extreme option and adhered to the design standards. Mr. Doremus stated the exercise was not to show how ugly a design could be and he wanted to point out they wanted to compare the code to their option. They wanted to show their process meets the intent. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated she is not in favor of the request. Mr. Mesirow stated he would also vote no. He understands there are site constraints but there are options to work within the code and desires continuity. He added he would also be happy to continue the hearing but he would need to see something that met the 45 ft length or steps down. Mr. Morris noted he would support a continuance. Mr. Mesirow asked the applicant if they would be interested in a continuance. Mr. Haas stated if they don’t get a variance, they move forward with the dumbbell design and the board shot themselves in the foot. Mr. Goode motioned to approve Resolution 9, Series 2017 as drafted. Mr. Walterscheid seconded the motion. Mr. Mesirow requested a roll call. Roll call: Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. Morris, no; Ms. McNicholas Kury, no; and Mr. Mesirow, no for a total two yes and three no (2-3). The motion was not approved. Mr. Mesirow then closed the hearing. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 18, 2017 8 OTHER BUSINESS None. A motion was made to adjourn and seconded. All in favor, motion passed. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager