Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20140304Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2014 LJ Erspamer, Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Tygre, Gibbs, Walterscheid, McNellis, Nieuwland-Zlotnicki, and Elliott present. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Sara Naldony COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. Tygre said she stopped by the open houses at Aspen Square on her way to the meeting. There are 3 studios on the market. She said these are an example of the type of lodging that has worked for the past 40 years. She said Staff’s hybrid units may be similar to these. They rent well and have been upgraded by the owners and are competitive. She said they are only 500 square feet. Mr. Erspamer said he had dinner with someone who works at the Limelight and they said they are busy in the off season. They have a Colorado rate and they are full. STAFF COMMENTS: Jennifer Phelan gave two dates for the commission training and the board agreed to the 3-18 meeting since so far there is no agenda item. Debbie Quinn suggested that at the training each member give a brief background so the members get to know each other. Ms. Phelan said that council gets their packets through a software where the info is uploaded and wanted to know if there is a preference for paper packets or going digital. Mr. Erspamer said he prefers paper. There was no interest from the commission in going paperless. Ms. Phelan asked if the commission still wants to receive the Community Development Update and they said yes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There are no public comments. MINUTES – February 18, 2014 Ms. Tygre made a motion to approve the modified minutes seconded by Mr. Elliott. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Gibbs recused himself from the public hearing for 431/433 W. Hallam St. Ms. Quinn explained what a conflict of interest is. Public Hearings – 431/433 W. Hallam, Residential Design Standards Variances – Continued public hearing Ms. Phelan stated the application was heard on January 7th but there was a limited board so the applicant’s representative asked for a continuation to this meeting. This application is for 431/433 W Hallam St. Dylan Johns is the representative. The property is a duplex on a corner lot in the West End. The existing duplex is proposed for demolition with replacement of a new single family residence. The lot is 6000 square feet and does not have alley access. The residential design standards for lots with no alley access require that the garage be set back 10 feet further than the front most wall of the house. The design of garages are to have the look of being single stall doors or looking like single stall doors to break up the massing of the garage doors. The applicant is requesting not to be required to set the 1 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2014 garage back the additional 10 feet but be flush with the side façade along 4th Street. They are also asking to provide a double door that matches the surrounding materials. Ms. Phelan stated the residential design standards are in place to preserve neighborhood character and to ensure homes contribute to the street scape and ensure parking is concentrated to the rear or side of each residence. The intent with garage doors is to minimize the presence of garages as a lifeless part of the street scape where alleys do not exist. There are a few standards to grant a variance including the board needs to determine an appropriate design considering the context and purpose on the neighborhood or be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site constraints. Ms. Phelan said Staff does not feel there are any reasons that create an unusual site constraint. It is a 6000 square foot lot with frontage on two sides of the street. She said the one finding you could possibly make is it is an appropriate design considering the context. Ms. Phelan stated there are a lot of different periods of development in this area. There is newer development that has access off of the street for driveways instead of alley access. There are also homes that have garages off the alleys. She stated the purpose of the standard is to minimize the visual impact of garages. The typical West End pattern is to have garages detached from the main residence. She stated with redevelopment Staff feels the standard should be met. The West End context overall warrants meeting the standard and Staff does not see this as having any type of unusual site constraint. She stated the applicant has shown that the standard can be met but prefer not to meet it. Staff is recommending that the request be denied. Mr. Elliott asked if the recommendation to deny is for both the set back and garage door materials. Ms. Phelan replied yes. Mr. Walterscheid asked if the Hallam side is considered the front yard and asked about an alternate front yard. Ms. Phelan said the front yard requirement is for Hallam, and 4th Street is considered a side yard. She said there is no longer an alternate front yard. She said the combined set back for this is a total of 15 feet with a minimum of five. The determination for front yard is the longest block face. She said the closer the garage gets to the set back the more potential you have for a car to be parked in front of the garage into the right of way. There are currently no sidewalk improvements there now but that doesn’t preclude that one may be installed in the future. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked if the set back of the garage is currently from the front façade of the building not the edge of the street. Ms. Phelan said it is required from the front façade of the street facing wall. Dylan Johns, representing the applicant, said there is currently an encroachment of about 5 feet into the se back and an existing car port. He showed a neighborhood map indicating 11 lots that have a similar garage condition that they are asking for with this application. He said they feel strongly that the context in this environment is not counter to what they are asking for. He said there is a hardship to this property owner because they cannot take advantage of access to the alley. He said there has been some discussion about getting that access from the property owner with the empty lot blocking access, either with an easement or purchasing the land outright. He said at this point it is only a speculation. Mr. Johns stated as far as the second criteria of the design standard regarding being clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints they feel strongly that it is a site specific constraint and a hardship. From their perspective he said the definition of a hardship is being forced to do something due to circumstances outside of your control and not conforming to the typical situation that the rules are patterned after. He said there are not too many options as to how they reconfigure the house. He said they are able to do it but the property owner is having a pretty large loss of their outdoor area because the garage is being pushed back. He said this area of the West End is not 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2014 a sidewalk attainment zone. He also said this particular lot is several feet above the street level and there is a noticeable slope. Mr. Johns said the attempt to camouflage the doors is to really reduce the presence of the garage from the street. He said if the commission prefers a two door solution they are fine with it. He said it is possible to keep the massing as it was and have the plane of the garage come across in the same way. He said Staffs opinion is based on what the code says they need to do but it is not about whether the code says you can or can’t but whether the code makes sense to this application and if other factors apply. Mr. Erspamer asked what was added since the last presentation. Mr. Johns said he added the slide showing the pushed back version with the door face out to break up the façade. Mr. Erspamer asked how many of the 11 lots with the same configuration have been built recently. Mr. Johns pointed out several Victorians, a converted garage, a duplex and one built in the 70’s. Mr. Erspamer asked Mr. Johns where he got the definition of hardship. Mr. Johns replied that is his understanding of the definition. Ms. Phelan said there is no definition of hardship in the code. Mr. Erspamer asked if there is an easement for a side walk. Mr. Johns said no. Ms. Phelan said there is public right of way of about 10 feet on either side of the curb. She said the property line is shared with the right of way. Ms. Tygre said there was a time when properties were redeveloped they were required to join a sidewalk improvement district. Ms. Phelan said she doesn’t know anything about that. Mr. McNellis said from the roof plan it does not look like they are losing any yard space. Mr. Johns put up a diagram that illustrates the yard loss better than what was in the handout. He said the reason of pushing the upper mass forward is to get more sky. Mr. Goode asked if they did have access from the alley would they need the set back. Mr. Johns said if they had alley access the wall of the garage could go up along the front façade by right. Mr. McNellis asked in that situation would the material change on that side of the house be required. Mr. Johns said other than materials being used appropriately there would be no need. Mr. Erspamer asked if they could they make a façade on the garage door to look like two doors without actually having two doors. Mr. Johns said they can and would be happy to do that if the commission didn’t like the hidden concept. Mr. Erspamer opened the public comment. No Public comment. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment period. Ms. Tygre stated Mr. Johns comment on how he interprets the code may apply to him but the commission needs to follow the code the way it is written. She said looking at A and B in the standards, the appropriate design or pattern of development considering context doesn’t mean every single house that is existing has to have a certain context for it to be considered neighborhood context. The overall impression of the West End is one where we want to minimize the appearance of garages. The fact there are exceptions is not a convincing argument. She stated the second one about unusual site specific constraints refers to things like a creek running through or physical constraints not that the applicant bought a piece of property without alley access. She stated that was a choice and not a site specific constraint. She stated for those two reasons she has to support Staffs recommendation. Mr. Walterscheid said based on his understanding of how the lot is set up the garage does not face the front of the house and in his opinion where the code states “the part which shall be set back at least ten feet further from the street than the front most wall of the house”. He said although it is facing the side street it is not facing the front of the house. He said he has done the same thing Mr. Johns is suggesting 3 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2014 and would support him completely. He said he does find it site constrained because they do not get to access the alley as the rest of the neighborhood does. Mr. Erspamer said the question is, is this a hardship because there is no alley access. Ms. Phelan stated there are other lots in the West End that don’t have alley access, Pearl Ct., North 4th St., Lake Ave. Mr. Walterscheid stated the garage doesn’t face the front of the house. Ms. Phelan stated that Staff’s opinion is that this is a corner lot with two streets and is applicable to any street facing façade. Mr. Walterscheid said the way he reads the code is it has to be 10 feet further from the street than the front most wall of the house. The front of the house is what is pointing up on the page, opposite the garage. Mr. Erspamer asked if it is a 10 foot set back for either street. Ms. Phelan said Staff would say whether the garage entry is facing Hallam or 4th the garage has to be 10 feet back from the wall along that street. Mr. McNellis said that Staff has interpreted that section of the code correctly. He said it does not matter what road it is facing. The 10 foot standard still applies. He said he agrees with Ms. Tygre that the standards are put in place because of some of the things seen around the neighborhood. He said he does not necessarily agree with them but that is what he sees when interpreting the code. He said with regard to the character of the siding he can see a hardship with the inability to access the alley. He said if they were able to access the alley they would be able to do what they want with the façade along that side. Mr. McNellis said he is more supportive of option #3 which has the recessed 10 foot garage but allows them to have a continuous material rather than two car ports. Mr. Erspamer asked why the set back was picked as 10 feet. Ms. Phelan said they are trying to create some relief along the façade with the garage being not as prominent along the streetscape. Mr. Erspamer said originally he was firm on the belief of Ms. Tygre but since the applicant can’t access the alley along the side he asked if it would be possible to have it far enough back so the car is clear of any sidewalk. He asked if there is a compromise to the code. Ms. Phelan said the parking space requirement in the code is 18 feet. Mr. McNelllis said with a recessed garage the more space there is to allow a vehicle to be fully within the property is always a good thing. He said they would meet the standard of 18 feet with a recessed garage. Mr. Elliott asked what wall the set back is referred to. Ms. Phelan said the measurement is from the property line to the face of the building, structural frame. There are set back requirements based on front yard, rear yard or side yard. Mr. Erspamer said #3 is ok as long as there is one garage door with a façade and would go with the 10 foot set back. Mr. Goode said he is in agreement with Staff. He said the owner could purchase the lot next door and there would be no need for the set back. Mr. Elliott said the property is not inexpensive so would that qualify as a hardship. Mr. Johns said purchasing the lot is not out of the realm of possibility but does not know how realistic it is. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki said when you purchase a corner lot it comes with some advantages but there are drawbacks. He said the set backs should apply to both sides since Hallam and 4th are both principle streets. Mr. McNelllis asked if this would have to go before HPC. Ms. Phelan replied no the West End is individually designated properties. Mr. Johns said it is difficult to know what is allowed and what will fit onto a site before a property is purchased. He said if this property was traditionally developed there would be more street frontage. 4 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2014 Mr. Erspamer said there are two decisions, one about the garage door and the set back of the garage. Ms. Tygre made a motion to deny resolution 2. No second, motion died. Mr. Walterscheid made a motion to approve resolution 2. No second, motion died. Raise of hand vote to see where the commission stands: who wants no ten foot set back – one vote Who is in favor of ten foot set back – six votes. Can there be a single garage door to make it look like two garage doors – Mr. Walterscheid said what they are approving is an alternate material to make it appear as one door. six votes Ms. Phelan said currently the one garage door variance is written so that the door materials match the surrounding materials and wants to be clear that the one garage door can have separate looking materials. Mr. McNellis said it could be separate materials or match the siding. Mr. Erspamer said he prefers to leave it to the applicant. Ms. Phelan said the motion will be to amend section one to deny variance 1a and 1b is granted with the change that it is a two car garage door that either matches the materials used surrounding the garage or alternative materials. Mr. Erspamer asked her to state it again and Ms. Phelan said it would allow applicant to build a two car garage door that does not need to look like a two stall door and there will be no language of materials. Mr. McNellis made a motion to approve resolution 2 as written with the changes to deny 1a and change 1b to have a two car garage door that does not need to look like a two stall door, seconded by Mr. Goode. Roll Call: Mr. Elliott yes, Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki yes, Mr. Walterscheid Yes, Mr. McNellis yes, Mr. Goode yes, Ms. Tygre No, Mr. Erspamer Yes. Motion carries. 825 Roaring Fork Road – Residential Design Standards Variance Ms. Quinn said she has reviewed both affidavits of public notice, exhibit c, and they are appropriate. Sara Nadolny, planner technician, said the applicant is Charles and Elizabeth Koch Real Estate Trust and representing the project are Glenn Horn and Julie Maple. She stated it is a land use review regarding residential design standard. It is a residential West End property in the R15 zone district in the Second Aspen Company Subdivision. The property is undergoing a remodel of the front façade and the applicant is requesting a variance from the standard that prohibits windows in the 9-12 foot area. The reason for the standard is to preserve the established neighborhood scale and character and promote the pedestrian experience. She stated the 9-12 foot zone is typically an area where a 2nd level would exist. The separation breaks up the massing of the building into two recognizable floors and reduces the bulk of the building. Ms. Nadolny said the applicant is proposing two windows at the front door location on either side of the transom. The transom is permitted by right in the code. The windows are approximately 4 ½ feet wide by 2 feet tall. Only one foot of the height spans into the no window zone. She stated there are two criteria to judge a variance, either a hardship on the lot-site specific constraint or an established neighborhood character. She said this is a remodel and they are not finding any site specific constraints. She stated this is a very diverse neighborhood with different types of architectural styles. She said all of the homes in the neighborhood were built prior to the no window zone code which was included in the code in 2005. She stated the majority of the homes do not have this condition visible. 5 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2014 She said it is not an established neighborhood character to base a variance on. Ms. Nadolny said if the windows are permitted they will create a larger glass frontage and there will be little to break up the front façade into two distinct levels. She stated it is new development and Staff feels if it is new development and the standard can be met it should be met. Staff is not recommending approval of this variance. Glenn Horn, representing the applicant along with Julie Maple, stated they are requesting two windows on either side of the door in the 9-12 foot no window space. He said the house is currently being remodeled and there is an active permit. He said the current design is for metal panels but if the variance is granted they will be changed to windows. Mr. Horn stated the code reads “provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context into which the development is proposed”. He stated the commission may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or broader vicinity. Mr. Horn said this portion of the West End is zoned R15 instead of R6 and the minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet. He pointed out that there is no alley and the design is dominated by the garages and driveways. He said people don’t walk on Roaring Fork Road to get to the Music Tent or Harris Hall but use the pedestrian trail. Mr. Horn said the set back is 38 feet from the front door to the edge of the property. There are 34 spruce trees with a diameter greater than 8 inches. There are 19 aspen trees with a diameter 5 inches or greater. He said the trees tend to dominate the experience of a pedestrian on the street rather than the relationship to the house. Mr. Horn showed several photos taken from last week depicting the heavy screening from the trees. He said the only spot where the home is visible is from the driveway. He said the dominant character of the neighborhood is established by the vegetation and not the front facades of the buildings. Mr. Horn said one concern of Staff is the creation of a precedence if the variance is granted. He said you can differentiate this request from others due to the unique characteristics of Roaring Fork Road. He said given the neighborhood context they feel there is enough information that would warrant the variance for windows in the 9-12 foot space. Ms. Maple said for the client it is an issue of proportion and aesthetics. Ms. Tygre asked why glass. She said there is a lot of glass and asked why the client wants that much glass. Ms. Maple said it was originally glass. Ms. Tygre pointed out that the door was not glass. Ms. Maple said the client likes the transparency and likes to look out into the yard. Ms. Tygre asked about at night when the house has the lights on as to how much light comes out of the windows and door. Ms. Maple said there are shades on the windows and does not think there would be more light than there was before. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there is anything that limits the width of the transom to be the same width of the door. Ms. Naldony said the code states a transom is the window above the door. Ms. Maple stated they started out by asking for a taller door but that request was denied. She said they raised the roof to allow for the transom. Mr. Gibbs asked how far the roof above the door projects out. Ms. Maple said it is about 12 inches. Mr. Erspamer asked about creating precedence stating that P&Z has been told in the past that any decision they make does not set precedence for future decisions. Ms. Quinn said she is not familiar with that position. She said each application needs to be considered and there are ways to distinguish one from the other. 6 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission March 4, 2014 Mr. Erspamer opened the public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment. Mr. Erspamer stated he is all for an administrative review but understands Staffs position. He said he is in favor for letting the applicant do these two windows, it is south facing and typical of other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Goode brought up the argument that it is so hidden they should get the variance. When you start talking about code why bother having any code for the whole property. He said they can follow the code or not. Mr. Walterscheid said the immediate context of the entry door whether the windows in question are glass or metal there will be a window shaped object there. The intent to prohibit those two items seems extreme. If the code allows a transom above the door why wouldn’t they be allowed to do a transom above the side lights. Mr. McNellis said he agrees with Mr. Walterscheid but he also agrees with Mr. Goode. He said he thinks the intent of the code applies to more Victorian architecture. He said personally he thinks windows would look better there. He said the entryway feature acts as the differentiation of the upper and lower floors. Mr. Elliott said the transom created the separation of the floors. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki said much of the code language is predicated on the pedestrian experience but given the vegetation, the set back and the more suburban nature of the pedestrian oriented logic does not necessarily apply for this area. Ms. Tygre said the fact the lot is so wooded and the windows would not be obvious to a pedestrian would affect her decision. She said she is concerned with light pollution but it is not one of the criteria. Mr. Walterscheid made a motion to approve request for variance as set forth in resolution 3. Seconded by Mr. Gibbs. Ms. Tygre said given the context of this particular wooded lot she would like to make a reference that this resolution applies to this specific lot and that they specifically met criterion A. Ms. Quinn said if they wish to amend, it can be done in the second to last whereas clause. Ms. Quinn said it would be a friendly amendment as long as it is accepted by Mr. Walterscheid and Mr. Gibbs. Roll call vote; Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki yes, Mr. Elliott yes, Mr. Walterscheid yes, Mr. Goode yes, Ms. Tygre yes, Mr. Gibbs yes, Mr. Erspamer yes. All in favor, motion passed. Mr. McNellis made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Walterscheid. All in favor, motion passed. 7