Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20140401 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 1,2014 U Erspamer,Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Gibbs, McNellis, Nieuwland- Zlotnicki and Goode present. Also present from City staff, Debbie Quinn, Sara Naldony and Chris Bendon COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Erspamer stated he worked at the airport this past weekend helping with the disabled veterans arriving. He wanted to thank all the volunteers for their great work. STAFF COMMENTS: Chris Bendon stated he is just here for the opening as he is also at the council work session. Debbie Quinn said there is a procedure format on the back of the agenda and this is the ideal. These meetings are a quasi-judicial process where facts are applied to standards. Ms. Quinn review the process. Mr. Erspamer asked if he can set a timeline. Mr. Bendon said Staff can help with that and will work with applicants to observe expected timelines. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There are no public comments. MINUTES - February 18, 2014 Mr. McNellis made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by Mr. Goode. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST No declaration of conflict of interest. Public Hearings - 1330 Mountain View Drive - Residential Design Standards Variances Mr. Erspamer opened the public hearing. Ms.Quinn received the affidavits on notice, exhibit F, and notice has been appropriately provided. Sara Naldony, planning department, stated this is a public hearing to determine the granting of four variances. She stated the property is a one story single family home located in the R15 zone district. The home is on the corner of North Street and Mountain View Drive and currently oriented towards the corner. The driveway is currently accessed off of North Street. The applicants have received an administrative approval for a boundary adjustment between this and the neighboring north parcel but has not been updated in GIS yet. The applicant has proposed a two story single family home and has received permission to relocate the driveway off of Mtn View Drive. Ms. Nadolny stated that some of the design choices selected by the architects were due to feedback given by Staff during the design process. There are two criteria to consider to base a variance on. The first is to provide an appropriate pattern of design given the context of the neighborhood and the purpose of the particular standard. The second is fairness due to a site specific constraint. There are four variances requested. Ms. Nadolny stated the first two variances are due to design guidance given by Staff that this was a curvilinear street rather than a corner lot. This was earlier in the process but staff has reconsidered this to be a corner lot. 1 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 1,2014 1. Building orientation. The orientation is based on it being a curvilinear lot. On a corner street it requires both of the street facing facades to be parallel to the street. Staff has found it is typical of homes in the neighborhood to meet the standard and they have not found any site specific constraints that would grant the requirement of the variance. 2. Garage orientation. She stated garages that are in front of the buildings front fagade should be side loaded with the doors hidden from view. She said the intention of the applicant was to meet the code by side loading the doors. She said it is not achieved due to the building orientation of it being a corner lot instead of a curvilinear one. Ms. Nadolny said it is not unusual to see front facing doors in this neighborhood but is not something Staff wants to promote with new development. She also said they did not find any site specific constraint that would require the granting of the variance. 3. Location of front door. Ms. Nadolny said the residential design standard states the entry door shall be no more than ten feet back from the front most wall of the building. She said she is measuring it as approximately 30 feet back when measured to the garage. The front door is located in an area that is visible but is not quite typical of residences in this neighborhood. She said Staff does not find it to meet either criteria to grant the variance. 4. Windows that span the 9-12 foot zone. Ms. Nadolny said this is typically an area where a second story would exist. She said the windows are on either side of the transom and are located on a one story element and there is no mistaking that this could be a second level. She stated that given the intent and the purpose of the standard Staff finds the intent of the standard has been met. Ms. Nadolny said Staff is recommending clear approval of the variance request for the windows, number four. They are recommending denial for the requests relating to building orientation, garage orientation and front door location. She stated they have not found a clear relationship between the proposal and the criteria. She said that staff appreciates the design for the lot and they do need to defer to the commission. Mr. McNellis asked how the dialog transpired from a curvilinear lot to a corner lot. Ms. Nadolny said it started at the pre-app and went further before they decided it was a corner lot. She said there was a lot of discussion between Staff on this. She said she was basing her original recommendation on a property on Francis Street. Mr. Erspamer asked if North Street is a public street and Ms. Nadolny replied it is a private street. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked what the required front yard set back is. Ms. Nadolny said 25 feet. Mr. Gibbs asked how many buildings off the area have side loaded garages. Ms. Nadolny said she couldn't say exactly but there are a fair amount of front facing garages. She said the size of the lot is what enables the garage to be in front of the house and side loaded. Mr. Erspamer asked what way the garage should sit. Ms. Nadolny said they would expect to see it facing Mountain View Drive. He said if there is a 30 foot set back for the door and the garage is there how can the door be ten foot back. Ms. Nadolny said it would depend on the design. Ms. Nadolny corrected that North Street is a public Street. 2 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 1,2014 Ali Gidfar, Studio 303, and Michelle Frankel, Choreotect Studio are representing the applicant,The Joseph P.Tallman Legacy Trust. Mr.Gidfar said they were challenged by the triangular nature of the site. He said the design concept was to use the shape of the site to their advantage by creating a massing that looks like open arms to the street. He stated they have the support of the HOA. Mr.Gidfar said the house is formed by three wings,the west side family wing, the south side garage, kitchen and family room and the east wing is the guest wing. He stated the definition of the variance that is requested as variance one is the front facades of all principle structures shall be parallel to the street. On corner lots, both street facing facades must be parallel to the intersecting streets. He said according to the definition they will have to address both sides of the design. He said the main facade that faces the street is parallel to the tangent of Mountain View and near parallel to North Street. He said they designed to what they thought was appropriate. Mr. Gidfar said based on variance one their interpretation of the garage doors is that they are perpendicular to North Street. He said they wanted to make sure people coming into the neighborhood would not be staring at the garage doors as well as people leaving the neighborhood. He said they will use landscaping to break up the mass of the garage. He showed an example of 1245 Mountain View of a garage that is 90 degrees to the street using trees to partially block the view. Mr. Gidfar said for variance three they feel the front door is very clear as to where it is due to the glazing on either side. He said even though it doesn't meet the letter of the code the spirit of it is there. The front door is prominent. He stated that for variance four they are violating the height by six inches but because how clear the second floor element is the glazing should be included as part of the first floor. Ms. Frankel pointed out that North Street is more of a cul-de-sac. She said they are embracing North Street as part of the fagade line. Mr. Gibbs asked what the dimension from the door to the right side of the front of the building is. Mr. Gidfar replied 21 feet. Mr. McNellis asked assuming it is a curvilinear street, how many variances would be needed. Mr. Gidfar replied two,the front door and the glazing. He said they believe they have complied with the code. Ms. Nadolny said if it was a curvilinear street they would only need the two variances. Mr. Gidfar said the issue of whether it is a corner lot or facing two streets,to them it is more about the two streets than a corner issue. He said the lot line is clearly there and it is about facing North Street. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki said if they were to set back the building 25 feet from Mountain View Drive there isn't much left to face North Street and would support the site being curvilinear over a corner lot. Mr. Gidfar said he would agree with that. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked if the front door is closer to the street than the majority of houses on Mountain View. Mr. Gidfar said it is very close. Mr. Goode said with the amount of glass being used on the ground level is there a concern with light pollution to the neighbors. Mr. Gidfar said it will be detailed with shades for night and a porch covering. 3 Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission April 1,2014 Mr. Erspamer asked about the 30 foot set back and the code stating the door to the house should be set back 10 feet how would they do that. Mr. Gidfar said it would be a challenge. He said the door is still clear and inviting. Mr. Erspamer asked if the garage is 18 feet wide will there be two doors. Mr. Gidfar said it will be two single doors. Mr. Erspamer opened the public comment. 1. Michael Maple, 1250 Mountain View Dr, said the reason he is at the meeting is because of the Cemetery Lane Neighborhood Plan. In 2000 and 2001 the Cemetery Lane neighborhood met with the planning staff and created the plan. There are 304 property owners on Cemetery Lane and had 152 participants. He said there were many well attended meetings. He stated the plan was adopted by the P&Z and City Council in 2001. He said as part of the adoption it should be taken to the next level. Mr. Maple said the design guidelines that are being reviewed for this project are guidelines for the West End. He passed out a page from the plan, Exhibit G. Mr. Maple said page two is a review of 22 design standards and the neighborhoods assessment of which standards should apply to the Cemetery Lane neighborhood. He said the 152 respondents judged that only eight of the 22 should apply to their neighborhood. He stated that is why they asked for the code to be re-written for their neighborhood. He stated Staff has ignored that request for the last 13 years and as a result this applicant and P&Z has to review things they should not have to review. He stated the four variances the applicant has requested would not be a variance according to the Cemetery Lane plan. He said he encourages P&Z to look to the neighborhoods opinion and the document should be respected. 2. Raifie Bass stated he lives directly across the street and has been there for nine years. He said it is a difficult site and the curve of the street does not dictate what is a corner. He said it is a good job of designing a house that fits on the lot. 3. Dave Amory, 1370 Mountain View Drive, said he has lived 27 years in the neighborhood. He said he is concerned that they voted to have a 25 foot height limitation and wants to know if they are within that. He said from an aerial standpoint the building is divided into two halves and is concerned it looks like a duplex. He stated he is also concerned that new structures will have very little relationship with mountain architecture. He said it is a family oriented street and the house looks like a nice place for someone with no children. He also asked how it affects neighbors and is it a spec house or being designed for someone moving into the neighborhood. 4. Jeff Lizotte said he lives on Sage Court which is on the north side of the building. He said there is not a good perspective on how it affects the people on Sage Court. He said the slope from the north side drops at about a 50 degree angle and drops to the bottom. Mr. Lizotte said he is worried about new home owners who leave all their lights on flooding the neighborhood with light. 4 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission April 1,2014 Mr. Erspamer closed the public comment. Mr. Gibbs asked if there is an issue with height. Ms. Frankel said the HOA has a stricter height restriction than the City and they are an inch below the requirement. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki asked if Staff has an opinion on Cemetery Lane having a different context. Ms. Nadolny said she is not familiar with the Cemetery Lane plan. She said this neighborhood is different and outside the Aspen infill area. She said a lot of this applies more to the typical West End neighborhood district and Staff agrees with that. Ms. Quinn said when they are looking at standards under section A,the information Mr. Maple presented could be considered in determining the context in which the development was proposed. Mr. Erspamer stated Staff recommended approval of the window variance and asked if there was any opposition. There was no commission opposition to the window variance. Mr. Erspamer said his feeling towards building orientation is more towards Staff's position. If it is redesigned it could solve the front and garage door variances as well. Mr. McNellis said he agrees with Staffs interpretation of a corner but he can see how it can be interpreted as a curvilinear lot. He said he is concerned that the applicant went with the interpretation with Staff then had it turn on them. Mr. McNellis said he is inclined to say it is a curvilinear lot in which case no variances would be required. He stated he puts a lot of weight on the Cemetery Lane plan. Mr. Nieuwland-Zlotnicki said with the house set so far back it is not exposed to North Street. He said for him that would make it a curvilinear lot with no variances required. Mr. Erspamer said curvilinear is a curve and there are hard edges to this and why he did not lean that way. Mr. Gibbs stated he supports all the variances. He said the orientation of the garage door is a response to a site specific constraint. He said he does not believe it is curvilinear but this is an unusual non- rectilinear property. He said the shape of the lot provides a constraint and you would lose the whole left side of the lot if you were to conform with the code. He said the variance with the door being ten feet back the standard needs to be looked at compared to the standard of side loaded doors. He said if you comply with the side door standard it immediately puts the front of the building 20 feet back. He said he does not believe in this neighborhood it is important. Mr. Goode said he is curious to see how many other neighborhoods have a plan like the Cemetery Lane one. He said the variances should be granted and it is a modern interesting design. Mr. Erspamer said he has not been convinced to change his feeling. Mr. McNellis made a motion to approve Resolution 4, 2014 as drafted, seconded by Mr. Nieuwland- Zlotnicki. Roll call vote; Goode yes, Gibbs yes, Nieuwland-Zlotnicki yes, McNellis yes, Erspamer no. Motion Carries. Mr. Gibbs made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Goode. All in favor, motion carries. 5