Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20220118Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 18, 2022 Page 1 of 8 Chairperson McGovern called the regular Planning and Zoning (P&Z) meeting for January 18th, 2022 to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Ruth Carver, Sam Rose, Brittanie Rockhill, Scott Marcoux, Spencer McKnight, Teraissa McGovern. Staff in Attendance: Amy Simon, Planning Director Ben Anderson, Principal Long-Range Planner Michelle Bonfils-Thibeault, Planner Kevin Rayes, Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Anderson provided an update on a couple of items. He stated the commission’s comments regarding deferral agreements and their impacts on locals were heard by Council who ended up tabling the ordinance to amend the code at this time. Staff has been directed to continue to look into it. Mr. Anderson stated the affordable housing credit program is essential to both developers of affordable housing units and developers who need to mitigate. Approximately 85 units have been developed. Currently, someone who needs to mitigate is essentially required to use the credits because the fee in lieu process is somewhat arduous. He noted it is becoming very difficult for small residential projects to obtain the needed credits and staff will be reaching out to the commission regarding efficient methods to alleviate the situation. Mr. Anderson then provided a brief update on the residential development\short term rental moratorium. Council issued emergency Ordinance 27 in early December, 2021 for a six month period. Staff and Council had a productive discussion on January 11th and staff will be meeting with Council on February 1st to obtain specific direction regarding the changes to policy and their prioritization to policy. He stated the proposed amendments will be discussed with the commission in an upcoming meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES None DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Ms. Carver stated she met the applicant for the 905 W North St hearing about five years ago at an Anderson Ranch event. She had an extra ticket that was used by Ms. Baird. She does not know the Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 18, 2022 Page 2 of 8 family and does not feel it is a conflict for her. After asking Ms. Carver a few questions, Ms. Johnson does not feel there was a conflict. PUBLIC HEARINGS Ms. McGovern asked if notice had been provided. Ms. Johnson responded proper notice had been provided for both hearings. 401 W Bleeker St – Special Review for Replacement of a Non-Conforming Structure Ms. McGovern then opened the hearing and turned the floor over to staff. Mr. Kevin Rayes, Planner, introduced the application regarding the existing non-conforming structure encroaching the combined side yard setback. The applicant is requesting a special review to maintain the structure. He added they are doing some work on the structure, but they are not triggering demolition. He then turned it over to Mr. Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services, to discuss the application. Mr. Richman introduced Mr. John Galambos, the project architect. Mr. Richman stated the owners want to remodel the residence which was built in the 1980s and expanded in the 1990s. He stated the planned remodel is mostly for the interior of the house but also involves the removal and replacement of a portion of the roof and related walls. He stated staff had informed the project architect the residence was considered non-conforming in regards to the combined side yard setback. Mr. Richman explained the combined side yard setback utilizes a sliding scale so as the lot gets bigger, the side yard setback gets bigger. He stated their review of the historical files showed there had been a robust discussion on how to apply the somewhat new combined side yard setback requirements. The code did not clearly define how side yard setbacks were calculated. The files indicated the city had accepted the concept of measuring the setback in a staggered approach instead of a linear approach. He noted how the site drawing displayed pointed out this approach. The current code now clearly defines how this is to be calculated, requiring the special review application. Mr. Richman believes the request for a special review should be granted because thew proposed work is to occur where the non-conformity exists on the southwestern corner of the property. They are proposing to remove a portion of the roof that extends into the setback. With the proposed changes the overall volume and height of the structure will be reduced. Mr. John Galambos, Galambos Architects, introduced himself. He pointed out the residence was previously permitted, and a certificate of occupancy (CO) was granted. He asked Mr. Rayes to display pages 32 and forward in the packet showing the existing and proposed sections of the southwest corner of the residence in the setback. He said the third level would be eliminated and the new gable will be tied in with the gable of the main house reducing the overall mass. Ms. McGovern asked if the commissioners had questions for the applicant. There were none, so she turned the floor over to staff. Mr. Rayes described the location of the property and provided pictures of the current residence. He displayed a table showing the current dimensional requirements per the code standard and the existing conditions of the applicant’s residence. He noted the non-conforming combined side yard setback area Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 18, 2022 Page 3 of 8 measures 16 FT 8 IN where 22 FT 6 IN is required. He provided a diagram showing the staggered measurement which was permitted in the 1990s and a diagram showing the linear measurement required by current code standards. He noted the building footprint will not be enlarged in the setback area. Mr. Rayes then discussed a few of the review criteria found in the packet. One standard was the replacement of nonconforming structures. He noted staff believes there is an existing special characteristic unique to the property because the house was previously permitted, and it has not changed since the permit allowing for the portion of the house to exist in the current setback area. He also pointed out the non-conformity will be reduced with the proposed changes. Staff also feels it would be burdensome to require the applicant to bring the structure into total conformance, especially since there is no demolition triggered with the proposed remodel. Mr. Rayes closed his presentation stating staff recommends approval of the special review to replace a non-conforming structure subject to the conditions listed in the draft resolution. He stated one of the conditions stated if demolition were to be triggered for any reason, the residence would need to be brought into full compliance with underlying zoning requirements or returned back to the P&Z commission for subsequent review. The second condition stated if there are any change orders increasing the massing of the non-conformity, the project would need to return back to P&Z for subsequent review. Ms. McGovern asked if there were any questions for staff. There were none. Ms. McGovern opened for public comments. There were none so she closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. McGovern asked if staff or the applicant had any rebuttal. There were none so she closed this portion of the hearing. Ms. McGovern opened for commissioner deliberation. Mr. McKnight likes that the mass of the legal non-conformity will be reduced, and demolition is not triggered. He would approve it. All other commissioners agreed with Mr. McKnight. Mr. Marcoux likes that the roofline will be consistent with the remainder of the house. Mr. McKnight motioned to approve Resolution #2, Series 2022 for a special review to allow for the replacement of a portion of a legally established nonconforming structure at 410 W Bleeker St subject to the conditions listed in the resolution. His motion was seconded by Ms. Carver. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call: Ms. Carver, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Marcoux, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; and Ms. McGovern, yes for a total six (6) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Ms. McGovern thanked staff and the applicant and then closed the hearing. Ms. Rockhill left the meeting after the first hearing. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 18, 2022 Page 4 of 8 905 W North St – Special Review and Variance Application Ms. McGovern then opened the hearing and turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault, Planner, provided an overview of the application to make modifications to an existing legally non-conforming structure. There is also a request to increase floor area in a combined side yard setback. Ms. Sara Adams, BendonAdams, introduced herself and Mr. Stephen Baird, one of the owners of the property. She also introduced Mr. Keith Howie, Poss Architects, who is part of the project team. Ms. Adams described the location of the single family residence. Some of the proposed changes includes windows and doors as well as digging out the crawl space to a full height basement which would extend into the combined side yard setback. She provided some photos of the home and stated it is a legal non-conformity built in 1977. The non- conforming portions of the residence are the setbacks, the height of the dormer and floor area. Mr. Baird explained his family’s connection and involvement with the Aspen community. He said they are looking for more space for their growing family as they are spending more time in Aspen. Ms. Adams displayed the definition of a setback as defined in the code. She believes its intent is to protect the spaces between structures. The intent of the applicant is to dig out the existing crawl space to make it a usable basement. She then displayed a table showing the R6 zone requirements, the existing conditions, and the proposed changes. She pointed out there will not be any change to the 10 ft front yard setback. For the east side yard setback, there will be no change above grade (11.1 FT) and the below grade setback will meet the current 15 FT requirement. For the west side yard setback, there will be no change above grade (9.1 FT) and the below grade setback will meet the current 15 FT requirement. For the combined side yard setback, there will be no change above grade (20.2 FT) and the below grade will be 30 FT. The R6 requirement is 37.6 FT. The rear yard setback will not be changed, and it currently is greater than the 10 FT requirement. Ms. Adams displayed the plans showing the foundation and each floor of the residence and where the setback requirements are located. She next displayed the proposed layout of the basement and its location within the combined side yard setback. Ms. Adams displayed a layout of the main level and the proposed location of the trash enclosure on the side of the house. The enclosure is allowed in the setback and is exempted from the floor area calculation. She next displayed existing and proposed north elevations showing the location of a new door and windows and trash enclosure. She then displayed existing and proposed west elevations with the removal of a door and addition of two windows and the trash enclosure. Ms. Adams then reviewed the dimensional requirements of the special review criteria. She believes the first criteria is met because adding a basement is compatible with surrounding land uses. She also believes the second criteria is met because a basement below the existing home would mitigate some of the construction impacts as compared to digging outside the foundation of the home. Ms. Adams noted there are five letters of support from the neighbors. She added the construction management plan will include managing traffic during the construction. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 18, 2022 Page 5 of 8 She then discussed the criteria regarding replacement of nonconforming structures. She stated there is no demolition triggered. She noted they are not increasing the existing variances by digging down for the basement. She believes it is a hardship to prohibit a basement level, doors and windows and a trash enclosure when others can enjoy a subgrade space. She added if floor area space is available then the applicant should be allowed to dig out a basement. Ms. Adams reviewed the variance criteria specific to the basement request. She stated setbacks below grade do not impact neighborhoods. She believes they are asking for the minimum variance to make use of the below grade space and not allowing it would create an unnecessary hardship on the applicants. Mr. Howie reiterated they are not triggering demolition and their proposal is the most economical way to design a basement under an existing structure. They plan to excavate from the inside which will be less noticeable to the neighbors and will not harm the mature trees and existing landscape. Ms. McGovern asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Mr. Rose noted several letters noted they do not want to see construction vehicles on the street and asked if this could be avoided. Mr. Howie responded the construction company has completed projects similar to this one and should know how to mitigate their concerns and will be part of the submitted construction mitigation plan. Ms. Carver asked for the depth of the crawl space. Mr. Howie stated the majority of the crawl space is about 3 FT in height, but it varies from 1 FT to 7 FT where the mechanical exists. Ms. Carver wanted to clarify if the variance was for the applicant to excavate in the combined side yard setback and not if they can dig out a basement. Ms. McGovern responded the variance request is for an encroachment into a side yard setback. Mr. Howie responded they would consider digging out behind the house if the variance is not granted but believe their request is more economical. Ms. McGovern asked Ms. Adams to address how they are adding square footage and keeping the floor area the same. Ms. Adams stated they will be removing some of the floor area from the dormer area. Ms. McGovern then turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault reviewed the application. She stated the single family residence was originally built in 1977 and is located on a large 11,000 SF lot in the R6 zone district. It is a legal nonconforming structure in regards to its height, floor area and side yard setbacks. She then reviewed the proposed door and window changes on the west and north elevations adding staff is in support of these proposed changes because they do not add to the nonconformity. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault stated the existing floor area ratio (FAR) is about 4,069 SF exceeding the allowable 3,363 SF by about 706 SF. The applicant is proposing to reallocate some area on the third floor to the below grade space which is allowed. She added with the proposed shift of the space from the third floor to the lower level results in approximately the existing FAR. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 18, 2022 Page 6 of 8 Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault reviewed the required setbacks for the R6 zone district. They are proposing to improve the nonconformity of the combined side yard setback, but not meet the required amount. The applicant is requesting a variance for this. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault next reviewed the review criteria and staff findings. She noted the request to expand the living space into the combined side yard setback by about 293 SF does not meet the criteria. She then discussed the special review criteria. Staff does not find any existing unique characteristics to the property. The floor area is above what is allowed. They could choose to build in a different direction. And for non-conforming structures, the city does not want the non-conformity expanded outside the dimensional standards. Staff does not find the criteria met regarding the expansion into the side yard setback. She then displayed a site plan showing the crawl space areas to be demolished, the location of the 15 FT side yard setback and the area required to meet the combined side yard setback. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault then discussed the review criteria for the variance request. Staff could not identify a hardship to allow for the requested variance, so the criterion is not found to be met. She closed her presentation stating staff recommends approval of the special review to expand the crawl space into a living space basement and denial of the variance to the required combined side yard standard. Ms. McGovern asked if there were any questions for staff. Mr. Rose asked Mr. Howie how they would expand if the variance was not granted. Mr. Howie reiterated his previous response stating the setback lines are underground and no one will see them. He feels it is a better construction technique and will provide less disturbance. Ms. McGovern opened for public comments. There were none so she closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Ms. McGovern opened for commissioner deliberation. Mr. Marcoux stated as long as they are reallocating the floor area from upstairs dormer, not increasing the floor area, and stay within the existing foundation, he has no problem approving it. Mr. Rose agrees with Mr. Marcoux. Mr. McKnight stated although he feels the request is benign, based on the review criteria, he does not see how it meets the criteria and cannot support the variance. Ms. Carver believes the code was written to protect the sight lines outside. Although it doesn’t exactly meet the variance criteria, it’s a matter of what makes sense. She would approve it because it is staying on the existing foundation and doesn’t show on the exterior. Ms. McGovern agrees with Mr. McKnight and doesn’t see where a hardship has been proven by the applicant which doesn’t provide a basis in the code to grant the variance. She is fine with the exterior changes. Ms. Simon asked the commissioners to state how each of the criteria has been met. Mr. Marcoux asked why the commissioners even here if they are voting on a subjective application. He asked why didn’t staff ask the applicant to go back to the drawing board on the basement. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 18, 2022 Page 7 of 8 Ms. Johnson stated per code, the commission is the decision making body on these issues. Staff does not have the administrative authority to do what Mr. Marcoux suggested. The board members are asked to evaluate the facts as presented per the code language in respect to the review. The fact finding should be based on the criteria provided. Mr. Marcoux reiterated his thoughts regarding approving the application. Ms. Johnson asked them to point to the facts or evidence in the application which support how the commissioner’s decision. Mr. Rose stated he would respond to the criteria. Regarding criteria number 1, he stated the application proposes the expansion with no public visibility in the setback overrides the setbacks. In response to number 2, he stated because they are taking space from other parts of the house to use in the basement. In response to number 3, he believes this house can have a basement as do other houses and will not give the applicant any special privilege. Mr. Marcoux and Ms. Carver agreed with Mr. Rose. Ms. Carver believes it is in the spirit of the code and there will not be any hardship on the community if this house has a basement. Ms. Johnson noted any motion to approve needs to include any modifications to the draft resolution to approve the variance and any conditions on the approval. She suggested the motion include a statement to amend Section 2 of the draft resolution pursuant to the procedures in Title 26 of the Municipal Code, the P&Z Commission approves the dimensional variance to convert the crawl space to a livable basement level without meeting the minimum side yard setbacks. She asked the board if any limitations should be included such as how much can they vary from the combined setbacks. Staff’s memo identifies 7.5 FT. Mr. Rose motioned to approve the resolution with an amendment to Section 2 to limit the amount of the variance in the side yard setback to 7.5 FT. No one seconded the motion. Ms. Carver wants something added that the basement would be within the existing foundation. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault suggested the approval should be for the combined side yard setbacks. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault suggested changes to the last whereas clause and Section 2. Mr. Rose, Mr. Marcoux and Ms. Carver approved of the changes. Ms. Adams noted it should state 7.6 FT instead of 7.5 FT. She also asked if the last sentence in Section 1. Staff and the commission agreed it should be removed. Ms. Carver motioned to approve Resolution 3, Series 2022 with the proposed amendments. Mr. Rose seconded the motion. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call: Ms. Carver, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; Mr. Marcoux, yes; Mr. McKnight, no; and Ms. McGovern, no for a total three (3) in favor – two (2) not in favor. The motion passed. Ms. McGovern thanked staff and the applicant and then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. McGovern requested a meeting for staff provide training for the commissioners in regards to how to review our packets, how we understand the review criteria and what we are basing our decisions on when we review these applications. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 18, 2022 Page 8 of 8 Ms. Johnson suggested scheduling a work session. Ms. Simon will reach out to the commissioners about a work session. Mr. McKnight motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Mr. Rose. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 6:27 pm. Cindy Klob, Records Manager