Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20220405Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2022 Page 1 of 6 Chairperson McGovern called the regular Planning and Zoning (P&Z) meeting for April 5th, 2022 to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Brittanie Rockhill, Christine Benedetti, Sam Rose, Spencer McKnight and Teraissa McGovern Staff in Attendance: Phillip Supino, Community Development Director Michelle Bonfils-Thibeault, Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. McGovern welcomed Ms. Benedetti to her first P&Z meeting. STAFF COMMENTS Mr. Supino introduced himself and said he was sitting for Ms. Simon. PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. McKnight motioned to approve the minutes for March 1, 2022 and March 15, 2022. Ms. Benedetti seconded the motion. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; and Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of five (5) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None PUBLIC HEARINGS 191 Eastwood Dr – Special Review Nonconforming Structure and Variance Requests - Continued Ms. McGovern asked if notice had been provided. Ms. Johnson reviewed the reasoning for continuing the hearing from the previous meeting. She stated the applicant had published, mailed, and posted the notice appropriately. Ms. McGovern then opened the hearing and turned to floor over to staff. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault introduced the application and stated the applicant should present first. Ms. McGovern asked Ms. Kim Raymond and Mr. Milo Stark, both of Kim Raymond Architecture, to proceed with their presentation. Ms. Raymond displayed a photo of the existing structure and environment. She pointed out the many Aspen trees on the property. Ms. Raymond next reviewed sections from the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) which she stated were used as guidelines in their design process. She reviewed the Managing Growth for Community & Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2022 Page 2 of 6 Economic Sustainability Policies – III Residential Sector portion for items III.1 and III.2 regarding protecting the visual quality and character of the neighborhood and scenic value of the river corridors and mountains. She next read from the Environmental Stewardship Vision section of the AACP. She stated by not demolishing the whole building, the proposed application addresses the generation of substantial amounts of demolition debris, excessive energy consumption and high levels of vehicle trips. Next, she displayed and read their goals: • Protect the natural visual quality and scenic value of neighborhoods • Limit construction impacts and burden on the landfill • Preserve open space and limit site coverage • Limit energy consumption and building materials • Protect riparian areas by better onsite water management Then she reviewed the requirements for granting a variance per Chapter 26.314 stating they are asking for the minimum variance to accomplish what they want to do and there are special conditions and circumstances for the property. She displayed a historic plat of the subdivision and pointed out the lot is shallower than the other lots. She stated when the home was built, the property was in Pitkin County and then annexed into the city in 1991. At that time, it was negotiated the city would take over the ownership and maintenance of the road. As a result, the property lines were adjusted per the city requirements which had a big impact on the applicant’s lot size with the 30 FT front yard setback. Ms. Raymond then displayed a diagram depicting the original and adjusted lot lines and setback requirements. She noted the original lot size was 18,661 SQ FT and the buildable area with the city’s requirements is 8,710 SQ FT. She displayed another site plan depicting the existing footprint with the city’s setback requirements showed a small 3 SQ FT portion of a wall that would have been non- conforming. The applicant would like to make this portion legal. Ms. Raymond believes it may have happened due to a surveyor’s mistake. Ms. Raymond then showed a diagram with the current property lines and noted the lot size is 14,858 SQ FT and the buildable area is now 5,343 SQ FT which is a 40% reduction. She then displayed another diagram with the adjusted setback lines and the current building footprint and stated now a big section on the front of the house including the part of the living room, bedrooms, deck and front stairs are all outside the setback line. She also pointed out an area near the rear property line where some steep grading had been done and stated they would also like to make this area conforming. Ms. Raymond then displayed the proposed building footprint. She noted new energy efficient windows will be installed, and a garage will be added. They would like to bump out the setback line in the right rear corner of the house noting the blue area is part of the roof and can be over the setback line. She stated they are also asking for a 2 FT wide by 26 FT long area on the back edge of the proposed garage to be included in the rear yard setback area. They can’t move the garage forward because the turnaround will be in the egress area, and they want to preserve the treed area to the left of the garage. The retaining wall will be regraded, and the slope will just meet the house with new drainage area. The front stairs will be removed permanently, and the deck will be reduced by 40 FT of the deck to pull it back 2 FT to reduce the nonconformity. Another variance is to allow a 4 FT overhang on the front instead of the allowed 18 IN to provide shading for the windows. Another variance will be for a 3 FT area on the front left corner of the proposed garage to provide for the overhang of the roof. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2022 Page 3 of 6 Ms. Raymond next displayed pictures of where the garage would be added and where the stairs would be removed. By keeping the house where it is located, they can preserve the landscape and reduce the amount of demolition and shorten the project timeline. She then displayed a survey of the lot depicting areas over 20 degrees slope and areas over 30 degrees. She next displayed existing and proposed site plans and reiterated they are only working on areas that have already been disturbed. She displayed a diagram depicting the four areas where they are asking for variances to extend into the setback areas. She then displayed a slide showing how the application meets the AACP goals as follows: 1. Protect the natural visual quality and scenic value of neighborhoods by saving the forest. 2. Limit construction impacts and burden on the landfill with shorter construction times. 3. Preserve open space and limit site coverage by sticking one corner of the garage into the setback. 4. Limit energy consumption and building materials by not doing a full demo, adding on the existing home, installing new windows and insulation, and adding energy efficient roof overhangs. 5. Protect riparian areas by better onsite water management with better onsite drainage. Ms. Raymond displayed a slide showing how the application meets the variance requirements as follows: 1. Granting a variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the title and the Municipal Code. a. The proposed design is consistent with the goals and objectives of the title by making the existing home more energy efficient, reduction g construction waste, minimizing site coverage, and reducing the amount of existing nonconformity. 2. The grant of the variance is the minimum variance to make reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure. a. The proposed setback lines are held tight to the building, making it the minimal necessary to obtain the project objectives. 3. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district and would cause unnecessary hardship as distinguished from mere inconvenience. a. The lot has the hardship of being severely impacted by the adjusted setback lines, removing of the buildable area on the existing plat. b. The granting of the variance will not bestow any privileges to this lot and allow it to enjoy the same privileges as the other homes in the R-15B zone district. She then summarized the variance requests including the front and rear yard setbacks to brin nonconformities into compliance and provide for sufficient roof overhangs as well as the 1 FT 11 3/8 IN to zero FT (28 SQ FT) variance to the rear yard setback for the garage ingress and egress. She displayed a rendering of the project and thanked the board. Ms. McGovern asked if anyone had questions of the applicant. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2022 Page 4 of 6 Ms. McGovern wanted to clarify if the applicant was asking for encroachments into the setback and not asking for the setback lines to be changed. Ms. Raymond agreed they are asking for encroachments. Ms. McGovern then turned it over to staff. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault reviewed the site location and provided a site plan identifying the front and rear yard setbacks, the retaining wall. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault displayed photos of the existing structure and the proposed addition and changes. She then summarized the special review criteria for the replacement of nonconforming structures including the following: 1) The proposed development is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. 2) There are existing special characteristics unique to the property, no dimensional variations are increased. 3) The enforcement of the dimensional zone district provisions will cause unnecessary hardship on the owner. She stated the applicant wants to expand the roof about 88 SQ FT or 6 FT further than the structure into the front yard which is expanding the nonconformity and is not consistent with the dimensional requirements, so staff finds item 1) not met. She reviewed item 2) stating staff’s findings identified the lot size typical for the subdivision and the orientation of the lot was not considered to be a hardship of the site so this criterion was found to not be met. She stated the applicant is proposing to reduce the size of the front deck but reducing the nonconformity in one area does not allow for expansion of a nonconformity in another area. The roof expansion will be further into the setback. She stated the review criteria can provide for the authority to continue a nonconformity, but not expand it. The proposed application proposes an expansion into the front and rear yard setbacks with the new garage addition and over hanging roof. She also pointed out the deck area being removed. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault next discussed staff’s findings for item 3). Staff did not find this item met because although it is an interesting design of the property, but it may not be the only option. And there is a reasonable use of the property as is. She then reviewed the variance setback requirements. She pointed out the areas on a rendering of the home where the structure will be encroaching the setback area. In regards to the criteria for granting a variance, staff did not find the criteria met because it is not reducing the nonconformity, there are areas within the building envelope that have been previously disturbed and are available for building, and special conditions do not exist to deny rights enjoyed by properties within the same zone district. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault recommends denial of the application. Ms. McGovern asked if there were any questions for staff. Ms. Benedetti noted there seems to be some discrepancy between what the front square footage requested by the applicant and what staff found by about 30 SQ FT. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault responded Ms. Raymond’s numbers are correct. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2022 Page 5 of 6 Ms. Raymond noted they are asking for 59 SQ FT on the front of the house and the remainder is legally allowed to overhang into the setback area. Ms. McGovern asked staff to confirm if the request was to change the setback lines or grant an encroachment into the setback area. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault responded the location of the setback area would not change and the applicant would be granted a variance for portions of the structure to be in the setback area. She added as a result of the annexation, the property line was only 20 FT from the right-of-way instead of 30 FT. Ms. McGovern noted there were no members of the public attending the hearing so there were no comments, and she closed that portion of the hearing. Ms. McGovern then opened for commissioner deliberation. Mr. Rose would approve the variances because he feels they can meet the criteria and he personally feels the purpose of P&Z is to grant variances like this because it makes sense for the city and the property owner and ridiculous not to approve it. Ms. McGovern asked Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault to display the review criteria for the variance. Ms. Rockhill is open to other commissioner’s thoughts. She stated as far as keeping material out of the landfill per the AACP and other goals not listed in the criteria, seems like a logical approach. Ms. Benedetti agrees with Ms. Rockhill and appreciates it is not a demo or an expansion and she is sympathetic to the rezoning which reduced their ability to develop. She is leaning toward granting the variance on the garage and rear corner but is still hesitant on the additional SQ FT on the front. Mr. McKnight agrees with the other commissioners. He is still stuck on the dimensional variations being increased. Mr. Rose feels it meets the spirit of it because the additional SQ FT is just the overhang. Ms. McGovern feels it is a big ask with encroachments in both the front and rear yard setbacks. She understands this is not an easy buildable area, but this house was purchased as is. She feels it could be designed differently and there is an existing one car garage. She feels a different design could require an encroachment in just the front or the back and she is not inclined to approve the applicant’s request. She does not feel the hardship was proven. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault displayed an alternative that P&Z could approve any part of the application and the neighbors have requested a condition stating any and all construction vehicles must park on the subject property and not along the very narrow Eastwood Drive. Mr. McKnight stated he is now in favor of approving all. Ms. McGovern noted the draft resolution was written to deny the application and asked Ms. Johnson how best to proceed with an approval. Ms. Johnson stated they could make a motion to approve the applicant’s request for special review to replace a nonconforming structure and to allow the front and rear yard setback variances. She added the motion to approve should specify the exact allotment of variance so it can’t be misinterpreted in the future. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission April 5, 2022 Page 6 of 6 Ms. McGovern asked if a site plan included in the packet could be referenced in regards to the sizes of the variances. Ms. Johnson replied that could be sufficient. Mr. Supino recommended this action as well. Mr. Rose motioned to approve Resolution #008, Series 2022 approving the special review for replacing the nonconforming structure and the setback variances as presented in the agenda packet. Mr. McKnight seconded the motion. Mr. Rose amended his motion to reflect the variances as depicted in the site plan proposed by the applicant in the agenda packet. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; and Ms. McGovern, no; for a total of four (4) in favor – one (1) not in favor. The motion passed. Ms. Raymond thanked the commission. Ms. Johnson asked the commission to give Ms. McGovern authorization as the chair, to sign the resolution or the item could be brought back to P&Z as a consent item. Mr. Supino stated staff would prefer that authorization be granted instead of it brought back as a consent item. Ms. McGovern asked staff to confirm if the neighbor’s requested condition should be part of construction management plan. Ms. Johnson and Mr. Supino both responded it would not be appropriate to add the condition for parking to the resolution. Mr. Supino stated staff can respond via the building permit and working with the applicant. Mr. McKnight motioned to allow Ms. McGovern to sign on behalf of the board. Ms. Rockhill seconded the motion. All responded in favor of the motion, so it passed. Ms. McGovern thanked everyone and closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS Refresher on P&Z role and operation Mr. McKnight motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Mr. Rose. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 6:02 pm. Cindy Klob, Records Manager