Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20150113 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission SPECIAL MEETING January 13, 2015 4:30 PM Aspen Fire Department 420 E Hopkins Ave, Aspen Third Floor Meeting Room I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 212 Lake Avenue, Special Review, Replacement of a nonconforming structure, Continued hearing from January 6, 2015 VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Election of Chair and Vice-chair for 2015 VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 002-2015 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of ap plicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Page 1 of 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 212 Lake Avenue – Special Review Resolution No. , Series 2015 – Public Hearing MEETING DATE: January 6, 2014 APPLICANT /O WNER : Aspen River Rendezvous, LLC REPRESENTATIVE : Bill Harriman, Harriman Construction and David Kelly, Oates, Knezevich, Gardenswartz, Kelly & Morrow, PC LOCATION : 212 Lake Avenue CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Medium Density Residential (R-6) zone district and subject to the Hallam Lake Bluff review. Property is a designated historic landmark. PROPOSED LAND USE : The Applicant is requesting Special Review approval to replace a nonconforming structure. The building remodel has triggered demolition and Applicant proposes to replace the nonconforming building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request to replace the nonconforming structure. SUMMARY : The Applicant requests of Planning and Zoning Commission approval of Special Review to allow the replacement of a nonconforming structure. Vicinity map of the site 212 Lake Ave. P1 VI.A. Page 2 of 5 LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES : The Applicant has requested the following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • Special Review – Replacement of nonconforming structures, for the replacement of a structure after demolition which does not conform with the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.430, Special Review. (The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority). PROJECT SUMMARY : 212 Lake Avenue is a designated historic landmark and subject to the Hallam Lake Bluff review. It is also nonconforming in a number of areas including parking (short 2 on-site spaces), side and combined setbacks, floor area, site coverage and the Hallam Lake Bluff setback and height requirements. With regard to Floor Area, a 1980s Council ordinance/plat permitted a Floor Area of .4:1 for either a single family residence or a duplex on the property. The maximum allowable Floor Area is 4,183 sq. ft but the existing conditions are in excess of the number by approximately 1,500 sq. ft. The Applicant, Aspen River Rendezvous, LLC, was granted approvals to remodel the existing duplex from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and subsequently issued a building permit. The HPC allowed the applicant to maintain the construction in the setbacks for the approved design as well as granted a parking variance of one space per unit. The Applicant was to reconstruct the roof in certain areas to simplify the building form and to become more compliant with the Hallam Lake Bluff requirements at the rear of the building (Figure 1 – next page). As a nonconforming structure, as long as demolition is not triggered, the nonconformities may be maintained. When demolition of a nonconforming structure occurs, a replacement structure may be constructed only if the new structure is in conformance with the requirement of the Land Use Code (unless Special Review is granted). The Land Use Code specifies, under the Definitions section, that demolition is “to raze, disassemble, tear down or destroy forty percent or more of an existing structure (prior to commencing development) as measured by the surface of all exterior wall and roof area above finished grade and associated assembly components necessary for the structural integrity for such wall and roof area” (emphasis added). The Land Use Code further notes that “it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to accurately understand the structural capabilities of the building prior to undertaking a remodel. Failure to properly understand the structural capacity of elements intended to remain may result in an involuntary collapse of those portions and a requirement to recalculate the extent of demolition. Landowner’s intent or unforeseen circumstances shall not affect the calculation of actual physical demolition . Additional requirements or restrictions of this Title may result upon demolition” (emphasis added). P2 VI.A. Page 3 of 5 Figure 1: Existing and Approved Site Plan In order to receive a building permit, the Applicant submitted a number of sheets within the plan set that included both a demolition diagram showing what assemblies were to be removed as part of the building permit and an accompanying calculation to verify that the removal would not exceed the forty percent threshold. Based upon the representations within the diagram and calculation, as well as compliance with other requirements, a building permit was issued. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the approved project, an Interior Finish and Fixture Removal (IFFR) permit was issued allowing for initial investigation of the integrity of the building. Mold was uncovered and the contractor hired a consultant to assess it in July 2014, Orange ovals indicate areas of roof form changes P3 VI.A. Page 4 of 5 prior to building permit issuance in October 2014. Applicant did not point out or raise the issue of mold to the city prior to the initiation of demolition. During demolition and reconstruction the Zoning Officer requested an on-site inspection and verification of the demolition calculations. At that point Harriman Construction noted that they had encountered mold within the building and a greater amount of demolition had occurred than what was identified in the building permit. Updated calculations were provided to the city and the current demolition calculation, submitted by the contractor, is that fifty-five percent of the building’s exterior wall, roof and assemblies have been removed, thus triggering demolition and the requirement to cure any nonconformities. Photos of the site are provided below. Figure 2: Demolition Photos Land Use Reviews: The following land use review, Special Review - Replacement of nonconforming structures, is being requested by the Applicant to maintain the nonconformities that existed prior to the project exceeding the demolition allowance. Staff Comment: The existing house is considered a nonconforming structure as it exceeds the allowable Floor Area permitted for the lot, does not meet required setbacks, parking requirements and the Hallam Lake Bluff requirements. Nonconforming structures are permitted to be maintained but the intent of the nonconformities regulations “is to regulate and limit the P4 VI.A. Page 5 of 5 continued existence of those uses, buildings and structures that do not conform to the provisions of this Title as amended.” Additionally, nonconforming structures that are purposefully demolished or destroyed shall only be replaced with a conforming building unless granted Special Review to maintain the nonconformity. The Special Review criteria (Exhibit A) focus on whether there exist special characteristics unique to the property and whether enforcement of the dimensional provisions would not allow reasonable use of the property and unnecessary hardship. Staff does not believe that there are special characteristics associated with the property that would differentiate it from other properties within the neighborhood and the subject zone district. There are many designated landmarks within the city as well as properties that are subject to the Hallam Lake Bluff review and some properties that are subject to both. The property may be developed with up to 4,183 sq. ft. of Floor Area on a 11,102 sq. ft. lot. At its narrowest the lot is 59 ft. wide, similar to many lots within the West End. Although the lot is subject to review as a designated landmark and under the Hallam Lake Bluff review, reasonable use of the property can be maintained. “Reasonable use” does not require maximum use. A property need not be developed to the absolute maximum potential to be considered a reasonable use. Staff believes a home, compliant with today’s current land use regulations, achieves reasonable use of the property. Although the city has no adopted regulations or policies with regard to mold remediation, demolition is a reviewed and regulated part of a building permit. If a change to the demolition plan is necessary due to unforeseen circumstances then an Applicant should confer with city representatives prior to taking action. Other options may have been available to not trigger demolition. At the end of the day, the allowances and limitations of the approved building permit was not followed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the application for Special Review to maintain certain nonconformities of the building. As noted in the Land Use Code “Landowner’s intent or unforeseen circumstances shall not affect the calculation of actual physical demolition.” The project is not compliant with the building permit that was issued for the project and has exceeded the demolition allowance of up to forty percent of an existing structure. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to deny the request for Special Review to maintain certain nonconformities associated with 212 Lake Avenue.” ATTACHMENTS : EXHIBIT A – Special Review Criteria EXHIBIT B – Application P5 VI.A. Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. ___ (Series of 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DENYING SPECIAL REVIEW TO REPLACE A NONCONFOMING STRUCTURE FOR 212 LAKE AVENUE, UNITS A AND B OF THE 212 LAKE AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS, ASPEN, COLORADO Parcel Nos. 273512489004 and 273512489005 WHEREAS, the applicant, Aspen River Rendezvous LLC, represented by Benjamin Genshaft, as well as Harriman Construction and David Kelly of Oates, Knezevich, Gardenswartz, Kelly & Morrow, PC, submitted an application requesting Special Review – Replacement of a nonconforming structure for the property located at 212 Lake Avenue, legally described as Units A and B of the 212 Lake Avenue Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, 212 Lake Avenue is a designated landmark; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended denial of Special Review – Replacement of a nonconforming structure; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on January 6, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare by a vote of --- to --- (_-_). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Decision The Planning and Zoning Commission denies the request of Special Review – Replacement of a nonconforming structure for the building commonly known as 212 Lake Avenue as the request does not meet all standards required under Section 26.430.040 B, Replacement of nonconforming structures. The Commission specifically finds that 1) there are not existing special characteristics unique to the property that differentiate the property from other properties located with the same zone district (Section 26.430.040 B.2) and that 2) literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district does not prohibit reasonable use of the property (Section 26.430.040 B.4). P6 VI.A. Page 2 of 2 Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 6th day of January, 2015. Approved as to form: Approved as to content: __________________________ ______________________________ Deborah Quinn, Assistant City Attorney LJ Erspamer, Chair Attest: _______________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager P7 VI.A. Exhibit A 26.430.040. Review standards for special review. No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and requirements set forth below. A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met. 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. Staff Finding: The use of the property, as a duplex, is consistent with the character of other uses within the neighborhood and the purpose of the zone district. The purpose of the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zone district, which is generally limited to the Aspen Townsite, is to “contain relatively dense settlements of predominantly detached and duplex residences within walking distance of the center of the city.” To regulate and standardize development within the zone district, permitted uses as well as dimensional standards have been adopted; however, Staff does not believe the existing mass and configuration are consistent with the purpose of the underlying zone district. Staff finds this criterion is not met. 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts, including but not limited to the effects of shading, excess traffic, availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated view plane. Staff Finding: As a nonconforming structure, the building is allowed to maintain its nonconformities such as development within the Hallam Lake Bluff. When demolition occurs, a property is expected to come into conformance with adopted regulations. Permitting a continuance of a nonconformity within the Hallam Lake Bluff area will not assist in things such as limiting the noise and visual impacts to the nature preserve. Staff finds this criterion is not met. B. Replacement of nonconforming structures. Whenever a structure or portion thereof, which does not conform to the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the property is located is proposed to be replaced after demolition, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed development shall comply with the conditions of Subsection 26.430.040.A above; Staff Finding: As noted in the review criteria previously listed, Staff does not find this criterion met. P8 VI.A. Exhibit A 2. There exist special characteristics unique to the property which differentiate the property from other properties located in the same zone district; Staff Finding: There are no special characteristics associated with the property that would differentiate it from other properties within the neighborhood and the subject zone district. There are many designated landmarks within the city as well as properties that are subject to the Hallam Lake Bluff review and some properties that are subject to both. Although the city has no adopted regulations or policies with regard to mold remediation, demolition is a reviewed and regulated part of a building permit. If a change to the demolition plan is necessary due to unforeseen circumstances an applicant should confer with city representatives prior to taking action. Other options may have been available to not trigger demolition. Staff does not find this criterion met. 3. No dimensional variations are increased, and the replacement structure represents the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the property; and Staff Finding: If approved, the proposed replacement structure will maintain the existing non-conformities associated with the property as reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission; however, these variations are greater than what is needed for reasonable use of the property as the property could be developed to meet the land use code. “Reasonable use” does not require maximum use. A property need not be developed to the absolute maximum potential to be considered a reasonable use. Staff does not find this criterion met. 4. Literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would cause unnecessary hardship upon the owner by prohibiting reasonable use of the property. Staff Finding: The property may be developed with up to 4,183 sq. ft. of Floor Area on a 11,102 sq. ft. lot. At its narrowest the lot is 59 ft. wide, similar to many lots within the West End. Although the lot is subject to review as a designated landmark and under the Hallam Lake Bluff review, reasonable use of the property can be maintained. Staff does not find this criterion met. P9 VI.A. P10 VI.A. P11 VI.A. P12 VI.A. P13 VI.A. P14 VI.A. P15 VI.A. P16 VI.A. P17 VI.A. P18 VI.A. P19 VI.A. P20 VI.A. P21 VI.A. P22 VI.A. P23 VI.A. P24 VI.A. P25 VI.A. P26 VI.A. P27 VI.A. P28 VI.A. P29 VI.A. P30 VI.A. P31 VI.A. P32 VI.A. P33 VI.A. TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson MEETING DATE: January 13, 2015 At the first meeting of the year, the Planning and Zoning Commission is tasked with electing a Chair and Vice-Chair. The appointment is for one year and currently elected members can be re- elected. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning and Zoning Commission may use this motion “I move to make a recommendation to elect ____________, as chairperson and _______________as vice-chairperson of the Planning and Zoning Commission for 2015.” P34 VII.A. RESOLUTION NO. -- Series of 2015 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to elect a chairperson and vice- chairperson as outlined in Section 26.212.030, Membership-Appointment, removal, terms and vacancies of the land use code; and WHEREAS, the term of each position is for one (1) year; and WHEREAS, the commission voted to elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson on January 14, 2015; and WHEREAS, __________was elected chairperson and _______ was elected vice-chairperson; and WHEREAS, both positions shall expire on January 14, 2016; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of Aspen, Colorado, by this resolution that ______________be appointed as chairperson and _____________be appointed as vice-chairperson. DATED: January 13, 2013 _________________________ LJ Erspamer, Chair ATTEST:__________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager P35 VII.A.