Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20151006Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2015 Mr. Walterscheid and Mr. Goode were not present so Ms. Jasmine Tygre served as the Acting Chair. Ms. Tygre called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Jason Elliott, Spencer McKnight, Skippy Mesirow, Jasmine Tygre and Brian McNellis. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Chris Bendon, Jessica Garrow and Sara Nadolny. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Chris Bendon noted the City recently received an award from the State chapter of the American Planning Association for their planning efforts regarding the transportation impact and analysis project. He stated this was one of Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) items prioritized by Council to address. The project identified the types of projects require a transportation impact analysis review. The free review process is all online and informs the applicant the number of trips generated, items to mitigate, and options for mitigation. Ms. Jessica Garrow stated they are preparing to work with Council on one of their top ten goals which is to better incorporate some of the policies identified in the AACP into the land use code. They are meeting with Council in a work session in November and in advance they would like to have a check in with P&Z to identify if any commissioners have ideas for the work session. She asked if P&Z would be available for a lunch in October to review what is in the AACP and what has already been addressed. The commissioners stated they are open to a lunch discussion. Ms. Garrow stated she would email some potential dates to P&Z. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES Mr. Elliott requested his name be corrected on the first and last pages of the minutes. Mr. Elliott moved to approve the minutes for September 15th with the requested changes. The motion was seconded by Mr. McNight All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. 267 McSkimming Rd – Special Review request –Public Hearing Ms. Tygre opened the public hearing and asked if the public notice had been provided. Ms. Quinn replied she had reviewed the public notice and found that although the caption address was incorrect, the other references to the address were correct. Based on the majority of the references being correct, she found the notice to be sufficient. The affidavits of public notice were submitted as Exhibit D. Ms. Tygre turned the floor over to staff. 1 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2015 Ms. Sara Nadolny, Planner Tech, reviewed the application. She first identified a correction in the memo provided. Any reference in the memo to BOA should read P&Z. She noted P&Z is the final review authority for this special review. The property, located in the R-15B zone district, is a 19,800 sf lot in the Aspen Grove Subdivision with a single family residence currently on the lot. The R-15B zone district has a 30 ft front setbacks and the garage of the existing residence extends about 10.5 ft into the front yard setback. The applicant is proposing a remodel of the residence and includes a minor addition to the residence requiring no review and removal of the roof for the entire structure which triggers demolition. The definition of demolition per the Code is provided on p 11 of the agenda packet. The structure is built into a slope so there is a lesser amount of the structure above grade, therefore triggering the 40% demolition threshold quickly. When demolition is triggered, all non-conformities are expected to be brought into compliance with the redevelopment. The applicant is looking to keep the garage in its present location. Staff looked at the application against the two sections of the special review criteria which must be met. 1. Dimensional requirements – Staff has found the application primarily meets the dimensional requirements in all ways except for the front yard setback. The applicant has provided documentation noting 11 other properties in the neighborhood with a similar condition of the garage encroaching into the front setback. Ms. Nadolny displayed a slide from the applicant identifying those neighboring properties. The applicant also notes the right of way between the property line and the road. Ms. Nadolny provided a slide identifying the property line and the road. Staff finds this criteria met. 2. Replacement of nonconforming structures – This criteria requires the site to have a unique characteristic differentiating it from other properties in the same zone district. Ms. Nadolny displayed a topography picture of the property and noted the slopes on the side and the rear. When looked at as compared with other properties in the same R-15B zone district, other properties have similar slope conditions. The properties within an R-15B zone district are exempt from 8040 Greenline Reviews, which would prohibit a lot of development. The properties are also exempt from residential design standards and the net lot area is not reduced due to steep slopes. Staff is not aware of any other unique conditions of this site. In regards to reasonable use, Staff finds that by denying the request, the applicant is not prevented from pursuing reasonable use of the property. Due to the inability to confirm all necessary criteria are met, Staff recommends denial of the request. Ms. Tygre asked if there were any questions of Staff. Mr. Mesirow asked if demolition had not been triggered, could the garage be rebuilt in the same spot. Ms. Nadolny stated they would look at the features being changed and the amount being changed to see if it would be necessary to pull it into compliance. Mr. McNellis asked if the special review essentially allows for the creation of a legal non-conformity. Ms. Nadolny replied it’s actually a replacement of a non-conformity and they view the garage as demolished since the 40% threshold was met. With the special review standards, the applicant is asking to legalize a non-conformity, but to do so, they can’t conflict with the standard as defined in section A.1 on p 17 of the agenda packet. Ms. Nadolny stated they looked at the immediate context of the neighborhood to identify what might state this is application is not a complete aberration of the neighborhood. She stated the research performed by the applicant identifies a context. She also stated they also looked at the intent of the setback within the R-15B zone district. The setback should provide some relief between the street and development providing transition. Mr. Bendon stated the purpose of zone district is 2 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2015 broader than just the dimensional requirements. He gave an example of if the applicant was attempting to replace a gas station in this zone district. The dimensions of the replacement may not be a big deal, but the project would be completely out of compliance with the zone district. Mr. McNellis acknowledged Mr. Benson, but feels to legalize a non-conformity, the standards state no portion of the building can be non-conforming making it a catch-22. He further stated he understands how Staff is looking at this as a replacement. Mr. Benson went on to say there are questions regarding compatibility and consistency with the purpose of the zone district. He added the replacement of the non-conforming building meets those two criteria although it may not meet every dimensional limitation of the zone district. Mr. Mesirow asked if the criteria item B.2 on p 18 of the agenda packet refers to the underlying land or the structure. Ms. Nadolny stated it refers to the property. Mr. Mesirow asked when the memo refers to the special characteristics of the zone district, were those considered in the contiguous district or property in any R-15B zone district. Ms. Nadolny reads this as any property in an R-15B zone district. Ms. Tygre turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Dylan Johns, Zone 4 Architects, was present representing the applicant. Ms. Kristen Firman, applicant, was also present. Mr. Johns stated his head was spinning from Mr. Bendon’s explanation. He questioned Staff’s response to criteria B.1. Ms. Nadolny acknowledged the use of the word “not” in the response was incorrect and should not be in the response. Mr. Johns discussed a few points regarding this project. He showed extensive elevations is to point out how much of the existing structure above ground consists of the roof itself. He also presented slides and noted where the finished grade was located as compared to the building and the roof lines. He stated they have previously worked on projects on Eastwood Drive and ran into similar setback issues. The code was actually changed in those instances to reflect the conditions. There is the 30 ft setback where approximately 10.5-11 ft of the garage is in the setback. He pointed out on a diagram the corner of the garage is 31.5 ft away from the edge of the pavement. He also pointed out how the road moves in and out within the right of way depending on the topography. A lot of the houses follow a similar situation where a portion of the structure is infringing upon the front yard setback. In regards to the 40% demolition threshold, he noted when a wall is buried the wall area is taken out of the equation. Only the portion of the wall above grade and roof are considered in the calculation. If you look at the existing house, it is mostly roof. He further described how many stories of the existing structure are above grade for each aspect of the existing house. Once you remove any supporting structure for a roof, that portion is considered demolished. For this structure, once they considered moving interior partition walls, the demolition threshold was met without any visible changes to the exterior of the home. Part of the rationale put forth against the application considers the reasonable use of the property and if it is reasonable to keep the garage in its current location or move it. Mr. Johns feels they do not have many options in regards to moving the garage. The house has been there for 35 years in the same configuration and at least half the neighborhood is just like it. He wondered to what extent the code requires a much more extensive reconfiguration of drainage, foundation work, and driveway than what was intended to be changed. 3 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2015 Ms. Firman stated the interior is dated to 1980. There is limited space in both of the bedrooms on the second floor. In the master bedroom, the shower and sink are open to the room. Without changing the roofline, they cannot create a space to separate the shower and sink from the rest of the bedroom. Mr. Johns described and pointed out the layout of the second floor including the bedrooms, stairways and open space. He also described the proposed changes including the only change to the footprint to the home. They are proposing filling in the space between the house and garage to fit in new bathroom. He stated there is a hardship in moving the garage and changing the entry to the home. Moving the garage is not impossible to do, but it would change the entry to the building and involve excavation of the slope near a neighbor. He added the owner of 229 McSkimming called with his approval of the project. He does not have anything in writing to enter as an exhibit. Ms. Tygre asked if there were questions of the applicant. Mr. Elliott asked for the total demolition percentage of the project. Mr. Johns responded if the entire roof was removed, it would be 60%. This does not include any walls or doors which would add to the total. Ms. Tygre then asked if there were any members of the public who wanted to comment on the application. None appeared and she closed this portion of the hearing. Ms. Tygre then opened for commissioner’s discussion. Mr. McNellis stated he feels caught up on the code. Mr. Mesirow asked him to further identify where he questions the code. Mr. McNellis stated he questions the portion of A.1 (p 17) stating “and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district”. Mr. Bendon stated it was key to focus on the purposes of the district in that particular portion of the criteria. He reiterated the purposes of the zone district is broader than the dimensional requirements. Ms. Tygre feels there are two parts to consider. One is the dimensional requirements and the other being the replacement of a nonconforming structure which is where the problem begins for her. She feels the demolition threshold was put in place in part to cover non-conformities. The code states once you trigger demolition, you cannot continue to be non-conforming. Mr. McNellis asked Staff if the only non-conformity is the setback issue at which Ms. Nadolny confirmed it was the only one. He feels based on the criteria, he cannot approve the application and added it is unfortunate and wishes he had a vehicle to approve it. Mr. Bendon offered that he does not see any issues on criteria A.1. It intentionally utilizes the terms to address compatibility with the neighborhood and consistency with the purposes of the zone district as viewed in a broader sense. He wanted to reinforce the purposes of the zone district is a much broader concept than the individual, discreet dimensional requirements. An application could be out of compliance with a dimensional requirement, yet meet the purposes of the district. The purpose of this zone district provides for medium density, residential construction. Ms. Tygre asked the commissioners if they are having any issues with what the applicant wants to accomplish. Mr. McKnight, Mr. Mesirow and Mr. Elliott answered they do not have an issue. She senses the commissioners do not want to do anything contrary to the code. Ms. Quinn reminded the commissioners it is up to them to interpret how the code applies to this situation to determine 4 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2015 reasonable use. The avenue used by the commissioners to determine whether or not the proposed use may or may not make the minimum variance required is a reasonable use of the property. Mr. Bendon added Staff’s approach to reasonable use is much stricter from a legal perspective than what the applicant is suggesting as a reasonable use. The applicant is suggesting it is unreasonable to not allow the property to evolve in order to allow them to live in it under the original conditions for which it was developed including the existing issues regarding the slope and existing location of the structure. Ms. Tygre stated the commission could determine criteria item B.4 (p 18) would provide P&Z a justification for approving the application yet still conform to the code. Mr. Mesirow stated based on the applicant’s comments and presentation, he finds criteria B.3 and B.4 met. Mr. Mesirow continued that he agrees with Staff’s findings on criteria A.1 and A.2 (p17) which leads him to agree with B.1 as well. He asked the other commissioners if they agree or disagree and why. Mr. McNellis stated he does not disagree and feels it comes down criteria B.2, B.3 and B.4. Ms. Tygre asked Mr. McKnight and Mr. Elliott if they agreed they could interpret criteria B.2, B.3 and B.4 as being met at which they both confirmed. Mr. Mesirow and Mr. McNellis also agreed with her question. Mr. Mesirow asked Staff for their input on criteria B.2 Mr. Bendon stated this item is a little tough because it deals with the land and not the building. He noted this criteria deals with the property itself. He provided a couple of examples of a lot having unique conditions that would require a structure to be pushed into the front setback. Mr. Mesirow feels Staff’s response does not identify the applicant’s lot as unique or that it stands out from the existing lots. Mr. Bendon stated this lot is just like all the other lots in the subdivision. Mr. Johns added the uniqueness of this subdivision area is that so many of properties have the same constraints. He feels the language as he reads it in the code provision looks at it from a very micro-oriented level. In this zone district, if one lot has a unique condition, many of the other lots will have the same condition. Mr. Mesirow asked the applicant their response to criteria B.2. Mr. Johns read his response to the criteria as noted on p 21 of the agenda packet. He added the intent of the front setback dimension was honored by its relationship with the road. Mr. Mesirow replied this may be a criteria which may or may not be able to be found in compliance with additional information. He added all the homes back up to a hill but the angulation or shaping of the hill may be different than other properties. He feels he does not have any information at that point to determine if the property is unique. He asked the applicant if they have any information specific to the slope of the lot. Mr. Johns stated they have not done a geological analysis yet, but he pointed out where the steep slopes exist on the property. He added if you push the building closer to the slope, the more likely you will have instability. Work has been done below the property to widen the road on the back of the property. He was not sure pushing the house towards the back of the property would be compatible with the widening of the road. Mr. Elliott asked him about a statement in his presentation where he stated they could move the garage up the slope into an available pocket without moving the house. Mr. Johns replied moving it would require a complete redesign of the entire structure. Mr. Johns stated one of the hiccups with the code provision is that the reasonable use seems to be detached from this particular standard of this criteria. He knows the review standard says all criteria have to be met but he does not have an answer how reasonable use applies to standard number 2. At the same time, he sees this as weakness in the code more than he sees it as something that should be considered. The house has been this way for 35 years. They are not proposing any changes to the configuration or use of the property. He feels whatever they do will provide a positive impact to the neighborhood. Mr. Johns added the lot is more compressed than the other lots as it is pinched between the roads in the front and back of the property. 5 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2015 Mr. McNellis asked about the slope in the back yard. Mr. Johns stated it is near vertical and added the topography bows out in the front of the structure so there may be concerns regarding the house above if they excavated the slope. Mr. McNellis asked Staff is this was the only area zoned as R-15B. Ms. Nadolny stated she is not aware of the exact boundary but the zone district is focused in this area and consists of two subdivisions. Mr. Mesirow asked the commissioners if they feel the shallowness of the lot is sufficient to meet the criteria. Ms. Tygre asked if in fact the lot is shallower than the other lots on the displayed map to which no one could answer. Mr. Mesirow felt based on the available map, the lot is shallower. Ms. Tygre asked if someone wanted to make a motion. Mr. Mesirow stated he wanted to hear from other commissioners. Mr. McKnight stated based on the discussion to this point, he feels comfortable finding the criteria to be met. Mr. Elliott stated he could also find the criteria to be met, but he does not feel the hardship stated by the applicant is valid because they should have known and understood the layout of the home before purchasing it. He understands digging into the slope could unveil issues unknown at this time and could bring hardship. He also feels the setback is visually met. He could support the application, but stated he had to wander to get there. Mr. McNellis agrees with Mr. Elliott in regards to meeting the criteria. He feels requiring them to move the garage would potentially place hardship on the owner as well as the community. He feels the existing garage meets the purpose of the code as well as the characteristics of the neighborhood. He is frustrated with the code but feels he could find a way to approve it. Mr. Elliott motioned to approve Resolution number 19, Series 2015 as presented in the agenda packet on p 14. Mr. Mesirow seconded the motion. Ms. Tygre asked for a roll call: Mr. McKnight, yes; Mr. Mesirow, yes; Mr. Elliott, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Ms. Tygre, no. The motion passed with a four to one (4- 1) vote. Ms. Tygre closed the public hearing. Ms. Tygre then turned the floor over to Mr. Bendon for discussion regarding miscellaneous code amendments. Mr. Bendon stated miscellaneous code amendments are generally housekeeping updates to the code to include a missed citation or update to provide more clarity. Sometimes updates are the result of a formal interpretations of the code. Dwelling Units: This basically will not allow internal connections to other units or other uses to ensure a dwelling unit is a standalone item. Measurements from Grade: When the height of building is measured, it is measured from the finished grade. The department is starting to see a planted area or planter box pushed up against the building to be used as the measurable grade. The update attempts to eliminate the attempts to utilize planter boxes as the finished grade. Internal Skylights: Update to clarify the skylights do not count when measuring subgrade portions of the structure. Net Leasable and Net Livable Area: There have been a couple of recent examples where a commercial building spans a property line. To date, Staff has assumed the structures or portions of a structure on a 6 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2015 property belong to the property owner even if the majority of a structure is on a neighboring property. The update clarifies if the structure crosses a property line, the floor area is associated only with the property where it resides. Building Envelopes: The surveying community has had a tendency to describe setbacks as a building envelope. The department catches this now, but there are older surveys from the 1980’s and 1990’s as well as property annexed into the City which incorrectly describe setback as the building envelope on plats. If there is no actual requirement for a building envelope, the department will treat those as setbacks. There are several subdivisions where they did intend to treat it as a building envelope. The code amendment allows Staff to make the differentiation. Mr. McNellis asked if the differentiation allows for pristine conditions to identify setbacks appropriately and Mr. Bendon agreed. Development in Setbacks: There have been more and more issues with items being placed in setbacks. The most recent occurrences have been hot tubs in the setbacks. Houses tend to take up all the lot except the front yard. This includes the packaged portable hot tubs. The updates would clarify these items cannot be located in yards facing a street. They can exist in yards visible by the street if they are properly screened by a fence or landscaping. He pointed to a diagram provided (p 33) in the packet and noted it becomes an issue particularly on corner lots because more of the property is visible. He clarified forward of the front façade, fences are limited to 42 inches in height. In back of the façade, they may be six ft in height. He also noted the list of items includes air conditioning units, utility pedestals, grills, built in furniture, and waterfalls. Mr. McNellis asked if the prohibited area was double the setback as depicted on the diagram. Mr. Bendon was not certain how the department determined the prohibited area and it may be double the setback. The commissioners stated they felt all the proposed changes looked good. Ms. Tygre asked Mr. Bendon to confirm the updates relating to skylights would not change any of the calculations such as FAR or sf at which he confirmed she was correct. He added they are technically the roof of the basement level. She stated she has seen a lot of skylights over rooms that are not really supposed to be bedrooms because they don’t have access, but there are beds in them. Mr. Mesirow asked for the size requirements of an egress for a subgrade bedrooms. Mr. Bendon thought it was 30 in X 30 in or 36 in X 36 in. Mr. Bendon stated he would summarize that he reviewed the proposed amendments with P&Z and they were fine with them. Ms. Tygre then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 7