Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20151201Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission December 1, 2015 Mr. Walterscheid called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jasmine Tygre, Brian McNellis, Keith Goode, Spencer McNight and Ryan Walterscheid present. Jason Elliott, Skippy Mesirow, and Jesse Morris were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; James True, Jennifer Phelan and Hillary Seminick. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. McNicholas Kury asked staff if they were aware of the upcoming developer’s presentation this upcoming Thursday at the Limelight regarding Lift One. Ms. Phelan stated some staff did receive invitations and thought a couple of Staff may attend. She added an application has not been submitted. Mr. McNight asked it would be appropriate for P&Z commissioners to attend the presentation. Mr. True recommends the commissioners not attend because it may raise questions and could possibly place a commissioner in a position that someone may argue the commissioner prejudged an application and attained information outside of the process. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES – November 17, 2015 Mr. Goode moved to approve the minutes for October 20th and was seconded by Mr. McNight. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. Lot 1 Pitkin Reserve Sub – Residential Design Standard Variance – Continued Hearing from November 3, 2015 Mr. Walterscheid opened the continued public hearing and turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner with the Community Development Department, noted this was hearing for a residential design standard variance for Lot 1 in the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision. She displayed an image as shown in Figure B of the packet depicting the location of the lot bound by the Roaring Fork River and Rio Grande Trail to the south and the Pitkin County, Aspen City limit boundary immediately to the north. Ms. Seminick continued stating the applicant is requesting this variance to allow for the front door to be recessed more than 10 ft from the front most façade of the structure. The residential design standard requires the front door to be no more than 10 ft behind the front most façade of a structure. This is the only variance under consideration for the hearing. She displayed an image as shown in Figures E and F on p 16 of the packet demonstrating the design and perspective of the proposed front door which will be set back about 20 ft. 1 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission December 1, 2015 She noted the application meets all other relevant design standards including the front porch. She displayed the criteria for a residential design standard variance and noted the criteria must take into consideration the neighborhood context or an unusual site-specific constraint. She then stated lot one is the furthest west lot within the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision and indicated this on an image of the subdivision plat (Figure C, p 15). She noted the greenbelt line specified on the plat which was established in the planned development in order to protect the Rio Grande Corridor from encroaching development and is intended to remain in a natural condition. She noted the greenbelt line trends away from the front lot line on Pitkin Way which is the road used to access the lots. The greenbelt line is the closest to front lot line for lot one than the other lots on Pitkin Way. The greenbelt line has since been removed from the plats for the subdivision, but it is the City’s position the line is still effect even though it was replaced with building envelopes. She pointed out the building envelope is above the greenbelt line. The greenbelt line results in a site-specific constraint where the building envelope is pushed up against Pitkin Way. Ms. Seminick displayed an image of other structures in the subdivision and noted the distances are 25-44 ft. The proposed 25 ft from the edge of the pavement for the application is consistent with the neighborhood context. Because of the building envelop constraints and the proposed front door distance as compared with neighboring properties, Staff has determined the variance request is in context with the neighborhood standard. Staff recommends P&Z approve the request for the residential design standard variance. Ms. Phelan added typically unless a property or single family home or duplex is designated historic, the applicant would just need to apply for a building permit as long as it meets the setbacks, height, allowable floor area and residential design standards. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions for Staff. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any administrative variances granted. Ms. Seminick replied there were none, however with the building envelope has been administratively adjusted. She displayed an image of Figure G on p17 and described the adjustments made to the envelope. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if based on the proposed changes to the residential design standards from a previous meeting, would this application be treated differently. Ms. Seminick stated potentially they would be have been able to administratively approve the request under the proposed amendments. If the applicant did not comply with the standard, they would have applied for an alternate compliance to have the door set further back. Mr. McNellis asked if there are other residences located further west. Ms. Seminick stated there are residences further to the west located within Pitkin County. There are also residences to the north up on Willoughby Way. Mr. Simon Elliott, applicant representative, stated there is one lot beyond the applicant’s lot utilizing Pitkin Way for access. Ms. Seminick noted there is a public comment letter in Exhibit E in the packet from the representative of the owner of the lot beyond the applicant’s lot. Mr. Goode asked if this property currently has story poles. Ms. Seminick stated the Home Owners Association (HOA) requires story poles for any new development in order to receive their approval. In regards to height, they are required to stay under Willoughby Way and she believed there is a 25 ft height limit. Mr. Elliott added the height is measured by finished grade. Mr. Walterscheid asked staff to clarify if the neighbor’s objection as stated in the letter to the application was in regards to height or the envelope adjustment. Ms. Phelan replied further information would probably be available during the public comment portion of the hearing. 2 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission December 1, 2015 Mr. Walterscheid then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Simon Elliot, CCY Architects, represents the applicant. Mr. Elliot believes they meet the context of the neighborhood and they also feel the greenbelt line is a constraint forcing the home closer to Pitkin Way. In regards to neighborhood context, he showed a slide of the existing homes and discussed the distances to the front doors of the existing homes. In regards to the greenbelt line, he displayed an image of the first amended plat of the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision and noting the depth of the lot one as compared to the other lots. The applicant’s building envelope depth is approximately 47 ft and the neighboring properties build up to over 90 ft. Mr. Elliot stated he wanted to comment on the letter submitted by the neighbor. He then pointed to the neighbor’s property on a displayed image and noted the property is accessed by a 12 ft road access easement which goes by the face of the applicant’s property. He stated the notation of a 20 ft easement in the letter is actually a utility easement and not the road easement. The road is within the 12 ft easement. In response to the letter discussing a footprint or that a house was previously located on the lot, Mr. Elliot stated there is no indications there has ever been a house on the lot. He stated the information described in the letter comes from a document that does not match the recorded plat for the subdivision in that the road is coming in from a different direction, the lot lines are laid out differently and the location of the road is in a different location. He discussed, but did not submit the document as an exhibit to the hearing. He then wanted to respond to a couple of points included in the letter: Elevation – The letter states the house is 17 ft tall on the uninterrupted façade facing Pitkin way. He stated it is actually 11 ft 9 in at its tallest point. He displayed an elevation image and noted it may appear taller in another portion of the building where it is pushed back further away from the road. House location in regards to the road – The letter noted the house is 5 ft 8 in from the road which is a distance at the property line. He stated the way the road and easement comes through the property, there is a bit more room. He showed a series of perspectives moving down the road to demonstrate the house is not an obstruction to the road in any way. He also stated the road is only used by those living at the end of the road and for maintenance of the Pitkin Green’s wells. Mr. Curt Sanders, representative for the applicant, stated the letter submitted indicated the access road is 20 ft in width as it passes the house. It is reflected on plat as a 12 ft service road easement. Subsequently there was an instrument recorded between Pitkin Reserve and Pitkin Way which describes it as a 20 ft easement and the letter does not reference a following agreement indicating the 20 ft easement reference was incorrect and noted it as a 12 ft easement. The building envelope is the result of a planned unit development (PUD) amended two or three times. He stressed it is a very constrained area for building. Mr. Elliot added if this lot was in the standard R-30 zone district and not a PUD, the application would have to respond to the property line setbacks. Since it was defined with a PUD, the building envelope is used instead of setbacks. Mr. Walterscheid asked if there were any questions for the applicant. No questions were brought forward. 3 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission December 1, 2015 Mr. Walterscheid then opened for public comment. Mr. Mike Hoffman, represents the property owners at the end of the road, RoadsEnd LLC. He stated he needs to meet with Mr. Sanders to discuss what easements exist across the property and agrees with Mr. Sanders in that it is a heavily constrained site. Mr. Hoffman stated they had asked prior to the previous hearing for the structure for the applicant to advantage of the east side of lot for the new development at which the applicant responded it was too difficult and too far down the road. Mr. Hoffman stated no matter what becomes of the easements, the property should respect its neighbors and the fact the garage is within five and a half feet or less than 7 ft, it is clearly very close to the road. Mr. Hoffman then pointed out the location RoadsEnd property and noted the area that had been annexed into the City in the early 1980’s. The owner’s right to use the road was established in the 1984 plat and it was a 20 ft easement. Mr. Hoffman stated they had not yet looked at it to see if the road as it currently exists and proposed improvements conflict with one another. Their complaint is that it is just too close to the road. He feels the proposed dimensions reflect an urban setback from the road. Mr. Hoffman stated the documents establishing the Pitkin Reserve subdivision and the easement required his client to pay an equal share of the road maintenance cost. For purposes of paying these costs, he is almost a member of the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision. Mr. Hoffman stated they object to the proposed variance because it will allow the garage to exist too close to the road. Mr. Hoffman then displayed a close up of the plat and described the proposed location of the garage in respect to the road. He stated the variance would not be required if garage was placed elsewhere on the lot. He asked P&Z to deny the request. Technically, the request does not meet the standards and it is not consistent with the neighborhood. There is room on the eastern side of the lot for a garage. He pointed out on an enlargement of the 1984 plat and noted there was hardscape including a stairway leading up to the structure and a place to park a car. He also pointed to a turnout which he states currently exists on the property. Mr. Walterscheid then asked if the commissioners had questions. Mr. McNellis asked Staff to confirm the variance requested pertains to the location of the front door and if a variance is needed to build within an established setback. Ms. Seminick stated if they did not need a design variance for the front door setback, they could have come in and applied for a building permit. Mr. Walterscheid asked what exemptions were allowed to the applicant for setbacks regarding the front facing façade. Ms. Seminick stated the property is outside the infill area so they are already exempt from many residential design standards. She reiterated the only variance the applicant is seeking is the front door. Mr. Walterscheid stated it appears when the building envelope was adjusted, the setback lines were not adjusted at which Ms. Seminick confirmed was true. She displayed the envelope as shown in Figure G and described the adjustments made to the building envelope. She noted the survey is included in the packet as Exhibit C. Mr. Elliot stated the building envelope adjustments actually included a small movement further away from Pitkin Way to prevent any development encroachment in the 20 ft sewer easement. Ms. McNicholas Kury wanted to confirm if they had moved the front door closer to the road, the variance would not be necessary. Staff confirmed this was correct. 4 Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission December 1, 2015 Mr. Elliot reiterated the slide displayed by Mr. Hoffman does not represent existing conditions. He added the owner of the lot went through an approval process with the Pitkin Reserve HOA which included the previous owner of the RoadsEnd property. Ms. Phelan stated she had reviewed the design standards and noted on a private road a garage may be forward and there is more leniency on its location. If it was a public road, the garage would have to be setback from the façade. She reiterated this is a private road and the biggest issue is the location of the front door in relation to the front façade of the building. Mr. Sanders wanted to note the slide of the plat page presented by Mr. Hoffman does not represent the page of the plat which shows the establishment of the easement. Other pages show Pitkin Way in different locations and configurations. Mr. Hoffman recollected it was from the drainage plan on the PUD and he was not relying on it to represent Pitkin Way. His point was the turn out does exist and there is room on the side of the property for the garage. Mr. Walterscheid then opened for commissioner’s discussion. Mr. Goode understands the concern of the neighbor but does not have a problem with what the applicant is requesting. Mr. McNight feels the site constraints warrant the variance and because it came before P&Z, it opened the door for the neighbor to voice their concerns. He does believe the commissioners can make a decision on the neighbors’ concerns and feels the request is consistent with the neighborhood context. Although it does not impact his decision, he is a bit concerned regarding the hearsay by the representatives of both the applicant and the neighbor. Ms. McNicholas Kury feels if there is disagreement regarding the legal mass and easements, it is not P&Z’s role to adjudicate. She doesn’t feel denying the request offers any remedy for the neighbor’s concerns. She feels the variance request meets the standards. Ms. Tygre agrees with the other commissioners. Mr. Walterscheid agrees P&Z is only reviewing the front door setback and does not have a problem with the request. Mr. Goode motioned to approve the request for a variance from the residential design standards as described in resolution #21, series 2015. The motion was seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury. Mr. Walterscheid requested a roll call. Roll call vote: Mr. McNight, yes; Ms. McNicholas Kury, yes; Mr. McNellis, yes; Mr. Goode, yes; Ms. Tygre, yes; and Mr. Walterscheid, yes. The motion passed with a total six (6) yes – zero (0) no. Mr. Walterscheid then closed the public hearing. Mr. Walterscheid then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager 5