Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20160105Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2016 1 Mr. Goode, Vice Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order at 4:30 PM with members Keith Goode, Jesse Morris, Kelly McNicholas Kury, and Spencer McNight. Ryan Walterscheid, Jasmine Tygre, Jason Elliott, Skippy Mesirow, and Brian McNellis were not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Debbie Quinn, Jennifer Phelan and Hillary Seminick. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Goode stated a member of the community approached him with an idea he wanted to ask how to proceed. She stated back in the day spaces on the ground floor of the mall were prohibited from being real estate offices. She proposed doing something similar with larger retail chains as well. He stated Nantucket and other communities have done something similar. Mr. Goode asked if this would be a zoning change or something else. Ms. Phelan stated during the moratorium in 2007 there was a lot of discussion regarding the types of businesses including luxury retail and chains, but Council never proceeded with anything. She stated it may come up again and asked if there was a particular chain at which Mr. Goode replied no. He added Nantucket had grandfathered in existing businesses. Ms. Quinn stated it would probably be a code amendment and would need to originate with Council. Ms. Phelan agreed with Ms. Quinn and stated the City has taken a look at this before and no action was taken. Ms. Phelan mentioned Ms. Jessica Garrow may be attending P&Z in the near future to provide a long range update and it may be a good time to discuss Council’s goals in regards to code amendments. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan stated there is nothing scheduled for the next meeting currently but Ms. Garrow may review the long range goals with the board. Ms. Klob mentioned the board would receive an email tomorrow requesting their availability to participate in interviews for the new Community Development Director. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments. MINUTES – December 15, 2015 Ms. McNicholas Kury moved to approve the minutes for December 15th and was seconded by Mr. McNight. All in favor, motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS Lot 2 Erdman Partnership Lot Split – Residential Design Standards Review – Public Hearing Mr. Goode opened the public hearing and asked if public notice was appropriately provided. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2016 2 Ms. Quinn stated she had reviewed the affidavits of notice as presented in the agenda packet and found them appropriate. Ms. Seminick stated they are available in Exhibit D of the packet. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Hillary Seminick, Community Development Planner, stated the application requests two residential design standard (RDS) variances at lot 2 of the Erdman Partnership Lot Split subdivision. The project is located in the west end on a flat lot on the corner of Gillespie and Lake St. Lot 1 at 360 Lake Ave is developed and located directly behind lot 2. There is a right of way easement providing shared egress to lots 1 and 2. The applicant is requesting a variance from the secondary mass and inflection in the RDS requirements. The criteria for a variance must consider the neighborhood context or an unusual site specific constraint. The secondary mass standard requires at least 10% of the total above grade sf of a new structure to be either completely detached from the principal building or linked by a subordinate linking element. The proposed design does not meet this standard. The second RDS variance would be needed for inflection. A single story residence at 340 Lake Ave is a property located directly south of the subject property. Inflection requires if a one story building adjacent to the subject site exists, the new structure must step down one story in height along the common lot line. Inflection is only met if the structure is one story along the front or street facing lot line and it also one story along the shared lot line for the length of the inflected structure. The proposed structure does not have a one story element meeting the inflection requirement on the shared lot line. Staff does not find the application meeting the neighborhood standard and there are no site specific constraints associated with the parcel warranting the granting of the requested variances. Staff recommends denial of the secondary mass and inflection RDS variance request. Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions for staff. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked to confirm the criteria for secondary massing. She asked for any new structure built on a lot, what percentage is required of the primary and secondary structures. Ms. Seminick stated at least 10% of the total above grade floor area needs to be located in a secondary mass. This secondary mass could be completely detached from the primary structure like a garage or other subordinate structure like and accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Ms. McNicholas Kury asked what would be considered a linking element. Ms. Phelan stated the linking element must be a certain dimension and cannot exceed 10 ft long x 10 ft wide. She stated an example would be a mud room connecting a garage to the main house. Mr. Morris asked if the variances could be approved if one; the changes fit the context of the neighborhood and two; a site specific constraint exists. Ms. Seminick stated P&Z needs to identify only one of the criteria as being met to grant the variance. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if the adjacent residence is located on a separate lot at which Ms. Seminick confirmed it was on a separate lot. Mr. Goode then turned the floor over to applicant. Mr. Steev Wilson, Forum Phi, represents the applicant. Mr. Wilson displayed an overhead shot of the two homes next to each other as they were prior to the lot split. He then provided a site plan and stated the eave height of the building predominately all the Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2016 3 way around is about 10 ft so it is viewed as a single story structure from the street. He noted an area highlighted in red representing no occupiable space below it. There are a few dormers projecting out, but the plate height is about 10 ft and it slopes up from there. The total size of the building is intended to be reduced by putting a lot of the space of the building in the attic. One of the primary intents of the piece of code in the building form section is to respect the scale of Aspen’s historical homes by creating new homes which are more similar in their massing. The secondary thing is to allow access for light and air. He stated the intent is to not have huge buildings encroaching on others which is accomplished by breaking up the mass of the building. Specifically, it states to create accessory units off the alleys of buildings. Mr. Wilson stated there is not alley for this application and this is not your typical street front back to alley west end lot. This project is on a lake in a subdivision. He understands the two houses need to be considered independently, and were originally part of the same lot and now one acts as a secondary mass to the other when considering the broader neighborhood context. He stated the inflection is being met through the longer façade that is one story. All the development has been moved up into the eaves of the building. Mr. Wilson then displayed a street level image and topo image. Picture 1 depicted large Spruce trees on neighboring lot. He noted the trees are not on the applicant’s property. He stated they belong to the City. He then showed images looking at up and down streets. He also showed views originating from driveways down on Lake Ave. He also showed images of homes across the street with predominantly one story eave line and noted they are accessing the attic for additional volume. A gambel roof form is used to provide additional space with a one story eave line. He then showed the location of the small cabin across the driveway access. He then displayed elevations including structures behind it for context. He pointed out the low eave form on the street facing façade about 7 ft deep across the entire face of the building. He noted there is a mass on the left and right and spanned with a roof between which they feel is close to having two elements. He stated it is not meeting the exact code but the area underneath is a breezeway giving it a carriage house feel which is in context with the neighborhood. From behind he showed the breezeway goes all the way through. The house is eight and a half ft off the ground and one long sloping roof with a few dormers in it. Why this may not meet the letter of inflection, he feels if the project meets the intent. He then displayed and discussed the recent proposed changes to the RDS that passed at first reading on December 14, 2015. He highlighted sections of the proposed code changes he feels are applicable to their proposal. He believes the code change is going to its second reading this month and based on their conversations with Mr. Justin Barker, the application would meet option 1 of the modified RDS based on the execution of the project. Mr. Wilson then showed a 3 dimensional picture of the proposed structure with and without existing trees from the across the street. He then displayed a view from the south and one from above. He concluded stating the development is historically respectful of the neighborhood. Mr. Goode asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked for the height of the building that is to be considered for inflection. Ms. Phelan stated it is a one story cabin that was formerly a L’Auberge cabin. She doubted it is more than 15 ft tall. Mr. Morris asked for the peak height of the proposed inflected structure of the carriage house. Mr. Wilson believed it to be 28 ft. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2016 4 Ms. McNicholas Kury then asked Mr. Wilson to point out 12 ft back from the front of the proposed structure, which he did. Mr. McNight asked for the reasoning of the lot split. Mr. Wilson stated it occurred in the 1990’s. Ms. Phelan stated this is a separate saleable lot. She added both lots are currently held by the same owner but it could be sold off. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if they could be rejoined and Ms. Phelan stated probably not because it would mean less developable sf. Mr. Goode then opened for public comment. Ms. Claude Salter, a neighbor, asked to make some points in regards to the property.  The hedgerow identified by Mr. Wilson might be on City property, but was planted by the previous owner. It is an illegal hedgerow and she cautioned the board to make any decisions in regards to the trees.  The lot under discussion is currently a vacant lot and she does not believe it has any site specific constraints such as river or steep slopes. She feels it is important for the development to correspond and respect Lake Ave and it should be facing Lake Ave.  The eave line meets the intent of the code regarding secondary mass.  The small cabin next to it should have inflection. The cabin was required to meet RDS when it was placed there.  New development should not be allowed any RDS variances, particularly in the west end.  In regards the eaves being presented as a one story inflection, she does not believe the code speaks to the eaves, it speaks to the entire structure.  Speaking as to what code may be in the future is taking a big risk. We do not know what Council will say in regards to the proposed changes to RDS.  This house as proposed does not meet the inflection required, nor does it meet secondary mass. The breezeway is not meet the definition of a linking element in regards to length and width.  She does not see eaves similar the proposed ones in the neighborhood. Even with the dormers, they are not putting a lot of volume into the eaves. In closing, she does not support any of the RDS variance requests. Mr. Goode then asked if the commissioners had additional questions. Ms. McNicholas Kury wanted to know if it was one story building with a 28 ft tall roof, would that be considered one story. Ms. Seminick stated stories are measured to plate heights. Ms. Phelan stated with inflection, it would be difficult to have a 28ft tall one story. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked about a traditional one story with uninhabitable attic space. Ms. Phelan stated there isn’t a good definition of one story of fully usable space at least 12 ft wide. There are areas within the code discussing not exceeding plate heights of 10 ft, but not related to inflection. Mr. McNight asked if the examples of garages and sheds for secondary masses listed in the packet reflect the purpose or could it be a carriage home. Ms. Phelan stated it could be part of the primary house, but you need a linking element. Another example had the master bedroom as a secondary mass with a linking element. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked if it could be more than 10% at which Ms. Phelan stated yes, just not less than 10%. Mr. Goode then opened for discussion. Regular Meeting Minutes Planning & Zoning Commission January 5, 2016 5 Mr. Morris stated if there are no site specific constraints, then it won’t be part of this discussion. He feels it is really inappropriate to make decisions based on potential future Council decisions. He does not feel the proposed design fits with the character of the neighborhood based on the inflection point. He understands the effort, but he feels the proposed structure is a lot of mass even when broken up. He does not see the contextual fit. He stated the shot of the building across the site (#5) steps down to a one story in the same building and has a different character than the proposed structure. Mr. McNight agrees with Mr. Morris. He feels it is a unique carriage house design, but feels the design includes a fully livable second story. He does not feel it is up to P&Z to decide and is opposed to the application. Ms. McNicholas Kury agrees with the others and doesn’t see an attempt to meet the secondary mass criteria. She see some attempt at justifying inflection but does not feel there are strong points to grant variances. Mr. Goode asked if the hedge is illegal, is the some way to notify the Parks Department. Ms. Phelan stated Parks would have to investigate for disease or see if something was planted too close. Mr. Goode feels an investigation may be constructive for the neighborhood. Mr. McNight agrees and feels this should be looked at as though it is not there. Mr. Goode feels they are all in agreement. Mr. Morris moved to deny the request for the RDS variance as noted in resolution 001, series 2016. At this point, the applicant requested a continuance. Ms. Phelan stated the applicant has the ability apply under the new RDS should it changed and adopted. Mr. Morris and Mr. McKnight felt it was reasonable to allow for a continuance. Mr. Morris withdrew his motion. Mr. Morris motioned to continue the hearing to January 18, 2016. The motion was seconded by Mr. McKnight. All in favor, motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS Election of Chair and Vice-Chair Ms. Quinn identified the options for selecting a chair and vice-chair, identify a temporary chair and vice- chair or continuing the selection to the next meeting. The commission discussed their options since there were only four members present. Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to extend the selection of the chair and vice-chair appointments until the next regularly scheduled meeting in which there will be more than four members present and the motion was seconded. All in favor, motion passed. ADJOURN Mr. Goode then adjourned the meeting. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager