Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20250107 REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2025 Commissioners in attendance: Maryann Pitt, Tom Gorman, Ken Canfield, Eric Knight, Christine Benedetti, and Teraissa McGovern Staff present: Ben Anderson, Com Dev Director Jeffrey Barnhill, Senior Planner Haley Hart, Long Range Planner Sophie Varga, Zoning Administrator Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Tracy Terry, Deputy City Clerk Commissioner Comments: Ms. McGovern said congratulations to the two council candidates on our board and Marcus Blue has moved so he is no longer on the board and Charlie will move into a regular member position. Public Comments: None. Minutes: Ms. Benedetti motioned to approve the minutes for November 19th, 2024, and the motion was seconded by Mr. Gorman. Ms. McGovern asked for a roll call vote. Roll call vote: Ms. Pitt, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Mr. Canfield, abstain; Mr. Knight, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes. Motion passes 5-0. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: None Mr. Tarver entered the meeting at 4:36pm. Submission of Public Notice for Agenda Items: Ms. Johnson said notice was provided. Other Business, Item 1 – P&Z Meeting Day Change Request Ms. Hart went over the reasons and details of the date change and the next steps. They want to move the meetings from Tuesdays to Wednesdays in order to move the meetings into Council Chambers. Staff recommend that P&Z approve resolution 1 of 2025. Motion Mr. Canfield moved to approve resolution 1 series 2025; Mr. Gorman seconded. Ms. McGovern asked for a roll call vote. Roll call vote: Mr. Tarver, yes; Ms. Pitt, no; Mr. Knight, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes. Motion passes 6-1 Other Business, item 2 – Response to Prop 122 Ms. Berne explained prop 122 and discussed it with the board. Motion Mr. Gorman motioned to take recess until 5:15, Ms. Pitt seconded, all in favor. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2025 Public Meeting, item 1: 823/825 E. Dean St-Appeal of Determination that Project Triggers Demolition Staff Presentation: Sophie Varga, Zoning Administrator Ms. Varga said that this item is an appeal of an administrative determination that a project triggers demolition. The followings is the criteria to access an appeal: the determination shall not be reversed or modified unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the administrative body had exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. Applicant Presentation: Seth Hmeilowski, Melanie Noonan, and Max Hemmy with Z Group Architecture and Interior Design Mr. Hmeilowski does not disagree with what staff has said; they want to look at demo and how it affects projects. He said it is not one size fits all when it comes to demo. We propose to look at what demo is and what is not, if there is a grey area and where our project fits. He will present an alternative that fits with the city’s goal, discuss the demo process, highlight the difference between recycling and repurposing, outline energy efficiency and show how this proposal is unique to this project. M. Noonan gave information about the project and location. Located within the RMF and per the code they would lose 750 sq ft with a full demo. She went over the demo code purpose. They intend to reduce construction waste and increase energy efficiency. Mr. Hmeilowski said the issue is they have a 1950’s structure with 1950s codes and snow loads that does not meet current code. Trying to bring it up to code would potentially cause the structure to collapse and going the route of trying to beef up the structure will create more landfill than rebuilding. Their proposal is a solution to a problem that aligns with the spirit of the code which will minimize waste, enhance sustainability, and reduce environmental impact. They would keep framing, wood decking, and exterior framing and reuse it on site. If this was a different home with proper framing we wouldn’t be here, but it is not. They feel this lines up with the City’s desire for sustainability. Board Questions: Mr. Canfield asked if they concede that the city didn’t deny due process, jurisdiction, and due process. Mr. Hmeilowski replied that he thought this was part of the due process. Mr. Canfield asked if they contest procedurally with how staff handled this application. Mr. Hmeilowski replied no, they thought this was a next step in the process and there would be open dialogue. He said if this is not the forum to do that, where is that forum. Ms. McGovern asked if the reduction in square footage is only to replace a single-family residence, if you were going to do multifamily in RMF you would have zero reduction. Mr. Hmeilowski replied correct. Ms. McGovern asked how they would track the reuse of the lumber. Mr. Hmeilowski replied they would propose a third party come in and track it, number the studs, etc. He said this happens in Boulder and other counties a lot. Ms. McGovern asked how this would affect the timeline. Mr. Hmeilowski said he does not think it would as they would take it down while they are putting up temp shoring. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2025 Ms. McGovern asked where the lumber would be stored. Mr. Hmeilowski replied on site. Mr. Tarver asked what the other route is. Mr. Hmeilowski said to demo 40% of the structure. Ms. Benedetti asked if the creativity was based around the demo allotment program. Mr. Hmeilowski said no, it just seems strange to keep a structure that doesn’t meet any of the code. Mr. Gorman asked what percentage of demo materials will be re-used. Mr. Hmeilowski replied 802 pieces of lumber. He said all the exterior sheathing is unusable and rotten, the siding and roof cannot be saved, it comes down to just the lumber, probably half of all materials. Mr. Gorman asked how much of the project would use the reused lumber. Mr. Hmeilowski replied the 2x4s can be used in any interior walls, the 2x8s would be used in the roof rafters. Mr. Gorman asked what the maximum size is that they can build to the in R6 zone. Mr. Hmeilowski replied 3,240 sq ft. Mr. Hmeilowski said he thought this was part of the process, not that they would be dead on arrival. Ms. Johnson replied that they have some legal options, but she cannot give them advice, she said this board has no authority to override the land use code with respect to your issue. Mr. Anderson said a lot if what they are bringing is good and there is coming shortly about an ordinance about construction waste. He said the 40% trigger for demo is more than just sustainability. On top of the sustainability piece, they are concerned about other land use outcomes that the 40% demo crosses. In terms of paths forward, a land use code change is needed. Mr. Hmeilowski said it is not one size fits all and that is what they are dealing with now that is causing frustration. Public Comment: The next-door neighbors said it is a shack, and they support the project. There is already too much traffic and it’s only a 1.5 lane road so they like the single-family option as it will not increase traffic. They also appreciate the sustainability of the project. Ms. Johnson replied that this is a public meeting, not a public hearing, so public comment is not allowed. Board Discussion Ms. McGovern said that Mr. Canfield summed it up well, that the procedure was followed, they just don’t like the outcome. The board discussed the standards of review and whether Community Development abused its discretion in their finding. Ms. Johnson replied that they cannot reverse or modify this decision unless they find there was a denial of due process, or the administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. Motion Mr. Canfield moved to uphold the Com Dev record of decision; Mr. Gorman seconded. Ms. McGovern asked for a roll call vote. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2025 Roll call vote: Mr. Tarver, yes; Ms. Pitt, yes; Mr. Knight, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes. Motion passes 7-0. Public Hearings, Item 1: 633 W Francis St– Replacement of Nonconforming Structures– Special Review Applicant Presentation: Ryan Doremus, representing the applicant Mr. Doremus is representing the client at 633 W Francis, and they are asking for a modification to an existing non-conforming structure. There are 3 basic elements: an addition of 500 sq ft garage, expansion of the existing basement with an access point through that existing wall and replacing existing deck. They are being held under the accountability of purposeful destruction. This is a 6,000 sq ft lot in the west end. It is non-conforming on far, setbacks, % of unit space for duplex, and was all approved per city code. The calculations from the 1981 permit are 3,592, which is close to our current allowable floor area at 3,240. Things that have changed since the 1981 code; increased the amount of floor area for basements and overhangs now count toward floor area. The floor area as calculated today is 4,144 sq ft. The proposed addition is on the alley side of the property and includes the addition of garage, modification of deck, basement below the new garage, and connecting piece between the two spaces. The footprint of the house is staying the same with one caveat, the hole in the wall that connects these two spaces. The part of the code states that demo of an existing structure is leading us to have to be here to talk about this one area. They are allowed by right to modify the deck, build a garage, and build a basement but the only thing that is not allowed is the window between the two spaces. The only criteria they did not meet is the hardship section. A literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would cause unnecessary hardship upon the owner by prohibiting reasonable use of the property. To meet the conformance of this code and our current it would require us to demo 40% of this structure and require us to go into demo allotment. The hardship is putting the code against itself and putting us into a hardship. We are trying to meet the intent of the zone, but the connection of the two buildings is considered destruction by code. Board Questions: Mr. Gorman asked when it was built. Mr. Doremus replied 1982 or 1983. Mr. Gorman then asked if there have been any renovations since then. Mr. Doremus replied that he does not know for sure but there appears to be. Mr. Gorman asked about the condition of the life safety systems. Mr. Doremus said the mechanical, heating and cooling, electrical, and storm water will be upgraded to current standards. Mr. Canfield asked him to describe the window between the two buildings. He said it is not a window, but they would be adding an access point between basements. He said this will not trigger demo because it is subgrade. Mr. Canfield said he has serious questions if special review is even needed. Staff Presentation: Jeff Barnhill, Senior Planner Mr. Barnhill went over the project, the request, and the criteria for special review. Staff does not feel the literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district will create unnecessary hardship upon the owner by prohibiting reasonable use of the property, nor does staff find there are any special site circumstances. Staff recommends denial of the project. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2025 Board Questions: Mr. Canfield said he is struggling with whether a special review is required. He asked if it is staff’s contention that whenever any part of an existing structure is destroyed as part of a construction project, that triggers special review. Mr. Barnhill replied it depends on what they are trying to put there or the scope of what is happening. He said it is the staff’s view that they are destroying those walls to create more area. Mr. Canfield and Mr. Barnhill discussed what triggers special review. Public Comment: Seth Hmeilowski said these are the types of projects that are good for clients and architects, and they are trying to do these designs around a complex code, and they are looking to P&Z to look at them project by project to decide should an entire project be denied for one small thing that has no bearing on anything. He thinks the hardship is the code. Kate Johnson read a letter into the record from Mike Kremer from Kremer Land Planning. (see letter in record) Motion Mrs. Pitt moved to continue the meeting until 7:30; Mr. Gorman seconded. All in favor Staff rebuttal to public comment: Mr. Barnhill said this project isn’t the worst project they have ever seen but this property is wildly non- conforming; there are parts of it in the setback, they enjoy 600 sq ft more of floor area that is allowable. He said they’ve put together reasons this is a good project and reasons why they don’t think it should be approved. Applicant rebuttal to staff rebuttal: Mr. Doremus said realistically if they redevelop and ask to add a door to the garage they would be here regardless of where it is. They are asking for something that has a minimal impact to the community for something they have the right to build, except for the connection. Mr. Canfield asked if a stairway and door to the back of the property would have been approved instead of a door between the two. Mr. Doremus replied that they asked and didn’t get a clear answer. Mr. Canfield asked if that is because you are asking for access to the house from the new space it is being denied. Ms. McGovern replied that it would create three units. Board Discussion: Mr. Canfield said he does not think special review is required, the applicant wants to alter the existing structure by adding a couple of doors and that in his view there should not be sufficient enough destruction to trigger special review and staff has admitted there is a discretionary element of what can trigger review. The proposed project does not increase the non-conformity. Mr. Gorman said he sees a 40-year-old house that is an amalgam of different eras and if renovation is blocked it will become a demolition project. He is approaching it as a pragmatic decision to allow a minor renovation to avoid demolition. Ms. Benedetti agrees with Tom and Ken and is in support. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2025 Mr. Knight said he doesn’t see the hardship. Ms. Pitt said it is a minimal impact to the community and she supports it. Mr. Tarver has no comment, he said he can count. Ms. McGovern said it is destruction not demolition so she cannot approve, they haven’t proved hardship. Motion Mr. Gorman moved to approve resolution 3 series 2025 granting approval; Mr. Canfield seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Tarver, no; Ms. Pitt, yes; Mr. Knight, no; Mr. Canfield, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Ms. McGovern, no. Motion passes 4-3. Other Business, Item 3 – Election of Chair and Vice Chair Ms. Johnson said the land use code requires boards to elect a chair and vice chair at the beginning of every year. Motion Mr. Canfield moved to reappoint Ms. McGovern and Ms. Benedetti as Chair and Vice Chair; Mr. Gorman seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Tarver, yes; Ms. Pitt, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes; Mr. Knight, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes. Motion passes 7-0. Adjourn: Mr. Canfield motioned to adjourn; Mr. Gorman seconded. All in favor. Tracy Terry, Deputy City Clerk