Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20250204 REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4TH, 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 Sophie Varga, Zoning Administrator Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Tracy Terry, Deputy City Clerk Commissioner Comments: Staff Comments: Ben Anderson let P&Z know that the second reading for the change of date is next week and will go into effect the first meeting in April. Public Comments: None. Minutes: Mr. Canfield motioned to approve the minutes for December 3rd, 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, yes; Mr. Knight, abstain; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes. Motion passes 4-0. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Ms. Johnson let Ms. Benedetti know that she will need to leave for 730 Bay Street item. Submission of Public Notice for Agenda Items: Ms. Johnson said that legal notice was provided. Public Hearing, item 1: 232 E. Main Street Applicant Presentation: Linda Manning, representing 232 E Main St LLC Ms. Manning said they are requesting a continuation to the first meeting in May. They would like to look further into affordable housing and potentially presenting all of their projects together. Ms. Pitt asked if that is allowable. Ms. Johnson let them know that they have used their one allowable continuance, so it is up to the commissioners upon a finding of good cause. Mr. Anderson said there is no hesitation from staff’s perspective to allow a continuance. Motion Mr. Gorman moved to continue 232 E Main St to April 2nd; Ms. Benedetti seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Pitt, no; Mr. Gorman, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes; Mr. Knight, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes. Motion 5-1. Ms. Benedetti left the meeting at 4:46pm. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4TH, 2025 Public Hearings, Item 2: 730 Bay Street Continuation, Replacement of nonconforming structures- special review Ms. Johnson noted for the record that Mr. Canfield was not present for the original meeting 12-17-24. The info was sent to him, and she asked him if he was able to review the video and all the packet information. Mr. Canfield verified that he was able to review all the information. Applicant Presentation: Mike Kraemer with Kraemer Land Planning Mr. Kraemer introduced the owner of the property, JJ Ofer; Seth Hmeilowski, architect; and Kurt Sanders, Mr. Ofer’s attorney. Mr. Kraemer stated that they made some changes based on the commissioner’s feedback at the last meeting. He proceeded to go over the project information that he went over last meeting. Ms. McGovern has asked that the team to further reduce the floor area and bring the project into as close compliance as possible. He said they have reduced the floor area another 445 sq ft through the elimination of more non-conforming decks. The total reduction for the project is 2,225 sq ft, which is nearly a 30% reduction from the existing floor area. To reduce it further would require the applicant to start making structural changes to the home, which we believe is unreasonable. They have found there is a 0% demolition calculation. There are no variance requests in this proposal. The allowable floor area is 5,016 sq ft; existing it is at 7,774 sq ft. Mr. Hmeilowski said this house is 30 years old and needs a renovation in some capacity. They are looking to do an interior remodel, the square footage in the attic already exists, they are just asking to access it with a doorway. The massive change is making the decks conforming. Everything that is being touched is bring upgraded to today’s standards and energy codes. Mr. Sanders said it’s arguable that they should even be in a special review process. The reason for that is the non-conformities consist of a deck overage and excess floor area. The applicant desires to alter the non-conforming structure by eliminating the deck overage and substantially reducing the floor area overage by reducing the decks. It is an 80% reduction of the existing non-conformity. They also desire to renovate completely interior spaces to make them habitable. The proposed interior and exterior renovation is permitted under 26.312.030c because a non-conforming structure is being altered in a manner that does not change or reduces the non-conformity. They have a non-conforming structure, over on decks and floor area, it is being altered in a manner that decreases the extent of the non- conformity. Based upon that provision of the code the applicant should be on their way based on that alone. Alternatively, the code says any structure that is purposefully demolished or destroyed may be replaced with a diff structure only if the replacement structure is in conformance with the current provisions of the title or you go to special review. The second argument is that they don’t belong in special review because of the first provision of the code. They are going to purposefully destroy the decks, and they are not being replaced, they are being completely eliminated so the argument is that if they eliminate the decks, the non-conforming aspect is being removed. That language allows them to perform the renovation of the property as currently proposed. The third argument is that if they get in the italicized provision of scenario 2, unless the replacement of non-conformity is approved pursuant to the provisions of 26.430, that is why they are here today, the special review provisions. The hardship criteria are the last criteria that go with special review, whether literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district would cause unnecessary hardship on the owner by prohibiting reasonable use of the property. The staff memo said there is a house there with an ADU, that should be good enough. The only reason we are here is because we deem the property not to be satisfactory. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4TH, 2025 Their position is that it is a circular argument, and the correct analysis should not be is it good enough right now, but what do they want to do to modify the non-conformity and is that a reasonable use of the property. If there is a literal enforcement of the R30 dimensional provisions they cannot do anything to it unless they eliminate 550 sq ft. They cannot do that in any way other than tearing down the structure, there are no other floor area gains there, and that is a hardship. The last point is there are other applications that have come across this board recently that are like this project, both of those applications did not meet the code requirements based on floor area and setbacks. They proposed renovations and they both came away with approval. They were not asked to come into complete conformance on floor area or setbacks. Mr. Sanders is asking they be given the same considerations. Mr. Ofer said he has been coming to Aspen since 1980 and has finally been able to buy a property. The house is 30 years old and needs some love so he can love it for 30 more. They need an office because they have 4 children and are unable to work at the kitchen table. His mother-in-law also lives with them so they need the extra room while still maintaining the ADU. They are only requesting to work with the existing space. Board Questions: Mr. Gorman asked if the only change is a reduction in the floor area. Mr. Kraemer replied yes. Staff Presentation: Jeff Barnhill, Senior Planner Mr. Barnhill went over the project and the criteria for special review. Staff do not feel that the project meets the hardship part of the code and requests denial. Staff acknowledge that the project avoids demolition and there are 4 parts of the project staff find is a benefit; it prioritizes massing underground, utilizes existing interior spaces, there are no variances, and it would eliminate 2200 sq ft from site and bring closer into conformity to the land use code. Mr. Anderson said they do not think what is being proposed is unreasonable. Staff and P&Z find this topic difficult. When this code was written no one foresaw what they are dealing with now. The terms hardship, reasonable use of property, and non-conformity are not used only in Aspen. Hardship is a very strong term and so is reasonable use in land use codes. The benefits and compromises are all very allottable, but the destruction of things like lightwells and modifications of the crawl space fundamentally change the total floor area calculations for the whole project. It is compliant with the code but allows the house to get bigger than it is and still reduces floor space. Staff are trying to respond to the complexities of the projects they are seeing over time. He also thinks expanding the review criteria in special review is a code amendment that would give everyone more flexibility. Board Questions: Ms. McGovern asked if they ran the numbers for the slope. Mr. Barnhill said it met the code. Mr. Canfield asked what the underlying policy reason is that supports the argument that if something triggers demolition you have to have a hardship. Mr. Anderson replied that the hardship language is there because the intention of non-conformity is when you change them that they go away. The exemption for subgrade muddies the water. Mr. Canfield replied they want the property to get so bad that it has to be demolished and rebuilt conforming. His problem with the project is that nothing is changing on the exterior to make the non- REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4TH, 2025 conformity worse so it does not seem that the same policy reasons would apply. Mr. Anderson said staff finds its position of trying to navigate complex redevelopment proposals under a land use code that created high thresholds for making modification to non-0conforming structures. There are aspects that are totally in line with the code and there are portions that they are struggling with. Mr. Canfield said he had asked previously if it is staffs’ position that if there is any destruction whatsoever, no matter how small of a property, it triggers special review and was told it is discretionary. Is this such a small amount of destruction and in a place not observable outside that it could avoid the need for special review and has that position changed since the last discussion. Mr. Anderson said their view has not changed. If there is purposeful demolition and it comes into conformance there is no review. If you demo and it doesn’t come into conformity, you go into special review. Mr. Gorman asked if there is a working definition of hardship. Mr. Anderson replied it is not in the code but is a common term in land use law. Mr. Gorman asked for an example of a project that was approved based on hardship. Mr. Anderson replied the space above the residence at the Little Nell, they are locked into existing conditions, because of that a resident needed better accessibility for a family member with mobility issues and they needed to build a serious deck to get around. Staff thought the steep slopes constituted a hardship and City Council agreed. They set a high bar for acknowledging hardship on a property. Board Discussion: Ms. Pitt said they took the time to remove the square footage to comply with what was asked at the last meeting. Mr. Canfield thinks the application is consistent with the spirit and tenor of the land use code and doesn’t think a special review is needed. He thinks there is a hardship in making the changes they want to make and would have to start chopping off pieces of the house and that’s an unreasonable requirement to impose. He would approve the application. Mr. Gorman agrees with Ken and Kirk that it isn’t fair to require them to remove 500 sq ft. He is inclined to approve. Mr. Knight appreciates the changes they have made but still doesn’t see the hardship. He is prepared to approve. Ms McGovern appreciated the applicants’ attempts to get closer to compliance. Ms. Johnson asked if the numbers in the resolution have been updated to reflect the changes in the application. Motion Ms. Pitt moved to approve resolution 4 series 2025 with amendments to reflect the amended application submitted by the applicants and for replacement of the exhibits to reflect the amended application; Mr. Gorman seconded. Roll call vote: Ms. Pitt, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes; Mr. Knight, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Motion passes 5-0. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4TH, 2025 Adjourn: Mr. Gorman motioned to adjourn; Mr. Knight seconded. All in favor. Tracy Terry, Deputy City Clerk