Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20170718Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2017 1 Mr. Skippy Mesirow, Chair, called the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting to order for July 18, 2017 at 4:30 PM with members Jasmine Tygre, Spencer McKnight, Keith Goode, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Jesse Morris, Ryan Walterscheid, and Skippy Mesirow. Rally Dupps was not present for the meeting. Also present from City staff; Andrea Bryan, Jennifer Phelan and Hillary Seminick. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Ms. McNicholas Kury asked for an update on the pedestrian mall. Ms. Phelan responded it is currently scheduled for the board to review the conceptual design at the September 19th meeting. Mr. Mesirow thanked the commissioners for attending the meeting and believes the applicants are better served when more members attend. STAFF COMMENTS: There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no public comments. MINUTES There were no minutes. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were no declarations. PUBLIC HEARINGS 303 W Hopkins Ave – Residential Design Standard Variation Review Mr. Mesirow opened the hearing and then turned the floor over to staff. Ms. Bryan stated she is waiting for the publication affidavit, but it is fine to proceed on the assumption it will be forthcoming. Ms. Hillary Seminick, Planner, informed the board of two letters received earlier in the day that support the application. One from 315 W Hopkins Ave and another from Mr. Hazen. She has copies of both letters (Exhibit B of the agenda packet). She then summarized the application for a variation of the articulation of building mass, maximum sidewall depth standard. The standard requires a principal building shall be no greater than 50 ft in depth, as measured from the front-most wall of the front façade to the rear wall. It is intended to Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2017 2 provide inflection and solar relief to neighboring properties as ensures the building more closely relates to Aspen’s historic building patterns. She provided a rendering of the proposed volume of the existing single family residence. The applicant is requesting a second-story addition of the home on the façade facing the alley. Currently, a deck resides where the addition is proposed. The proposed addition would make the maximum sidewall depth about 60 ft in length which is 10 ft over what is allowed by the code. She said one of the criteria states the building is to responds to the neighborhood context. Both the subject property and neighboring property step down towards the rear of the building. Staff does not feel the addition would respond to the context in this regard. She noted the allowable floor area is about 3,400 sf and presently the floor area is about 3,900 sf which is non-conforming. They are proposing to move floor area to the second-story by enclosing window wells in the subgrade area to change how the floor area is calculated. Staff believes taking the area below for the proposed mass does not meet with the intent of the standard. In closing, Staff is not supporting this request because they believe it does not meet the intent of the standard. Mr. Mesirow asked for questions of staff. Mr. Mesirow asked if the length of the existing one-story would be considered a non-conformity. Ms. Seminick stated a portion of it would because it extends beyond 50 ft. The standard seeks articulation of the wall plane. Mr. Mesirow then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Patrick Rawley, Stan Clauson Associates, introduced himself and Ms. Dana Ellis, Rowland and Broughton, as representing the applicant. He provided pictures of the front of the house and described the project: 118 sf addition to a second-story bedroom by partially enclosing a deck over the garage Garage currently has a roof form Addition faces the alley Applicant lived there since 1996 Home constructed in 1994 prior to any RDS being enacted Home is a pre-existing nonconformity Home is second empire architectural style which makes compliance with RDS standards impossible He showed a picture of a home at 315 W Hopkins Ave, noting the owner has submitted a letter of support for this addition. He provided pictures of the home from the front, back and side pointing out where the addition would be located. He then provided a modeling of the volume of the proposed addition stated the roof form mirrors the eastern portion of the home to create more unity in the architecture of the home and articulate the mass of the building. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2017 3 Ms. Dana Ellis stated they wanted to deal within the existing roof forms along the alley for this project, noting this is the only turned-down mansard form on this side of the alley. She added they already had a building permit when it was discovered this was a variation of the RDS. They approached the project as a way to clean up the back façade and believe it to be a successful treatment of a small expansion. She provided views of the existing floor plan, indicating areas of articulation toward the setback. She added the existing first floor of the structure does not work with the RDS in regards to insetting towards the alley. As staff previously discussed, this is not typical of historic structures in town where you have a cabin with an addition. She stated the form of the home is very much from the 1990’s era. She stated the second-floor shifts in with the mansard roof forms. The proposed design evens out the side walls. She then provided a view of the elevation from the neighboring property. She feels there it has some articulation even though it does not meet the 50 ft length requirement. They do not feel the addition changes the overall form and may simplify it by continuing the gable form. Next, she provided a floor plan showing the proposed addition. The addition will go out 11 ft towards the alley. They looked at utilizing different gables, but decided the existing gable was the most contextually prominent feature. She feels the bulk and mass is focused on the front façade and perceive the addition as a minor impact. They do feel it fits the architecture intent of the RDS and there is no addition that would not add on to the over 50 ft sidewall depth because of the existing garage. Ms. Ellis displayed a model of the proposed design from a bird’s eye view. Mr. Rawley then reviewed the overall goal of the RDS and stated the proposed change does not change the intent of the RDS. He reviewed the two criteria and noted it only needs to meet one of them. 1) Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard. He provided the following regarding this criterion: a. Impossible without tearing down the house to address the depth and articulation requirements b. The house was built in 1994 prior to any RDS c. The greenest house is one that is already built – why go through unnecessary construction with impacts? d. The current house reflects the era of design that is part of Aspen’s history 2) Variances are warranted if it is clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site- specific constraints. He provided the following regarding this criterion: a. Main constraint is the date the house was built which does not relate well to the current RDS b. Applicant has available floor area for the addition so it is patently unfair to deny the use of the available floor area Mr. Mesirow asked for questions of the applicant. Mr. Mesirow asked if 100 sf is the actual size of the addition. Mr. Rawley replied it is 118 sf. Mr. Mesirow asked which criterion they believe the project meets. Mr. Rawley replied it is the second one related to fairness. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2017 4 Mr. Morris asked if they are also trying to adhere to the first to which Mr. Rawley stated they are trying to adhere to the first criterion based on what exists on the site already. Mr. Mesirow asked if they applicant believes there is an inherent right for an addition. Mr. Rawley replied if floor area is available, it is unfair to say to a resident they cannot use the available floor area considering they are not violating any other dimensional limitation. There is a pre-existing nonconformity for the floor area and by using the code they are taking elements from the basement and repositioning that floor area. Ms. Ellis believes the existing nonconformity is the site constraint. Mr. Mesirow then asked for public comment. He noted the letter received from Mr. Randy Martin, the next door neighbor who supports the project. Ms. Seminick read the letter received from Mr. Brian Hazen, realtor for the applicant, supports their application. Both letters were submitted as Exhibit B on the agenda packet. There was none so he closed this portion of the hearing. Mr. Mesirow then opened for commissioner discussion. Mr. McKnight is concerned if the board approves this, others will request the same. Mr. Morris believes the board is in place to evaluate these situations. He thanked staff for making their recommendation but feels generally supportive. He does not see a huge impact to the neighborhood and the applicant has worked through the design as completely as possible. He feels it is a reasonable request. Mr. McKnight is leaning toward supporting it as well. He is not sure the applicant has provided a strong case, but feels it is minimal. He guaranteed the neighboring property will be in next. He believes the second criterion may apply, but the home was purchased after the RDS was in place. He does feel it is their house to modify as long as it does not impact the neighbors. Mr. Goode stated he is in favor of it because it is a unique circumstance and is small in nature. He also believes others will be asking for a similar variance. Ms. McNicholas Kury asked staff about the language for the purpose of the particular standard. Ms. Phelan read the highlights of the intent of the standard. At 5:15 pm, Mr. John Rowland, Rowland and Broughton, joined the applicant team at the meeting. Mr. Mesirow noted the design clearly does not meet the standard. He appreciates the letter from the neighbor, but the board needs to serve the neighborhood and not just the one neighbor. From a fairness perspective, it is site-specific, not time-specific. He does not see an inherent right to increase the size of the house. Ms. Tygre noted it is a minor application before the discussion, but after hearing the applicant’s presentation, she is more convinced to say no and feels staff is correct. She believes technically they are not increasing a nonconformity based on how FAR is measured. She feels they are taking invisible FAR and making it visible. She said she is tired of hearing every applicant say the RDS does not apply to their circumstance. Mr. Morris believes it is inappropriate to read into intent and suggested in not be considered. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated the language allows the board to consider the purpose of the standard which would come under the fairness criterion. Mr. Morris then said to strike what he previously stated. Regular Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission July 18, 2017 5 Mr. Morris believes it to be a small change and does not have a problem with it. He feels it is a subjective decision outside the RDS. Mr. Mesirow asked him to describe how he defines fairness. Mr. Morris stated if it was a new build, it would need to adhere to the RDS. Mr. Walterscheid stated he was in favor of the request noting the basement sf is allocated based on how much of the wall is visible and noted clearly does not meet the regulations. He stated there have been three or four similar proposals before the board and he is having an issue with the current RDS. The previous version applied more to a historic home with a detached garage with a linking connection. He feels it was written better in the previous version. He believes you would not get 50 ft in any direction before you have a five ft offset. He personally does not believe that was what was intended in the discussions by the committees reviewing the RDS. Mr. Walterscheid stated due to fairness, he does not have a problem with the request. In regards to accessibility or ADA, he does not believe the board has purview to discuss it as it could get into potential areas of discrimination. Mr. Mesirow asked Mr. Walterscheid if he wanted to discuss the content of the RDS more outside of the hearing. Mr. Walterscheid responded he would like time to re-discuss the RDS. He has an issue with the one standard that keeps coming up and from his perspective, he is not sure it reflects the previous RDS goals and sees it as being more restrictive. Ms. McNicholas Kury motioned to approve Resolution 10, Series 2017 and was seconded by Mr. Morris. Mr. Mesirow then asked for a roll call. Roll Call: Ms. McNicholas Kury, no; Mr. Morris, yes; Ms. Tygre, no; Mr. Goode, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes, and Mr. Mesirow, no for a total of four yes and three no (4-3). The motion was approved. Mr. Mesirow then closed the hearing. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. It was motioned to adjourn the meeting and was seconded. All in favor, the motion was approved and the meeting was adjourned. Cindy Klob City Clerk’s Office, Records Manager