Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20180306 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING March 06, 2018 4:30 PM Sister Cities Meeting Room 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES A. 2/20/2018 V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 465 and 557 North Mill Street Rezoning - Public Hearing - to be continued to 4/3/2018 VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Pedestrian Mall Update (no packet material, presentation only) VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 3 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal /clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 1 1 ) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment February 1, 2018 1 Staff Comments ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Commission Comments ................................................................................................................................ 2 Minutes ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Public Comment not on the Agenda ............................................................................................................. 2 Declaration of Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................................................... 2 1130 Black Birch Drive – Special Review, Stream Margin Review and Residential Design Standard Variation ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 P1 IV.A. Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment February 1, 2018 2 At 4:30 p.m.; Mr. Mesirow called the regular meeting to order with Commission Members Dupps, Walterscheid and McNicholas Kury present. Also present from staff Jennifer Phelan, Garrett Larimer, Jim True and Linda Manning. Staff Comments None. Commission Comments Mr. Mesirow stated there are board interviews going on so we should have some new members soon. Minutes Mr. Dupps moved to approve the minutes from February 6th, 2018; seconded by Mr. Walterscheid. All in favor, motion carried. Public Comment not on the Agenda None. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest Mr. Walterscheid recused himself. Jim True, city attorney, stated that a recusal does not defeat quorum. It will take a unanimous action to take action on this application. 1130 Black Birch Drive – Special Review, Stream Margin Review and Residential Design Standard Variation Mr. Mesirow opened the public hearing. Notice was given and is correct. Garrett Larimer, community development, sated this is an application for 1130 Black Birch Drive. They have redeveloped the property and need to establish a new top of slope, stream margin and residential design standards review. The property is located in Black Birch estates, zoned R30, and at the confluence of Castle Creek and the Roaring Fork river. The property is 22,000 square feet with a 3,000 square foot single family home with a detached garage. The existing top of slope is above the property so the entire property is in the top of slope and undevelopable as is. This is a two level development including the subgrade level. It is 21 feet at the highest point. The requested review is a special review by P&Z for top of slope determination. We have coordinated with engineering and parks and confirmed the location. The stream margin review is due to it being within 100 horizontal feet from the 100 year flood plane. The goal is to reduce or prevent property loss from flooding. The final review is for residential design standards. The intent is to encourage designs that relate to the street, portray human scale and preserve the character of Aspen. They are requesting a variation from the window placement standard. The intent of the standard is to prevent large expanses of vertical windows. This is important to all areas of town. It limits vertical glazing to 10 feet. The proposal is for 12 feet. Staff has reviewed and coordinated with parks and engineering. Engineering supports the top of slope determination. Staff does not support the residential design standard variation. We believe there are no site specific constraints or hardships to impede compliance. There have been some updates to the resolution, section 2 B4 updated to perimeter of excavation. We added section 2 B2 fencing timeline and requirement. If the variation for the residential design standard is denied some sections of the resolution will need updated to reflect that. Applicant Steev Wilson P2 IV.A. Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment February 1, 2018 3 Mr. Wilson stated the property is located outside of the infill area on a private road and subdivision. We agree with engineering and parks on the top of slope. He showed the existing building and the proposal. There are no easements or trails to worry about. There will be no development outside the proposed envelope and it will not alter water courses. It conforms to the height limit. For the residential design standard variance request, the intent is for the glazing not being greater than one story or 10 feet. The master wing is through that area. It is single story. It is an architectural element that wraps the corner and the top two feet of the window are not in compliance. The windows go all the way to the soffits. It would be weird if it weren’t there. The building is under the height limit. We want vertical glazing that does not overwhelm the street. This will be within 10 feet of street grade. The home is 54 feet back from the edge of the pavement and there are a significant amount of right of way trees. It will not be a glass façade that dominates the pedestrian environment. It is three percent of the overall building façade. The variance would not create anything out of character for the city. The HOA has approved the design. Mr. Mesirow said the standard is clear. It needs to be a site specific constraint or hardship. Can you make an argument for those. Mr. Wilson said as far as the height limit we are no where in that range. We are not doing a two story structure. We are looking for additional height in the first floor since can’t get a second one. Public comments Bill Greunberg asked if there is a variance between the structure and the river. Mr. Wilson replied no. Commissioner deliberation Ms. McNicholas Kury said it doesn’t seem difficult to meet the standard. She is not compelled by two feet of glass. Mr. Mesirow said it looks fine but it is hard to find a hardship. Mr. Dupps agreed. Personally, I don’t like the 10 foot standard but it is the rule. He does not think hardship has been demonstrated. Mr. Mesirow asked is the total 10 foot of glass. Ms. Phelan replied it can’t go past the 10 foot mark. Ms. McNicholas Kury said she is willing to provide the variance. They need to be within the 45 foot plane. That limits the height. Ms. Phelan said there are a few modifications parks request to the resolution. Mr. Larimer said Section 2 stream margin conditions from parks include changes to 4. changed from air spading around permitted of building to excavation. 2. fencing at the 15 foot top of slope setback required prior to demo and through project until construction commences. Ms. McNicholas Kury moved to adopt Resolution #2, Series of 2018 with modifications; seconded by Mr. Mesirow. Roll call vote. Dupps, yes; McNicholas Kury, yes; Mesirow, yes. Motion carried. Mr. Dupps move to elect Mr. Mesirow as chair; seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. Mesirow nominated Spencer McNight for Vice chair. Ms. McNicholas Kury stated she thinks we should postpone until next meeting when Ryan and Spencer are present. Mr. Mesirow moved to adjourn at 4:58 p.m.; seconded by Ms. McNicholas Kury. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk P3 IV.A. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Hillary Seminick, Planner THROUGH: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director RE: 465 and 557 North Mill Street Rezoning - Public Hearing MEETING DATE: April 3, 2018 The applicant is requesting the public hearing be continued to April 3, 2018. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends continuation of the public hearing to April 3, 2018. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to continue the 465 and 557 North Mill Street Rezoning application to April 3, 2018.” P4 VI.A.