HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20071120Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes -November 20, 2007
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................... 2
300 NICHOLAS LANE PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, GROWTH
MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARIANCES......... 2
218 SOUTH THIRD STREET RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARIANCE ................. 2
Asuen Plannine & Zon1nE Meetine Minutes -November 20 2007
Dylan Johns opened the regular P&Z meeting in Council Chambers at 4:30 pm.
Commissioners Stan Gibbs, Dina Bloom, LJ Erspamer and Dylan Johns were
present. Mike Wampler, Cliff Weiss, Jim DeFrancia and Brian Speck were
excused. Staff present were Jennifer Phelan, Jessica Garrow, Community
Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk and Jim True, Special Counsel.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Dylan Johns and LJ Erspamer received notices for the 300 Nicholas Lane PUD
Amendment.
PUBLIC HEARING:
300 NICHOLAS LANE PUD AMENDMENT SUBDIVISION GROWTH
MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARIANCES
Dylan Johns opened the public hearing for 300 Nicholas Lane.
MOTION.• Stan Gibbs moved to continue the public hearing on 300 Nicholas
Lane to December 4`h; seconded by Dina Bloom. All in favor, APPROVED.
PUBLIC HEARING:
218 SOUTH THIRD STREET RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARIANCE
Dylan Johns opened the public hearing for 218 South Third Street residential
design variance application. Proof of notice was provided. Jessica Garrow
distributed a handout (Staff exhibit C).
Bob Kendig, the owner, and Al Beyer the architect were present. Garrow
explained the applicant was requesting a residential design standard variance from
secondary mass. There were two standards can be used to grant a variance;
granting a variance provided an appropriate design or pattern of development given
the neighborhood context and the second was that the variance was clearly
necessary due to a site specific constraint. Staff recommended against the variance
and does not find the variance criteria are met.
Garrow provided a brief history of this lot beginning with the lot being part of a
court ordered subdivision in 1984 and was accepted by City Council at that time as
a legitimate subdivision. Page two showed the example of the Kendig Subdivision
lot; the court divided the lot horizontally instead of vertically (the lots are each
3,000 square foot lots fifty feet by sixty feet). Garrow said this was a non-
conforming lot of record in this zone district; the underlying zone district for a
non-historic lot split is six thousand square feet if you had gone through a historic
lot split it would be three thousand square feet. Garrow noted that a single family
2
Ashen PlanninE & Zoning Meeting Minutes -November 20, 2007
home was permitted on this lot even though it is non-conforming and should
comply with all code sections including residential design standards. Garrow said
that the residential design standards were originally adopted in the mid 1990s;
there were standards for each neighborhood but the current standards are a basic
checklist. The standards were adopted because the community was seeing a lot
large homes that seemed to be out of scale with the historic development pattern in
town, so the design standards were adopted to ensure that new constmction met the
historic development pattern without dictating what a homeowner would need to
build to make sure the parameters held the continuity between new and old.
Garrow said there was a differentiation between the infill area and the non-infill
area; the infill area was the rivers to rivers area so this property falls within that
area. Cemetery Lane is outside the infill area, which would make the property
exempt from the secondary mass standard.
Staff does not find that 218 South Third variance request meets the neighborhood
context standard. First this is a vacant lot and so it is a blank slate where the
standard can be met. Secondary mass is applicable to this part of town and is in
the infill area, the intent is to respect the historic pattern and this is possible
because it is a vacant lot. The intent of the design standards was to preserve
established neighborhood scale and character and require that each home, while
serving the needs of its owner contribute to the streetscape. Also the intent of the
secondary mass standard is to respect the scale of Aspen's Historical homes by
creating new homes that are more similar in their massing by promoting the
development of accessory units off of the alley.
Garrow utilized a map showing the Shadow Mountain neighborhood, which is
Seventh Street over to Aspen Street and bounded by Hopkins and Durant. In terms
of the historic pattern of development in this neighborhood the cabin across the
street was one story with a smaller secondary element off of it and the scale of the
neighborhood is slightly smaller than what you might see on Cemetery Lane.
Garrow used photos of homes in the area to depict the secondary mass. Staff does
not find an unusual site specific constraint because there are three thousand square
foot lots in this portion of town staff felt that being a three thousand square foot lot
the standard could be met. St. Moritz is a lodge and you would expect the building
to be larger than single family homes. The St. Moritz has an encroachment license
from the city.
Al Beyer, architect, said that the lot was ordered by the court because of a divorce
in 1979 and split differently, which was unusual. Beyer said the condition of the
circumstance was unusual; he asked how many of the examples presented by staff
were on a three thousand square foot lot. Garrow replied on the comer of First and
3
Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes -November 20 2007
Hopkins. Beyer said that if it didn't make the display in the neighborhood he was
not buying it. Beyer said they found five lots in the West End that were three
thousand three thousand split the same way and every one of them was two
different buildings with different ownership and a couple were historic. Beyer said
that normally the lots were split sixty feet by one hundred feet; the pattern of
development is very appropriate with two separate structures separated by a fifteen
foot space and that was this black and white footprint points to down below. Beyer
said the garage was delineated as a secondary mass better than anybody in the
neighborhood and there was a linking element. Beyer said the code was confusing
with the less than ten or more than ten by ten less than nine feet high. Jennifer
Phelan responded that the code was adopted saying less than and when it went
from the ordinance to the code book it was not copied correctly and the code is less
than. Beyer said they were just asking to use the little alleyways and whether they
were enclosed or not enclosed was negligible because from Third Street he sees the
house; there is differentiation between the garage and the house.
Beyer said it was a hardship to have a three story wall not five foot setback from
the alley but even across the alley line and a fire escape that hangs four and five
feet out from that. Beyer said they pulled back from that and want a deck on top of
the garage and they are adjusting to it with the lodge, which was a hardship.
Stan Gibbs asked Jessica to explain the linking element. Garrow replied that page
7 of the packet "Variance Requested" 1. Secondary mass. All new single family
and duplex structures shall locate at least ten percent of the total square footage
above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the principal building or
linked to it by a subordinate connecting element not more than ten feet in width by
ten feet in length and a nine foot plate height. Decks are allowed on a linking
element. Garrow said that 10% of the mass needed to be in the secondary element
that can be linked to the main house.
Kendig said that the lot was subdivided when they bought the property. LJ
Erspamer asked if there was any parking behind the garage. Kendig said they
would not have any parking; the two off street spaces would be in the garage. Al
Beyer utilized a computer rendering to show the house, garage, connecting element
and alley of this project and the adjacent properties (St. Moritz). Beyer said the 3-
D view helps delineate the garage from the house. Erspamer asked if P&Z was the
final review. Garrow replied that P&Z was the final review; a tied vote does not
constitute an action so the vote would need to be 3-1 either way to take action.
Gibbs asked if there was a storage area. Kendig stated the garage was very small
and they would probably have a hard time opening a car door so that was why
4
Ashen Planning & ZOnIriE MeetinE Minutes -November 20, 2007
there was an increase in the left side of the garage; the front was also quite short.
Kendig said he appreciated the intent in Jessica's report but there were not
secondary masses on his block or the next one; he passed around pictures of the
neighborhood. Kendig said that this house was one bedroom above grade and it
was not a very big house.
Dylan Johns said given this plan was the representation correct that the only thing
that was preventing this from being a conforming design was the two highlighted
areas. Garrow replied yes, the L-shape; the zoning officer said that the slanted roof
doesn't quite meet the intent.
Public Comments:
1. Tita Kaspar stated that she lived on the north section of the parcel. Kaspar
spoke in favor of this variance being granted; she said it was a great design and did
not impact them as neighbors.
2. Dan McCarty said that they went through process with the Kendig's before
when they were looking for variances on setbacks; the Kendigs have come back
and done a magnificent job of designing a house that was in scale with his house
and other home that are relatively new in the neighborhood. McCarty said this
house would improve the neighborhood.
Johns said the parameters were the review criteria for this application; each
commissioner will need to address the context of the development as well as the
site specific constraints. Garrow said that just one needed to be cited.
Erspamer asked if this was approved then they could just build this project but if it
wasn't how long would they have to wait to make it correct. Jennifer Phelan
responded that this was a project that they can submit a building permit for right
now; the issue is at a staff level the zoning officer would make sure that the height
of the building meets the code, the setbacks meet the code, the floor areas met and
that residential design standards are met. Beyer said the original plan did not have
the garage delineated as clearly and the feedback from staff was not in favor of
passing the plan so they redesigned again to make the garage as detached looking
as possible. Phelan reiterated that the criteria for the minimum size that needs to
be detached secondary mass. Garrow said that if they met the standard it would go
straight to building permit.
Beyer said if the code is absolute then why do we have this citizen board to go to;
they were here because this was an unusual circumstance. Kendig said the
variance procedure was part of the code also and it was for these situations.
5
Aspen Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes -November 20, 2007
Johns said that this was not a normal situation and in a neighborhood dotted with
different zone patterns, multi-family, lodge overlay. This neighborhood did not
have a matching context; there were enough examples around. Johns said the
design criteria have always rigidly upheld and that was when new development
opportunities were seen as chances to bring the neighborhood towards these design
standards, which was a fair goal. Johns said the basic criteria have been met; there
were only a few elements missing, which were added to a design that was already
in place. Johns said given the configuration of the lot and its size he could support
this variance; he said that secondary mass was read with this structure.
Dina Bloom supported the variance in terms of design there was a secondary mass
and it fit in with the context of the neighborhood.
MOTION: LJErspamer moved to approve Resolution #031, series of 2007, for a
variance from the Secondary Mass Residential Design Standard to construct a
single family home on the property located at 218 South Third Street; seconded by
Dina Bloom. Roll call vote: Bloom, yes; Gibbs, yes; Erspamer, no, Johns, yes.
APPROVED 3-1.
Discussion: Stan Gibbs said this was a tough one because his lot was the same as
this one and he understood about the constraints of this lot. Gibbs said the
standards were important and he understood what the applicant was doing and they
made a good attempt in doing it. Gibbs said that he thought there was a site
constraint.
LJ Erspamer asked if prior approval set precedent; he said that he had been told no.
True said that this was a different lot with different sizes and he doesn't see a
precedent being set with this kind of variance.
Johns said that if they were asking for other variances also then it would be a
different; that was why he believed the site specific constraints came in.
Adjourned at 5:50 pm.
`Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
6