P&z - Regular Meeting

All right. Let's call to order. Town of Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission meeting Tuesday, September 1st, 2026. Roll call.

Recording in progress.

Yes. Rob Leavitt. Yes. Cindy Hirschfield.

Here.

Bob Kaplan. Here. Ben Fierstein. Here. And Bill Marin. Yo. And Kyle Oberketter, Eric Vosick, and Mike Horvath are absent tonight. You have a quorum.

All right, thank you very much. First order of business, approved minutes, July 7th, 2026. Any changes, any comments?

Motion to approve.

I'll second.

We have a first, we have a second. All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you. All right, public hearing, 135 East Homestead Drive, special review. Sarah. Thank you.

Okay, and Eric, you're welcome to join at the table. I just want to introduce our applicant as Eric Hendricks, and he's going to be available to answer any questions that you might have that I don't get to with my presentation. I also want to just acknowledge that we did meet on site at about 515 for a brief site visit. Commissioners Hirshfield, Levitt, and Marin were present there to just take a look at the site. No substantive questions or items were discussed at the application, but it's just important to recognize that we were there on the site. So as Commissioner Marin mentioned, this is a public hearing for special review at 135 East Homestead Drive regarding a request to allow a proposed garage addition to extend into the front yard and west side yard setbacks of the site. Go to slide number one, please. So subject site 135 East Homestead is located in the Basalt Hills District. It's one block removed from Midland Avenue. It fronts onto Homestead Drive, shares a property line with an alleyway to the east, as well as a residence to the west. Next slide, please. The site is improved with a single family home that was originally constructed around or maybe just before 1900. Because the home was constructed prior to the creation of the R3TN zone district, the structure does not follow the current setback requirements for the zone. The code recognizes that older building stock in the area and allows for any home in the zone district that was constructed prior to August 22nd, 1995, to recognize the building envelope as it exists, serving as a setbacks for the site. Next slide, please. Oh, that got really washed out. But this is the site plan with the proposed. Oh, way better on it. Just showing you how the existing home and the proposed garage are situated on the site and that the site slopes significantly downwards as you move along the site towards Midland as you're approaching Midland Avenue. This site does not touch Midland Avenue, just to clarify.

So next slide, please.

The applicant is proposing the addition of a 286 square foot garage along the home's western facade. It will provide enclosed parking for one vehicle as well as storage for trash, recycling, and other items that are now left exposed outside of the home in the yards. The proposed garage is new development and is therefore subject to the setback requirements within the R3TN zone district as it exists today, which is why the applicant is here with a special review request. Right. Here's the front yard setbacks that would be required typically with the R3TN, 15 feet from the property line for the living space and 20 foot setback, that five foot, little staggering of five foot for the garage space from the property line. And the side yard setbacks on the property traditionally today would be seven and a half feet. The proposed garage, as is being proposed in this application, is 12 feet from the property line and about 5 foot 6 inches from the front facade.

Last slide, please. The staff has, oh, sorry, there is the one that I had mentioned being put up there.

Just another way to examine the site and where the Proposed garage would fit onto the site and you can also see the topo lines at the rear of the site showing the steepness As you move down towards the rear Next slide please I think we can go to the next one because I'm just going to discuss that staff has identified several discussion items for the PNC's consideration as outlined in the memo. And these are related to the proposal's consistency with the R03TN zone district as well as the special review criteria that the applicant that the application must be evaluated against for the zone district. And just kind of, here's our broad strokes, the consistencies with these requirements, all in the memo, but I'm gonna summarize this. Staff has found the proposed garage to be consistent with the neighborhood's single family character. It's found to be consistent with the master plan single family residential typology, which emphasizes dividing buildings into discrete masses and having them appear smaller in scale. It does not impact the public areas of Homestead Drive, and that includes the sidewalks and the alleyways. There is no sidewalk adjacent to this property. It is also consistent with a scale of new and existing structures within the R3TN neighborhood, which we do recognize is an eclectic mix of architectural styles, but this does not blow up what is seen there now. Regarding the side yard setback review criteria, the criteria specific to the side yard setback reduction and the R3TN zone district calls for either the applicant to enter into maintenance agreement, easement, maintenance easement agreement, pardon me, with the owner of the neighboring property in order to maintain the properties or to provide a firewall construction for the garage addition. And staff has included this as language as part of the draft conditions for the P&Z's consideration. And then there is front yard setback reduction criteria for a special review as well within the zone district. And this requires consideration of provisions that would provide exceptional or unique circumstances. And these can include the topography, the shape, the size of the lot, history of the lot, et cetera. To this, we respond that the existing home was constructed prior to 1995, causing the new construction to naturally be non-conforming to the current side yard setback requirements. The steep slopes at the rear of the site pose difficulty with locating a garage in that location, and then there's lack of access directly from the east side of that lot. The garage is proposed where the street cut already exists and where vehicles currently park, which we do appreciate. And it should be noted that the proposal does meet the zone district's requirement for locating the structure a minimum of five feet from the front facade of the existing home. therefore thereby maintaining the district's intent regarding deciding the mass and other structures staff has received referral comments that are included within the pmz's memo from basalt sanitation the town's arborist the public works department as well as the fire district and of all these referrals only the town arborist was the only one to pose a true condition requiring that a tree removal permit be issued for any trees impacted by the proposed development, including that of the neighboring property. And a draft condition has been included within staff's memo reflecting the referral comment for the PNC's consideration. So ultimately, staff does support the application with the draft conditions included in the memo, finding that the application is generally compliant with the review criteria. And furthermore, staff appreciates that the garage opens additional on street parking along Homestead Drive. So staff is asking the PNZ to make a recommendation on the special review application for the town council, which will be the final ultimately final review authority in this matter. So I'm happy to field any questions, but we could hear briefly from the applicant if you would like to add anything that would help this application.

The only thing I would add, thank you for your consideration, is just to acknowledge the fact that wildlife and particularly bear activity has increased dramatically this year. We've had numerous encounters with bears even though we try to have bear proof containers and all that stuff. And so that's just another impetus for being able to enclose a garage and have refuse be in there and decrease bear activity would be the goal. Otherwise I agree with what Sarah said about the application and look forward to any questions you may have.

All right. Let's do commissioner questions. Staff and the applicant. Cindy, do you want to start?

I don't have any.

Rob?

Is there an issue with it?

There is not.

And do we have any comments, letter from the next door neighbor?

I have not received any.

Just full disclosure, I've been in full contact with him, made him aware. I answered all his questions regarding the sedition. I don't want to speak for him, but he wished me luck yesterday. So I don't believe he has any objection to it.

He walked by when we were there.

He walked out? He came out of his house. Ben, questions?

Um, no questions. I don't have questions either.

Okay, I have, um, a couple questions. Um, are the curbs going to be, curbs going to be rebuilt at all? Or are they just going to leave it all exactly the way it is?

I can leave them as they are, that it would work perfectly well for the garage as they are. So I wasn't planning on it.

You weren't planning on it, okay. And, um... The exterior siding on the garage matches the house is a hardy panel.

It will be yes, and we're also in the process. We already have a building permit for an addition so will be rescuing the entire building in the garage will be a part of that should we get.

But you're going to risk it is similar to the way it is now.

No, it's probably going to be a clabbered to more traditional type of sighting OK. That was an aesthetic question, so it has no bearing at all.

I was just curious.

No, we're going to strip all that siding off.

Okay.

Because we're going to do continuous insulation around the entire building.

Okay, cool.

Let's see, were there no questions?

I've got one extra question. Are the neighbors aware of the impact to their trees that are on that side of the property line?

There is no impact to their trees per se. Those trees that you can see adjacent to the garage are theoretically my trees. They're actually in an easement that we have with the neighbor.

And that's the easement that's getting modified?

No, there's no modification.

There's no modification. No.

No, we'll be utilizing it to, you know, be able to circulate around the garage, but that's immaterial to this application. The easement is there and it's not being adjusted. So those trees are in that easement and most likely I'll be replacing those trees because they'll be disturbed when we do the garage. Okay.

Just to add to that, the arborist's comment was made by just not exactly knowing where they were on the site. It's very close to the property line, so he wasn't sure really whose property that belonged to. So I just added the comments as they were provided.

Gotcha. Is your intention to park your car in the garage to use it?

In the garage, and there's just enough room to park in front of the garage as well. So the hope is we can get two cars off the street.

Off the street, plus the trash receptacles to lower the weight.

Yeah, it's tight, but it can work. It's a one-car garage. It's not particularly generous. It is what it is. It looks tight.

I can see. Your concerns about wildlife activity are well noted.

Yes.

Any other questions? No? Okay, we're done with questions. Let's open it up for public comment at 6.14. If you want to make a comment, please step forward to the podium, state your name and where you live. No? Nope, nope, nope. Anyone online? I don't see anyone online. Let's close public comments also at 614. Commissioner comments. Let's, Bob, do you want to start? Any comments about this?

Sure. I don't live in that neighborhood. I ride my bike through there. I see it somewhere. I think it's a plus to get a few cars off the street. And I think it's a plus for the neighborhood. to make it less congested and less parking on the street. And as long as your neighbors are accepting of the encroachment beyond what the normal setback allows, then I think it's a positive for the community.

Yeah, I agree with Bob's comment. Understanding the limitations that you have out here, adding parking inventory is meaningful. And as these properties start to redevelop, finding the highest and best use for that square footage, as long as it is permissible by the neighbor, is acceptable.

All right, thank you. Rob.

Yeah, just what I said earlier in agreeing with Bob, I would feel better if there was a letter in support from the neighbor that's most impacted, but he's obviously had plenty of time to object and that hasn't happened, so I guess he doesn't object. I have a question, I guess maybe for Sarah. The wording you have in condition C about the maintenance easement agreement or the firewall? I can read, staff has included a draft condition of approval requiring the applicant to either enter into a maintenance easement agreement with the owner of the neighboring property or to provide firewall construction for the garage addition.

That was taken directly from the code. um as one of the requirements for for the sidebar side yard setback reduction um and so let me see let me read this real quick again so oh sorry no go ahead i didn't mean to go ahead it's it seemed to me it should be the maintenance easement agreement right right so um

the intent behind that and the language probably isn't great but the the intent is that if they can't build on the neighboring property in in the easement then you don't need the firewall because the the firewall is needed based on distance from the adjacent structure right But you made the firewall an option, which I didn't understand.

If I could clarify, and I did meet with town and the building department as well as the planning and zoning. one of the stipulations was that if you're encroaching this much into the setback, you're required to do firewall construction regardless. So that will be occurring no matter what.

And that's what I thought too, but this reads or like you have a choice. Yeah, I think that's boilerplate language.

That is boilerplate language. I thought it should be and. And I can make that adjustment if you want. I'll make that part of the recommendation.

But as far as the building official is concerned, there is no choice. Correct.

And it has to follow building. The building official. You won't get a permit. Maybe it's six and one half, but I respect your desire to adjust that language.

That's why there's no overhangs on that side of the building as well. There's a number of provisions that the fire department will require, and we will simply.

Overhangs are nice when the snow melts and the rain falls. I'm sure you've dealt with it.

Yeah. I can't disagree with that, but that's the way it has to be.

Understood. And then I just have a minor concern with the neighbor's retaining wall on the right, whether or not it's going to be impacting from your excavation and what's going to happen with your rear retaining wall in the back of the garage as we put a structure there. I'm sure you guys are going to address that, engineering and stuff.

That has been engineered. I have engineers working on that now at my own risk if they were to get the garage. But yes, that will basically be enveloped by the retaining wall to the rear and the frost walls on the side.

I don't see any issues with the application. Cindy.

I have nothing else to add. This one seems easy to me.

Okay. I have just one slight comment and the rendering shows glass panels in the garage. You may want to reconsider that because I have had clients do that and you have to keep your garage so neat. So that's up to you, but it's kind of like having glass kitchen cabinets on the uppers. It's like you always have to stack your plates nicely. So that's entirely your call. That's for the feedback. The renderings look nice.

There's nothing there now, so it's going to be.

I do want to make a disclosure just because I used to own the house across the street and I used to live across the alley from it, but it has no bearing because all that was over 10 years ago. But still, I figured I should at least say it. So it seems like we're all in agreement here. Does someone want to make a motion?

I have a motion to approve with conditions as discussed. I will second.

We have a first. We have a second. All in favor? Aye. Motion passes.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Thanks. Tell me the process. Roughly when is the next?

Yeah, if you want to step out, I can talk to you.

Thank you all very much.

You're welcome. Thanks. Council too, right? Yeah.

I think so, yeah.

All right. Item 3A, courtesy review of code amendments to building code to clarify spa exemptions from renewable energy mitigation programs, REMP phase.

Yeah, thank you. This is a courtesy review because the proposed code amendments are to chapter 18, which is the building code as well as appendix C, which is the town's fee schedule at the end of the Municipal Code. The code amendments are to clarify that there is an exemption from the ramp fee requirements for hot tubs that are pre-packaged spas that are under 64 square feet. That is in the main section of the building code in section 18-23. however the current appendix C does not include that language related to exemptions and we had a scenario where there was a applicant that owned a house and was putting in a non prepackaged spa so a built-in spa and he did not see the language apparently in 18 I'm sorry an appendix C he only saw the exemption language that was in the code and he used appendix C and so he didn't think he needed to pay the rent fees he thought he was exempt and so he went to the town council with a interpretation request and appealed the town staff's interpretation that he had to pay the fee and because he looked at the wrong code sections and so staff has proposed language at the council's direction to clean that up so that regardless of where you're looking in the code whether it be section 18-23 or the appendix C that we have the same reference to the exemption for a pre-packaged spa that's not more than 64 square feet we also added definitions of basically pre-packaged self-contained spas we didn't have a definition of that in the town code So we had to look at the pool and spa code. And so the attorneys thought that was kind of a big leap to take. So we put that in the code as part of these amendments as well. um so it's not a public hearing there'll be public hearings at the town council level but we wanted to bring it to pnz as a courtesy review we've traditionally brought code amendments to pnz for chapter 18 of the town code so this evening staff would suggest asking questions you may have about the code amendments You could take public comment. I don't think we'll have any comments from the public. And then provide B and Z discussion. And if you're comfortable with the language, staff would suggest making a motion to recommend approval.

But this is not a public hearing? Not a public hearing. Okay. Questions? Bob, do you want to start questions if you have any?

And questions, yes, several. This is a giant loophole that we're creating in the definition of a pool and a spot and you are exempting 200 square feet for pools but request exempting 64 square feet for spots. it's not a loophole we're creating it's it's why it's an exemption that's already in the code the 200 square feet for pool is already in the code yeah so what defined his custom non self-contained water holding basin as anything but a under 200 square foot well it was it was the fact that he looked at

Appendix C that the applicant that had the issue and it didn't reference the exemptions and It basically said you get the free square footage But it didn't define that it had to be under certain square footage and a self-contained I think this the first 200 square feet of a pool are exempt from rent fees is Is questionable

I don't understand why we're exempting 200 square feet of R2 pool space when it's allowed to have 130 degree water running through it. For all intents and purposes, that is a big spa. And we are promoting the non-self-contained, by the way, I read this language, we are promoting a non-self-contained water basin and limiting someone from requiring to purchase an 8 by 8, 64 square foot self-contained unit. That loophole is created by the 200 square feet of pool exempt from REMP fees. If the intention is to collect REMP fees on someone creating a pool, Why are we giving them the 200 square feet of free when someone can- But that's not the question in front of us right now.

The question in front of us is cleaning up the code so it- I think this makes it even- I mean, we can bring it up as a discussion, but I don't think it's- Okay. Yeah, the question in front of us. You can certainly bring it up as a discussion.

I didn't realize the red was already in. It's the current exemption for 200 square feet. Gotcha.

Yeah.

Okay, and then we're also removing the rent requirements for the introduction of. Under renewable energy houses over 3,500 square feet. Must install renewable energy systems on site. Solar hot water or two modular photovoltaic or pay the rent fee. So we no longer provide someone the option to install on site renewables to reduce the rent fee.

It wasn't renewables, it was hydronic systems, which are not currently available like they used to be. I think that's what it said. Yeah, it said hydronic or solar hot water system.

Yeah, the solar hot water systems are not... not being allowed to be utilized. You can still do PV to offset it. You can pay your rent fees, but you're getting rid of the.

So a two modular photovoltaic array is.

Yeah, you can still do the PV array.

I think we're just looking at making the language consistent between the thing and the appendix.

We're having a full code rewrite. Is that part of building as well? No, we can talk about this at the full code rewrite.

Great. I'll bring it up.

Thank you for the clarification.

You're missing the forest for the trees.

Right now, we're just talking about making everything jive.

I like things jiving. Sorry for taking everyone's time.

It's okay. Just to clarify, the pool and the spa exemption currently do exist. They're just not consistent throughout the code.

That's right.

And we can talk about whether we want to have a pool exemption next time, because I agree with you.

I didn't think I was doing something that was punitive. Yeah.

Just redirecting you before you got too far down the other path.

Thanks, I'm ready to fight. Get your money down.

We could even ask staff to remind us of this discussion when we do have that discussion.

That would be fantastic. I'm going to put it in my notes, but that would be fantastic. Yep.

All right, Rod, do you have any questions?

Why didn't the original complaint come before us?

Because there's a code interpretation process in the town code where the town planner writes an interpretation. In this case, because it was fully building code, the building code official was the primary drafter of that interpretation. And then the town code allows for appeals by the property owner or the person requesting the interpretation. And so the town code directs that to go directly to the council.

I thought we were the first line of defense before it went to council.

In most processes, you are. But in the code interpretation appeal, it sends it right to council. And it puts a timeline on that so somebody can get a quick response.

Cindy, questions?

Yeah, just a couple. So how did the complaint come to light in the first place?

Uh, it was through inspections. So the town did an inspection. It was a new house and, uh, you know, we determined that he was doing a non prepackaged spa and then so required him to do a permit. And then in the permit review, um, you know, he made the argument that he didn't see the exception because he was working in appendix C and, and yeah.

And then I'm trying to picture what does a non-prepackaged spa look like?

Just a regular pool, but small.

Yeah, it's basically a built-in, so not something you can go to the hot tub store and buy.

Oh, so just like a very small pool that's hot tub sized? Yeah, and it's got separate components.

Yeah. I worked on a large one in Aspen that was from a Canadian kit. It was cedar with no insulation. Didn't pass the Aspen codes, so we had to insulate it. But that was a kit that came as a hot tub.

It can also be custom fiberglass. Just curious what it was.

But a prepackaged one would be one that has the outside to it and everything. Just get a crane and put it down.

Yeah, and it has the heating elements contained in it. Whereas, you know.

If you go and buy one at the spa store that's already built but doesn't have the outside, you have to build around it. Yeah. That would be custom.

No, no, if you were to build like a deck around your prepackaged unit, that's fine. It means that the equipment is contained within the walls of the spa versus the equipment lives in a mechanical room somewhere else or outside of the unit of the spa. That's what I thought. Yeah.

And usually, typically the building official went through kind of his research and analysis and typically a non-prepackaged spa is less efficient. you know there can be cases where where they're on the same level but generally it's less efficient yeah generally they're like wildly less efficient you know because it's a gun thing in the ground council did rule they upheld his appeal and directed staff to clean up the code and here we are yeah motion to approve as written by staff second second

We have a first, we have a second. All in favor? Aye. Yes.

Well, you wanted to be consistent.

I will. I didn't know that that was... Do you want more discussion, Ben? No. You just wanted to change the code.

I still want to change the code. Okay.

We have a second on that motion.

Yeah. Rob was... There was two of them. Cindy or I, either one of them.

Pick one. Pick one. Pick one. Good.

Okay. Commissioner comments and staff updates.

Yeah. Uh, as staff updates, uh, October six will be your next meeting. Um, we'll likely be looking at, uh, updates to the public works manual. Um, and, uh, also start reviewing pieces of the code rewrite. So we'll be getting into that. You'll, you'll have an opportunity. Um, you know, it's, We're looking at the zoning code, but we can kind of step into the building code for that too. And we may have another public hearing on that date as well. We're not sure as of yet. The hotel at Movie Land is starting to go to the town council on September 8th. They're going for an introduction meeting and public hearing. So that one's moving into their realm. Do you think they'll be voting that night? I'm sorry? Do you think they will be voting on it that night? No. We are currently interviewing for the planning department administrative position, as well as building official positions. Mitch is retiring at the end of the year, so we're looking for building official and plans examiner. We're busy with that. And then one other update, did receive an email yesterday that they should be replacing the rest of the FedEx lights on the building, actually today. So, you know, if you drive over there, hopefully they're replaced, but it should be at least in the next few years. Thank you for your work on that. Yeah, it's taken a while to get them to do it.

James, I will not be here on the 6th of October.

Thank you. Also, I won't be here on the 15th this month. Just so we know.

We have a meeting in two weeks?

The next one is October 6th.

Yeah, we don't have anything currently programmed for the 15th. That's a PNZ night, though. It is.

You're free and clear.

October 6th is Tuesday, so that means that weekend would be the And we did have a good meeting yesterday of the land use code subcommittee.

uh bill and uh ben is also on it and uh um mike horvath as well that's all i had sarah and gloria anything else to add Yes, and Sarah is has been promoted to the assistant planning director Does anyone have any Commissioner comments to make I

I have one that I just thought of actually on the way down here, which I thought would be a super fun thing for the town to do at some point. I live right by the bridge, the iron bridge over the Roaring Fork on Two Rivers Road. And there's like a giant osprey nest there, and it's been there for a long time. And then there's another one just around the corner by the white brick Victorian and Emma. And I have to believe there's a couple others. And I thought it would be a really fun thing for the town to do is to have webcams on some of those. Because in a lot of places they do that.

Do you not know about the Osprey Cam through ACES? No.

But this would be our Osprey Cam because everyone, at least the one on the bridge, there's... There's babies in there, two or three of them, every year, every single year.

But you know the one just up the road from it has the Osprey cam on it.

I didn't even know that that one had a cam on it.

It's run by Pekin County, but it's down that way. They installed it in, I think, 2017 or 18.

I go on it sometimes when I need peace.

I thought it would be fun for us to do one and put it on our website, just because it's a cool thing and people love shit like that. And it's the Pitkin County one. I didn't even know they had it.

Yeah, we can just link to that if it's not on the website. It's been there for a long time. And it's not cheap, so I don't know that we want to duplicate what they're doing.

I know it's not cheap. I've done some on construction sites. They're not as expensive as they used to be, but they're not terribly cheap.

I think we should go with the one that ACES has and just link to it.

But that's theirs.

But it's our bird. It's our bird. It's our neighbor. Is that even Pitkin County there? I thought there was Eagle County there. No, it's Pitkin because it's by like that Mesa store, which Pitkin County.

Yeah, it's on the bridge, on the Iron Bridge.

Let me see. Emma, let me see. Oh, the bridge. No one in it. No, there's currently no one in it. This is not the one on the bridge. This is the one in. That's the one on the pole.

Yeah. Yeah.

And there's no one in it.

No, I think they're ready to go wherever they go for the winter.

You know what the rent is on that thing?

Yikes. They can't be here either. They can't just TR it.

Do you remember that old shacky building in Brush Creek? It was like a falling down ranch building and someone had spray painted on the side. That one? No, it was before that.

The finger.

Someone painted on the side, for rent, $3,000 a month.

And had pets. Yeah. Going up to Snowmass Village. It was there for a long time.

Yeah.

I thought that was.

The bargain these days. Get a whole barn.

That's all I got, so do we have a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Second. We have first, we have second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Let's go home.

This is nice breather after the last couple.