HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20100601City Plannine & Zonine Meetine -Minutes -June Ol 2010
Comments
Minutes
Conflicts of Interest
934 S Mill St. - 8040 Greenline
Code Amendments
2
2
2
2
5
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -June Ol, 2010
Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting of June O1, 2010 in Sister Cities Meeting
Room to order at 4:30pm. Commissioners present were Bert Myrin, Jasmine
Tygre, Cliff Weiss, Brian Speck, Jim DeFrancia and Stan Gibbs. Mike Wampler
and was excused. Staff in attendance: Jim True, Special Counsel; Drew
Alexander, Chris Bendon, Community Development; Reed Patterson, Municipal
Clerk.
Minutes
MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to approve the minutes from May 4 and April
20, 2010; seconded by Bert Myrin. All in favor, Approved
Conflicts of Interest
None stated.
PUBLIC HEARING:
934 S Mill St. - 8040 Greenline
Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing on 934 South Mill Street, 8040 Greenline.
Gibbs asked for proof of notice. Drew Alexander replied that they did have it.
Alexander explained the history of the project, Lot 3 Aspen Mountain PUD, with a
redesign of the proposed home that will contain 5,163 square feet and included in
the square footage was an ADU at 460.
Alexander said that he will be addressing the 8040 Greenline first; the PUD was
approved under Ordinance 7, 2002 satisfied 9 of the 11 8040 Greenline criteria
with that approval. All the homes in that subdivision must satisfy requirement 3
and 7 from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The first requirement #3 is air
quality and this seeks to assure that no development within the ESA will degrade
air quality within the City of Aspen. The second requirement is Mountain
Character which encourages design that respects the mountain characteristics in
regard to height and bulk. The height limit of the PUD is 28 feet and this home is
not seeking any variance from the initial requirements. Alexander noted the site
plan on page 5 of the memo and the house is tucked into the mountain but it has
been moved slightly to maximize southern exposure. This does match the existing
character of homes in the subdivision. Staff finds that 8040 Greenline for this
application has been met.
Alexander said that in the Residential Design Standards, the Building Orientation
requirement gets complicated when a home is designed on a curvilinear street. For
compliance, the applicant would need to orient the proposed home so the front
2
City Planning & Zoning Meetine -Minutes -June Ol 2010
fagade is parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. Staff
recommends approval for the Building Orientation variance.
Alexander said the Build to Lines Requirement influences design that is near the
streetscape; the proposed house is removed a significant distance from the street so
the building envelope contradicts and this is a complete variance being requested.
Staff finds the design does what it can with the constraints of the lot and offers a
site plan that does not differ much from the surrounding neighborhood.
Cliff Weiss asked the origin of 8040 and its intent. Alexander said it was clearly in
the environmentally sensitive area because of its topographical location and its
distance from the town, these areas are visible. Alexander said the intent as the
requirement states (page 11 of the packet).
Sunny Vann stated that it was originally adopted primarily for the 8040 elevation
beyond which pressurized water was difficult to provide and there was concern for
the steepness of the streets, accessibility, and stability of the slopes. Vann gave the
history of the subdivisions on the Top of Mill. John Galambos brought drawings
from previous approvals.
Bert Myrin asked if they were looking at Build to Lot line as one of the issues and
it seems the rest of the building envelopes were addressed when the PUD was laid
out. Galambos replied that the building envelope was viewed as a setback on the
survey. Vann said the guidelines for the West end were not applied to these
subdivisions.
Weiss asked what the slope behind the proposed house was. Galambos showed the
surveyed 8040 and they are coming up 15 to 90 feet and past the property it goes
up the mountain on Ski Co which is pretty steep. Weiss asked if there was a slope
reduction for this lot. Alexander replied the lot was fairly flat so there was no
slope reduction.
Sunny Vann and Drew Alexander explained the original PUD process.
Myrin asked how the ADU was accessed. Alexander replied that it has a parking
spot on the north area.
LJ Erspamer asked the controlled mechanism for dust abatement. Alexander
replied the mechanism that he referred to were all adopted plans. Erspamer asked
who monitors that. Alexander answered it would be part of the engineering
3
City Planning & Zoning MeetinE -Minutes -June Ol, 2010
department; it's part of the building permit and review those. Erspamer asked if
they do any site visits. Alexander replied yes they do site visits.
Galambos reiterated the process and the criteria for the subdivision. Galambos
said that the original plans were different enough and that was why they were here
to show the new design.
Myrin asked about snow falling off of the roof of the ADU. Galambos replied
there was a covered area over the front door and wasn't sure if the steps and how
the walkway and door was protected from snow. Myrin asked if it could be added
to the resolution. Alexander said that would come under the zoning officer and
they would look at the snow melted walkway or snow fencing but if you want it
captured in the resolution it could be. Myrin replied he thinks so.
Weiss asked the square footage. Galambos replied just under 10,000 which
includes the garage, mechanicals, but part of the middle level counts and part does
not count. Vann said it will be based on the FAR regulations at the time of
building permit. Galambos said from all the lots in the subdivision this one has the
least amount of FAR.
No public comments.
Weiss spoke about a past application on the other side by the Aspen Alps that was
an 8040 Greenline Review that was a 10,000 square foot house that he voted
against. Weiss said that the 8040 Greenline Review has become a watered down,
ineffective, and otherwise very easy to circumvent for developers. Weiss said
homes should not be built in environmentally sensitive areas and he will not vote
for this.
Jasmine Tygre said that they might want to take another look at 8040 but not to
make this the poster child for the Review. Tygre shared Cliff's concerns about
8040 and that it should be more stringent and would like to look at it. Jim
DeFrancia supported Jasmine's suggestion and appreciated Cliff's concerns but
doesn't think that is the appropriate action. Alexander said that if that was what
the commissioners wanted to do, staff could look at the agenda and schedule.
Gibbs accepted the lot was rather irregular but he doesn't see the reasons why this
design can't approach the build to lines; he said the width of that front could have
been done differently. Gibbs didn't have a problem with the orientation.
4
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -June Ol, 2010
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #12, 2010 approving
with conditions, 8040 Greenline Review and Residential Design Standards for
Building Orientation and Build to Lines; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Roll call
vote: Tygre, yes; Weiss, no; Myrin, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Speck, yes; Erspamer,
yes; Gibbs, no. Approved 5-2.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Miscellaneous Code Amendments
Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing for the Code Amendments. Chris Bendon
stated this was the section that describes how you measure all the heights, FARs,
and setbacks regarding development. Cliff Weiss said a lot of this discusses what
they have been discussing in the Aspen Area Community Plan but he was
concerned with the process. Weiss said that they need to prevent there from ever
being 15,000 square feet of sub-grade space. Weiss said there are some things that
overlap and some things he had concerns about were improving the code now from
changing it less than 6 months from now. Bendon said this section of the code
hasn't been touched in 15 or more years in any substantive way. Bendon said the
when Council and BOCC adopt the AACP one of the first things they are going to
have to do go through a massive work program; some will be very simple and
others with be extensive and require a consultant and a lot of staff time. Bendon
said they were trying to clean up the existing language without getting overly deep
into changing the substance and coming up with new things.
Bendon said the Calculations and Measurements Section included floor areas and
setbacks. There were provisions for what is allowed in setbacks; projections into
setbacks and how you measure heights. What is the net leasable and staff would
like to be closer to the industry.
Bendon asked the Commission for direction and guidance. Stan Gibbs asked what
Chris thought were the most significant. Bendon replied that Limitations from
time to time someone will want to exchange one non-conforming thing for another.
Bendon said that Measuring Lot Area and Slope was now a paragraph that tries in
text to describe what is easier described in a table that count towards the lot area
for lot area purposes and density purposes. Bendon said they reduced for slopes
once you get over 20% slopes except in the R-15B neighborhood. Slopes over
30% will be taken from the floor area. Bendon said that lot area is what you use to
decide the floor area.
5
City Plannine & Zonine MeetinE -Minutes -June Ol, 2010
Bendon said that this was about putting more language into the code. Bendon said
that code says that you measure to the exterior of this surface material of the
building and the revised code says to measure to the sheathing and the building
permit plans are clear but it can add bulk in some buildings that add bricks or stone
to the sheathing. Bendon said there was a lot of room for interpretation so they
might want to look at it.
Bendon said there was an exemption for porches and there have been some
requests to do some exemptions on second level decks.
Bendon said that garages and carports were a graduated exemption up to 500
square feet. Weiss asked the motive of that paragraph for any dwelling unit.
Bendon replied that in 1997 when the city adopted Residential Design; the city
reduced the exemptions and made them only available if you used an alley if you
have an alley but you only get that 500 square foot exemption for the garage if you
have an alley. Weiss voiced concern for the heights of garages in some areas and
the vaulted areas become living areas. Weiss asked if there was anything to
address that in the code now. Bendon answered that it probably goes to the
discussion about attic space; it has sort of same function other than needing to get
up there. Weiss asked if attic space was the same as over a garage. Bendon
replied yes. Bendon said that in zone district R15B had the exemption for garages
and the exemption does not apply for multi-family commercial mixed use in
lodging buildings.
Bendon said that ADU count against the total square footage unless they are deed-
restricted and sold through the housing authority and then they do not count
whatsoever and you get an affordable housing bonus and half of that square
footage comes back to you as an additional FAR bonus.
Weiss asked for distinction between a permanent shed and temporary shed.
Myrin asked if the Wildlife-resistant Dumpster Enclosure could be attached to the
house. Bendon replied no because there may be other things in that part of the
structure; it needs to be an isolated area. Bendon said that he would clean up that
language.
Bendon said that for mixed use buildings you get an overall aggregate FAR for the
building and then there are individual FARs for each use. Bendon noted this gives
an example of the common space and there is a calculation for common space.
6
City Planning & ZOning Meeting -Minutes -June Ol, 2010
Bendon said that setbacks are found through all the definitions; first you have to
figure out the front, side and rear lot lines and that tells you where the yards are
and there's something for non-aligned R61ots, which never works. Weiss asked if
there was an appeal process. Bendon replied there was a process at the end of the
document for appeal process.
Gibbs asked about lots located on corners and asked how the front of the lot was
determined. Bendon replied it would be the house lining up with the front yards of
the other houses along that same block.
Bendon said there was a section on how to measure setbacks on private streets and
when the street moves along and the lot line down the center doesn't really
translate to the easement of the street so you use the boundaries of the street and
you measure from there.
Bendon said there is this piece on combined yards and that in R6 each side yard
has to be 5 feet and there has to be a combined of 15 so your house has to be
consistent. Weiss said for anything to project (second floor decks) into a setback
should not be allowed because that gets pretty close to the next building. Weiss
said that hedges can grow and block your view; he discussed berms and vegetation
blocking views from streets. Bendon responded it allows 42 inches in areas that
are the front fagade facing the street. Alexander said so if there are 2 streets you
have to go 30 feet back from each intersection. Bendon said that engineering did
the sight triangle and he would make sure the language was the same.
MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to extend the meeting to 7: I Spm; Bert Myrin
seconded, all in favor, Approved.
Weiss said that solar panels could take advantage of this setback for front yards.
Bendon said there was a new provision of rooftop railings and they should not
exceed 5 feet and at least 50% transparent. Erspamer asked if the rooftop
mechanical equipment had to be setback. Bendon replied that in commercial
design review they do a reference.
Bendon said they wanted to put a provision in the code for net leasable space and
net livable area (common circulation areas). Bendon said under net leasable he
wanted to put an exemption for interior air lock spaces; those go away. Net livable
was all that you live in. There were 2 exemptions that can be provided at the
7
City PlanninE & Zonin¢ MeetinE -Minutes -June Ol. 2010
community development level; energy efficiency and the same for building code
compliance. Bendon asked the commission to think about these.
MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to continue the Code Amendment to June 15`h,
seconded by Brian Speck. All in favor, Approved.
Adjour ed at 7: pm
Gui v
ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
8