Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20181113 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 2018 Vice Chairperson Spencer McKnight called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm. Commissioners in attendance: Teraissa McGovern, Rally Dupps, Ruth Carver, Spencer McKnight Absent: Scott Marcoux, Kelly McNicholas Kury, Skippy Mesirow, Ryan Walterscheid, James Marcus Staff present: Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Kevin Rayes, Planner Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director Garrett Larimer, Permit Coordinator COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None. STAFF COMMENTS None. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. McGovern motioned to approve the minutes from the October 16th P&Z meeting. Mr. Dupps seconded. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Dupps stated that he worked for the HOA and one of the home owners of River Park in the past, but he has concluded his business with both parties. He communicated with Ms. Bryan prior to the meeting and she has given him the okay to participate in the hearing. Mr. McKnight asked Ms. Bryan to verify that she was comfortable with Mr. Dupps participating in the hearing. Ms. Bryan asked Mr. Dupps if he can be fair, impartial, and open-minded in the hearing. Mr. Dupps stated that he could. Mr. McKnight asked if public notice was given. Ms. Bryan stated that she has the public notice for the hearing on the River Park Condominiums and has reviewed it. She stated that she did not receive the public notice for the hearing on 222 Cleveland Street. Mr. Larimer presented Ms. Bryan with the public notice for the 222 Cleveland Street hearing. Ms. Bryan stated that she will review the public notice for the 222 Cleveland Street hearing now and would only comment if there is a problem with it. PUBLIC HEARINGS River Park Condominiums Planned Development Mr. Rayes gave an overview of the River Park Condominiums. He stated that the applicant has four reviews requested for the proposed work including a special review for a new top of slope, a stream margin review, an insubstantial amendment to a planned development, and a variance to install a hot tub. Mr. Rayes gave background on the site conditions. He gave the location of the condominiums and stated that the complex is made up of four multifamily dwellings with 13 units. It is zoned residential multifamily with a planned development overlay and it is located within the stream margin review area. The scope of work for this site consists of maintenance and improvements of onsite amenities, which fall into four categories: structural repairs to an existing subgrade parking garage, secondary improvements to various onsite amenities including replacing onsite snowmelt infrastructure and repairing storm drain systems, and installation of a hot tub. The hot tub is where the variance comes into play because it is proposed to be located between the front façade of the dwelling units and main street. Because the majority of the site is located within the stream margin review area, the applicant has proposed a new top of slope, which has been approved by the Engineering department. Today the applicant is requesting a review of the stream margin review area from Planning and Zoning. Additionally, because this site is a planned development, it needs to go through an insubstantial amendment to a planned development in order to get the work approved. He stated that staff generally do this administratively, but since they are going through all the other reviews, staff have included it today to consolidate reviews and make the process a little bit faster. Mr. Rayes showed a slide with a picture of the green roof and parking garage. He stated that a number of existing trees will need to be removed in order to conduct the work. The Parks department determined that significant mitigation will be necessary for the removal of the trees. The applicants plan to replace a large number of the trees, which would offset some of the mitigation, but the numbers will be worked out between the applicant and the Parks department at the time of the building permit. Mr. Rayes addressed the secondary improvements onsite. He stated that they include repairs to the existing driveway, replacing window wells, and replacing the pool deck. He stated that a small portion of the pool deck is located within the 15-foot top of slope setback. Since this deck will have the same footprint as the existing deck, Planning and Engineering staff do not see any issues with this. Mr. Rayes addressed the installation of the hot tub, which is proposed to be located next to the existing pool. He stated that the original plan was to put the hot tub to the east of the pool. The proposed location of the hot tub was technically behind Heron Park, which staff did not see as technically street- facing and did not see a problem with that. However, the location of the hot tub within the 15-foot top of slope setback did not comply with Engineering standards and they did not want the hot tub to be located there. In order to comply with Engineering’s concerns, they have requested to put the hot tub to the west of the existing pool. Mr. Rayes covered staff’s recommendations for this proposal. The proposed top of slope location has been approved by the City Engineering department. Proposed work within the 15-foot top of slope setback is limited to the maintenance of the existing pool deck. The applicant has indicated that no vegetation will be removed or damaged and no slope or grade changes are proposed within the top of slope setback. All development outside the 15-foot setback does not exceed the 45-degree progressive height limit. Staff finds this criterion to be met and recommend approval of the stream margin review, the special review, and the new top of slope. Mr. Rayes stated that, regarding the variance, the placement to the west of the existing pool would satisfy stream margin setback standards and would require the minimum variance necessary to make possible reasonable use of the hot tub. Staff finds that this criterion is met and recommends approval of variance. Mr. Rayes stated that, regarding the insubstantial amendment to a planned development, the River Park Condominiums functions as a residential family property. The use of the site will not change as a result of the proposed maintenance work and addition of the hot tub. Staff find that this criterion is met and recommend approval for the insubstantial amendment to a planned development. Overall, staff finds that the proposed scope of work complies with land use code and recommend approval for all the requested reviews of this project. Mr. McKnight asked if commissioners had any questions. Ms. McGovern asked how tall the walls are around the proposed hot tub. Darla Callaway from Design Workshop stated that they are 3 ½ feet tall. She stated that it will create privacy and separation from the adjacent unit and roadway. Ms. Carver asked where the removed stairway was going. David Rosenfeld from Charles Cunniffe Architects replied that the removed stairway was access to the garage below. He stated that the applicants reviewed that with the Building department. The stairway has become mostly a nuisance for the owners since they have two means of egress out of the garage. The plan also demolishes a restroom in the garage and the spa equipment will be put in its place. Mr. McKnight asked what the hot tub is replacing. Mr. Rayes replied that it’s replacing the stairwell. Mr. McKnight asked if the Parks department is happy with that mitigation, whatever it may be. Mr. Rayes stated that the Parks department hasn’t yet determined what the mitigation will be, but staff are planning to work with the applicant on it. Mr. McKnight asked if the applicant is willing to do whatever the Parks department recommends. Mr. Rayes replied that that’s his understanding. Ms. Carver asked how deep the soil is for the trees. Ms. Callaway stated that the soil is currently 5 feet deep, which is more than necessary. They are planning for three feet. Less soil will reduce weight and structural concerns for the garage in the future. Mr. Rosenfeld stated that the current fill is found dirt and rocks and it is currently overloaded. Ms. Carver asked what year that unit was built. Mr. Applicant replied 1989 to 1991. Mr. McKnight asked if the commissioners had any other questions for staff. Seeing none, he asked the applicants if they have a presentation. Ms. Callaway stated that they do not have a presentation and are happy to answer questions. Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners if they have questions for the applicant. Ms. Carver asked if the snowmelt is currently existing. A member of the applicant team responded from the public seating. He stated that there is a small amount of additional snowmelt being added. Ms. Carver asked him to quantify that. Ms. Callaway stated that the applicants will be going through the counts with their permit submittal with the Engineering department. The numbers are being documented in the permit set as they will affect mitigation. PUBLIC COMMENT None. Mr. McKnight asked if there was any commissioner discussion. Ms. McGovern stated that this recommendation goes against what staff has recommended in the past regarding locating hot tubs and fire pits between a building and a street-facing lot. She stated that it isn’t a necessary amenity, so does not see a need to accommodate it. Mr. McKnight asked if staff had comments on that. Ms. Phalen stated that there is a pool there. She stated that, if the commissioners wanted to be strict in their interpretation, they could deny the proposal and their option would be to put a hot tub in the existing pool. She stated that the lot is dropped down from the street and well-landscaped. It could be said that it’s a unique site. Mr. McKnight stated that cannot see the pool at the site unless he walks directly on that sidewalk. He stated that this is the subjective part of the commissioners’ job where they can make an approval if they want to. Ms. McGovern stated that she does not see a reason to approve it. Ms. Callaway stated that the commissioners would approve a spa behind someone’s home, following the land use code guidelines. She stated that the hot tub is in the side façade of one of the units. Ms. McGovern stated that the guidelines say “street facing,” and stated that this lot is street facing on two streets. Ms. Callaway asked if that refers to the front façade. Ms. McGovern replied any street facing façade, which is why it is difficult for corner lots. Mr. McKnight asked Ms. Carver and Mr. Dupps where they stand. Ms. Carver stated that she doesn’t have a problem with it, particularly because the swimming pool is already there. Mr. Dupps stated that it does not pose any problem in his mind. He stated that it’s a special case and it is hidden from the street. Mr. McKnight stated that he agrees with Mr. Dupps and Ms. Carver. Ms. McGovern asked if the commissioners would vote to increase the size of the pool if that was the proposal. Mr. McKnight stated that he might. Ms. Carver stated that she would not want to be the neighbor to the hot tub, but that if it’s fine with them, it’s fine with her. Mr. McKnight asked Ms. McGovern if she wanted to plead her case further. He stated that he sees where she is coming from. Ms. McGovern stated that she cannot support this proposal since she does not see that there is hardship. Ms. Carver motioned to approve Resolution 6. Mr. Dupps seconded. Ms. Stickle called the role. Mr. McKnight, Mr. Dupps, and Ms. Carver voted to approve the resolution. Ms. McGovern voted to disapprove. Ms. Phelan reminded commissioners there is a meeting next week. She stated that there is a meeting December 4th and December 18th and asked if those dates still work for the commissioners, who responded that they do. She stated that there cannot be a meeting January 1st because it’s a holiday and asked about commissioners’ preferences for January 22nd or 29th. Mr. McKnight, Ms. McGovern, and Ms. Carver all stated that either date works for them. Mr. McKnight asked Ms. Phelan how next week’s meeting is looking. Ms. Phelan stated that there is currently one item scheduled. Mr. McKnight, Mr. Dupps, and Ms. Carver all stated that he will not be able to attend next week’s meeting. Ms. Phelan asked Ms. Stickle to send out an email to confirm that there is quorum for next week. PUBLIC HEARING 222 Cleveland St Special Review – Variation to the ADU Design Standards Garrett Larimer introduced himself as a Planner with the City of Aspen. He stated that the application from 222 Cleveland Street is for a variation to the ADU design standards. Mr. Larimer gave history of the property, stating that the property is a single-family residence built in the 1990’s. He stated that there was an ADU constructed in the basement as mitigation for their affordable housing mitigation requirement. The property owners recently submitted and received an application for a building permit for a remodel that included renovations to the primary residence and minor modifications to the ADU. During an inspection for that building permit, it was noted that there were elements in the ADU that had been removed that were necessary for it to qualify as an ADU. Once staff saw that the ADU was noncompliant, they presented the applicant and owner with a couple of paths forward to rectify this compliance issue. The first option was to decommission the ADU and the second was to replace the ADU by either meeting current code requirements or as it was originally constructed with an application for special review variation. Mr. Larimer stated that, in the mid-nineties, there were three paths forward for applicants to mitigate for their employee housing mitigation requirement. They could construct an onsite ADU, pay a cash-in- lieu fee, or deed-restrict their single-family residence as resident occupied. The purpose of the ADU as an affordable housing option is to provide a viable affordable housing opportunity for residents of the community and incorporate that housing into the neighborhood. He stated that Aspen has had some challenges getting the ADUs occupied, so there have been a number of changes over time to the City’s ADU standards to improve the occupancy rate of the ADUs. Mr. Larimer stated that the current standards prohibit subgrade ADUs, requiring that 50% or more of the ADU’s finished floor be above grade to allow for more natural light. There has also been a change increasing emphasis in the current code language that focuses on detached, standalone, self-sufficient ADUs. The code has also identified some kitchen and bathroom requirements. The current requirements also include a provision for washer and dryers or hookups in the unit. The unit that was constructed in the mid 1990’s did not have the requirement to be above grade nor the same requirements for the kitchen, bathroom, or storage. He stated that the applicant is asking to replace the ADU in its original location in the basement and for variations to certain code requirements. In replacing the unit in the basement, there are some things that they will be unable to comply with. He stated that the variations that the applicants are requesting from the current ADU design standards, in order to replace the ADU in its former location, is a variation from the subgrade location. The applicants are asking for a reduction in the minimum amount of storage space that’s required. The current code requirement says that 10% of the net livable needs to be required as storage or closet space. They’re also asking for variations to some of the kitchen standards. They are providing an oven and stove, but they are providing a two-burner stove while the current code requirement is for a four-burner. A reduction in counter and cabinet space would need to be granted from the code requirement today. No dishwasher is being provided, which is a requirement of the current code. The refrigerator and freezer being provided is below the minimum size requirements. There also exists an interior connection between the ADU and the primary residence, which is not allowed by the current code and would need to be approved via this special review process. Also, the applicant has not indicated any washer and dryer hookups in the unit. Mr. Larimer showed a rendering of the proposed floor plan on the slide. He stated that staff is looking for direction from Planning and Zoning on how to move forward to rectify this compliance issue. The paths forward would be to decommission the ADU, replace the ADU in its former location and grant variations for the requirements that it doesn’t comply with, or require the applicant to replace the ADU onsite and meet all the current code requirements. Mr. McKnight asked if the commissioners had any questions for staff. Seeing none, Mr. McKnight turned the meeting over to the applicant’s presentation. Chris Bendon from BendonAdams introduced himself as the representative of the owners of the property. He pointed out where the property is on a map on the slide and stated that the site is a single- family home. He showed the layout of the property on a slide. He stated that Leonard Oates, an attorney for the applicant, is present at the meeting. Kim Wilde, architect for this project, is not present. The owners of the property apologize for being unable to attend. Mr. Bendon stated that, as a former City employee, he is very familiar with the ADU code and its frequent changes. He stated that the mid-nineties code emphasized the ADU being very subtle in character. He pointed out that the original ADU complies with the ADU code at the time it was built in the mid 1990’s. He showed a diagram of the unit on the slide. He stated that the ADU was removed at an unknown date. The building inspectors who came in to inspect the owners’ remodel realized that the ADU had been removed. The enforcement letter that the owners received gives the applicants the option to document an alternative method of mitigation that was provided, which there is no record of having been done. He stated that the option to formally remove the unit would cost $130,000. The other option is to build an ADU to today’s standards, which cannot be met in many circumstances. In conversations between the applicant and Planning staff, staff gave the option of the appealing to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the option to replace the unit in kind. Mr. Bendon stated that there are two standards that the commissioners have to look at. One is that the ADU promotes the purpose of the ADU and carriage house program, promotes the zone district, and promotes the unit’s general livability. He stated that the 1990’s code didn’t have a purpose section, unlike 2005 code. Instead, the 1990’s code had four points, which were: the ADU has to be 300 – 700 square feet, deed restricted resident occupied with rental periods of at least six months, the owners of the principal residence have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of their choosing in the unit, there needs to be a parking space, and detached ADUs are only permitted when there is secondary access or an alley. Mr. Bendon stated that this ADU enables the small-scale housing opportunity in an established neighborhood and allows for independent living or a caretaker/caregiver relationship. He read a section of the RMF zone purpose and stated that this project meets that. Mr. Bendon stated that the second standard talks about compatible and subordinate character to the principal residence considering all dimensions. The ADU is much more compliant with this standard as it isn’t possible to tell from the outside that it’s anything but a single family home, it’s smaller than the principal residence, the architecture and landscaping are unified. It does provide for privacy and independent living. There is a parking space. There is an Internal access option and, though it was not a requirement at the time, there is access to the mechanical area. In the conversation with staff, the 1990’s kitchen definition was very sparse and Mr. Bendon stated that he needed to be able to describe the target specifications to the architect. He discussed using the 2005 kitchen definition with staff, which would provide direction. He stated that he does not want the entire ADU to be subject to 2005 code. The applicants’ request is to replace the ADU in its previous condition using the 2005 kitchen standards. With that he concluded his presentation and opened the meeting to commissioner questions. Ms. McGovern asked why the plan is to fill in the window on the opposite wall. Mr. Bendon stated that that design decision was made prior to his involvement. Ms. McGovern asked if that has already been done. Mr. Bendon stated that he believes it has been as part of the remodel. Ms. McGovern stated that, as a result, the ADU is not being restored in its previous condition as a significant portion of natural light has been removed. Mr. Bendon replied that this has that potential, though there are other light sources. Ms. McGovern stated that, in her opinion, that is not really restoring the ADU with that large of a change. She asked what the reason is for not expanding the closet. Mr. Bendon stated that he did not provide the architecture firm with specific direction regarding the closet. They have explored options to increase the size of the closet to near 10% of the unit. Mr. McKnight asked if the commissioners had any other questions. Ms. Carver stated that she agrees with Ms. McGovern regarding the windows. She asked where the window is now. Mr. Bendon showed on the slide where the window and the outside door are located. Ms. Carver stated that the diagram shows that two windows have been removed. Ms. McGovern stated that Ms. Carver is looking at the house. Ms. Carver stated that removing natural light in a small space is a bad idea. She asked what size refrigerator will be installed. Mr. Bendon stated that a minimum six cubic foot fridge with a freezer would go in there. Ms. Carver asked if that will fit under the counter. Mr. Bendon replied yes. Ms. Carver stated that she would like to see the window put back in. Mr. McKnight asked how the ADU is currently being used. Mr. Bendon stated that it’s being used as part of the main house, as an extra bedroom. He stated that that is likely how the majority of the ADUs from that generation are used today. Mr. McKnight asked staff how they came to the $130,000 amount. Mr. Phalen stated that this was a form of mitigation in the 1990’s. The two other options were fee-in- lieu or deed restriction to an RO unit. She stated that the proper process would have been to pay the fee in lieu when getting rid of the ADU. The fee-in-lieu amount has decreased over time. Mr. McKnight asked if the formula is still based on square footage or if it’s a flat fee. Mr. Bendon stated that this plan is basically to replace the value to the community of the ADU. He stated that, from the applicants’ perspective, this hearing is a review of the ADU and how it complies with the special review standards, not necessarily choosing between the various options that the applicants have to take care of the enforcement issue. The applicants want to replace what was removed and that’s what they’re asking P&Z to review. Ms. McGovern asked how much the in-lieu fee would have been in the mid-1990’s if they had selected that option. Ms. Phalen stated that that would’ve taken more research because it would’ve been dependent on what the fee-in-lieu dollar per square foot was and the specific circumstances at the time. She stated that part of this is replacing what was there but also recognizing that today it would be considered a nonconformity as far as some of the design parameters. Ms. Carver asked if the shared utilities are blocked off from walking through from the house to the ADU. Mr. Bendon showed where the utility room is on a picture on a slide. He stated that the utility room access is through a hallway and door. Ms. Carver asked if it could be part of the main house without walking past the meters. Mr. Bendon replied that that is correct. Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners if they had any other questions. Ms. Carver stated that, if this was to be replaced to the original ADU, the filled in window should be there. Mr. Bendon stated that the window was not required for access and egress. Ms. McGovern stated that it is not a code required window, but it was there. Mr. Bendon stated that he is not sure he can answer for the owners, but he believes that they would look at the window seriously. He stated he does not know if there was a window well or if it propels other issues. Mr. Larimer stated that part of the change order was to fill the area that is adjacent to that exterior wall and there was some relocation of deck that may have gone above the fill, which was the reason for filling in the window. Ms. Carver asked if they just wanted a bigger deck. Mr. Larimer stated that they did not expand it, they just reallocated it. Mr. Bendon stated that the door is a solid plank door, which could be replaced with a half light or full light door to allow more light into the space. Mr. Dupps asked if the ADU is going to be used as an ADU. Ms. McGovern stated that it isn’t P&Z’s purview to legislate the use. Mr. Larimer stated that the deed restriction is voluntary, it’s not required to be occupied. Ms. McGovern stated that, if it’s rented, it has to be compliant with APCHA, but it does not need to be rented. Mr. Bendon stated that the applicants would probably continue to use it as they have. That doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t want or need a caregiver in the future. Also, there will be future owners of this residence. He stated that, if it’s used the same way that other ADUs in town area used, it has a 25% likelihood of being used. Mr. McKnight asked if there are any other questions from commissioners. Seeing none, he opened the meeting to public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT None Mr. McKnight opened the meeting to commissioner discussion. Ms. McGovern stated that this is a clear representation of the reason why the City got rid of ADUs as an option for mitigation. It’s hard to regulate construction inside a building to make sure that everything stays. She does not feel that it’s a good way to mitigate employee housing impact. Mr. McKnight asked which way Ms. McGovern is leaning on the options. Ms. McGovern stated that, if it’s going to be on site, she would want it to meet current code in its entirety or not at all. Mr. McKnight asked Ms. Carver and Mr. Dupps where they stand. Mr. Dupps stated that he thinks it’s reasonable to hold it to 2005 standards. He stated that the house has a long history and previous owners made alterations. He feels that, to stick the owners with a bill of $130,000 is too onerous. Ms. Carver stated that she agrees with Mr. Dupps that the 2005 standards would be fine. She would like to see more light whether it’s used as part of the main house or as an ADU. Mr. Bendon stated that the owners were not the original builders of the house, they did not place the deed restriction on the house, they bought into this situation. He also stated that the owners do not see the $130,000 as not being a reasonable and rational penalty for the removal of the ADU. Mr. McKnight stated that he finds the situation very strange. He stated that it seems unfair for P&Z to look at it from the standpoint of a hardship as someone is responsible for it. Ms. McGovern stated that, part of what you get when you buy a piece of property is all the stuff that happened before you owned it. She stated that, if the owners had been proactive about restoring the ADU before it came before it became an enforcement issue, she would have a different perspective on it. Mr. McKnight asked staff what the commissioners should be basing their decision off of. Ms. Phelan stated that there are two standards within the special review standards. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed in a manner which promotes the purposes of the ADU and carriage house program, promotes the purpose of the zone district in which it is proposed, and promotes the unit’s general livability. She stated that staff has said that one was not met. In the 1990’s there were not really any purpose statements associated with ADUs, there is a much more robust section on purpose statements that staff outlined in the memo. The goal is to try to get the ADUs to be discreet within the neighborhood and promote these as another form of housing locals. The second criteria is the proposed ADU or carriage house is subordinate in character to the primary residence concerning all dimensions of configuration, landscaping, privacy, and historical significance of the property, which was met. She stated that, at the end of the day, the applicants are asking for special review and these are the two standards. Mr. McKnight stated that he agrees that the second standard is met. Ms. McGovern stated that she agrees that that is met, but the livability standard is the issue. Mr. McKnight asked Ms. McGovern if she is a no. She stated that she is a no. Mr. Dupps stated that he is a yes. Ms. Carver stated that she is concerned about whether or not it would actually be used as an ADU. She does not agree with taking out the window. Mr. McKnight stated that Planning and Zoning can’t use that as a criterion. Ms. Carver stated that she is a no. Mr. McKnight stated that, after looking at the review standards, he is also a no. He asked staff if they should go ahead and vote on the resolution. Ms. Phelan stated that the motion would be to deny the resolution. Mr. Bendon stated that he would like to continue the hearing until there’s a fuller board. Mr. McKnight stated that he would also like to discuss this proposal with a fuller board. Mr. Bendon stated that he sees where the commissioners are coming from on the frustration with the ADU program in general. He stated that the fundamental question for the applicants is: what’s the expectation on an ADU that was built in 1995? The thought of what an ADU should be has evolved, and the question is if that evolution should be retroactively applied to this ADU. He requested to continue the hearing until there is a fuller board where they can have that discussion, even if that feels like a repeat. Ms. Phelan stated that this hearing can be continued until the next week, though there may be difficulty meeting quorum. She stated that the Commission needs to set a date certain, which could be next week, though it may need to be continued. Ms. McGovern motioned to continue the hearing to the meeting on November 20th. Mr. Dupps seconded. All in favor. Motioned carried. ADJOURN Ms. McGovern motioned to adjourn the meeting at 5:41 pm. Mr. Dupps seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager