Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20190423 1 SPECIAL MEETING PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 23, 2019 Chairperson McKnight opened the meeting at 4:31 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Spencer McKnight, Ryan Walterscheid, Rally Dupps, Teraissa McGovern, Ruth Carver, Scott Marcoux, Don Love. Absent were Jimmy Marcus and Brittanie Rockhill. Staff present: Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Phelan said she didn’t put it on the agenda, but if Mr. McKnight wants to talk about the work session follow up tonight, we can do that or move it to a different night. We also had an item for May 7th and that has been withdrawn. We can do a training for new members on that date or we can do a lunch session. MINUTES: Ms. Carver said her comment on recycling pick up should be changed to the middle of April since it’s in the middle of May already and this mistake was on page 12 potentially. MOTION: Mr. Love motioned to approve the minutes of April 16th, Mr. Marcoux seconded. All in favor, motion carried. DISCLOSURES OF CONFLICT: None. PUBLIC NOTICE: Ms. Bryan said everything is in order. PUBLIC HEARING: 1011 E Hopkins Jennifer Phelan Ms. Phelan noted that Garrett Larimer is sick, so she is filling in for him. She said the goal of this project is to reestablish an accessory dwelling unit at the property known as 1011 E Hopkins via special review. The applicant wants to vary the design parameters. This property is a duplex residence and we’re looking at half of it. It was developed in the 1990’s and received a CO in 1996. The original plan for the accessory dwelling unit was for it to be in the basement, but between getting some approvals and construction, the accessory dwelling unit was relocated to the main floor with a shared entry and was a studio with a kitchenette. At the time, onsite attached accessory units were an acceptable form of mitigation. During inspections, it was noted that the accessory dwelling unit wasn’t present, and the kitchenette had been removed. There were a number of options suggested to the applicant to remedy the situation. You can replace the ADU per today’s codes, apply for special review to replace the ADU with variations to today’s standards or legally remove via cash in lieu or credit. The applicant would like to replace the unit on site in the basement rather than ground floor. Ms. Phelan showed plans on screen and explained where they are proposing to put the unit. Since the 90’s, the design requirements have changed and have become more prescriptive over time regarding size, kitchen design, utility access, etc. detached today instead of being integral to the building. A few years ago, the allowance was removed from the code. It will have a separate exterior access and internal connection to the main house. The minimum size is 369 square feet and the minimum in the code today is 300 square feet. It meets the bathroom requirements, has outdoor access, it meets the snow shedding protection 2 SPECIAL MEETING PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 23, 2019 requirements. The items not met in today’s code, which need to be approved via special review are: the size of storage, there is no separate access to utilities, the kitchen is undersized in some components are not there and there are no laundry hookups, the space is entirely below grade and it is not detached. If approved, the conditions would be: 1. Must be building code compliant and apply for permit via the Building Department 2. The deed restriction be insured that it is current with requirements of minimum tenure Ms. Phelan said the board should consider two criteria: 1. if this is designed in an appropriate manner that provides and promotes the ADU program and promotes general livability and 2. is compatible and subordinate to the primary residence. Staff believes the second requirement has been met, but that several aspects fall short of the ADU program. They do think the ADU in the basement provides a more viable option. She noted that ADU’s do not have to be rented, but if they are, they are required to be given to a local working resident. She thinks it’s a better location then where it was, but it doesn’t meet all of today’s standards. If the commission feels that special review is warranted, this will need a building permit to be submitted and issued and will have a better record of what is on that site. If this property changed hands in the future, it will be a good record of what is there and what is expected in the future. Mr. McKnight asked if the city is no longer offering mitigation credits for ADU’s. Ms. Phelan said the program has changed in the past two years and it really came down to two options that people took advantage of the most. Either provide an onsite accessory dwelling unit or pay a cash in lieu. Council felt these units weren’t being occupied to the extent they would like, so that was removed as a form of mitigation from the land use code. Affordable housing credits are what need to be extinguished for mitigation today. Mr. McKnight asked if someone removed without proper authorization, would there be a paper trail which the new owner would see, and Ms. Phelan said there is a deed restriction on those units, so a new owner would see that. Ms. Carver said she read in the notes something about receiving a floor area bonus if the ADU was relocated to the ground level and she asked if this project had received the floor area bonus. Ms. Phelan said it’s not clear, but her conclusion is that they did receive a bonus. It wasn’t outlined clearly that they did receive a bonus, however. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Chris Bendon of Bendon Adams Mr. Bendon said this project was continued from last time because neither the applicant or their attorney could be here, but none are here now either. The applicant has local ties and bought property three years ago. The property is located on the east side of town right before you cross the bridge. Chris explained the house on screen with pictures. The requirements for an ADU in the 90’s were less than they are today and this was generation one of the ADU code. ADU’s were encouraged to be attached at that time and accessed from the alley and subtle in character and subordinate to the primary residence. Subgrade units were allowed, and internal connections were allowed. There were no specific kitchen standards and no specific storage requirements. The record is pretty sparse as far as what took place in the past and it’s a little helter skelter at the moment. Mr. Bendon showed his current plan and promised to have a four-burner stove and a little larger kitchen. This is a small scale ADU which fits inside the house and allows for independent living and fits with the RMF zone district purpose. It’s a typical ADU from the 90’s and is a small unit with access off the alley. In 2005, the kitchen definition changed and required more. We do have a four-burner stove and apartment size fridge with 3 SPECIAL MEETING PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 23, 2019 a freezer and have committed to those. We did consider installing a washer dryer hookup in the closet, but the tenant would have access to the laundry and mechanical area. We can’t have the unit detached without blowing up the entire property and it is better to have it here than where it was originally planned. Eric Marshall, the owner, got pulled into this not understanding what an ADU is and much less if they had one or were supposed to have one. This came up during a CO review and that is how this all started. Ms. McGovern asked if the floor area on site is greater than what is allowed, and Mr. Bendon said there isn’t a current take off under today’s code. Mr. Bendon said it was his expectation that it was built out to the 1990 maximum. Ms. McGovern asked if he has done a floor area calculation and Mr. Bendon said he has not and the only thing which indicates that they didn’t get the bonus is that the floor area didn’t change after taking the unit up from the basement to the main level. It was basically swapping one bedroom for another. The record seems to indicate that the project was deep into construction and they chose to put it somewhere else. Ms. McGovern asked if the laundry and mechanical access is through the main house, if that language be put in the deed restriction for it to remain this way. Mr. Bendon said yes, and it will be lockable from the ADU side. Ms. Phelan said we would put this language in the resolution. Mr. Dupps asked if there were storage requirements in the 90’s and Mr. Bendon said no, he researched it. He said we are not far from the requirements of the 2005 code. Ms. Carver asked if the ADU tenant would have access to the whole house and Mr. Bendon said yes, it’s important they have access to the laundry room and the mechanical room. There would have to be a level of trust between the ADU tenant and the home owner. We did look at other scenarios, but nothing seemed viable. Mr. Dupps asked if they are trying to go back to the 90’s code or if they are picking and choosing which code to go by. Ms. Phelan said that technically, if it was not removed appropriately, we would have to replace to today’s standards, but it’s not the most practical solution here. It’s hybrid at this point. Mr. Bendon agreed and said the board has two criteria that needs to be addressed and that is whether the restoration is discreet and promotes the ADU program. It is a little vague, but within the board’s latitude. Ms. McGovern asked if there is a parking spot on site and Mr. Bendon said yes. Mr. Marcoux asked if there would be wall cabinets above the counter and Mr. Bendon said we can do that especially if that moves a needle, we can take a look. Mr. Marcoux said it might help with saving space and adding additional storage for the kitchen. Mr. Love asked if the design of this is too integral to actually have someone living there and serve the purpose of a living space and Mr. Bendon said that it was typical of the era to have access to the house and you’re not required to rent out the ADU. Mr. Love said it’s pretty compromised in a house this nice. Mr. Bendon said yes and no; there are a ¼ or so occupied, which has been determined by the city. Ms. Carver asked where the parking space is, and Mr. Bendon said it’s a two-car garage. Ms. Phelan said you can do tandem parking for these units. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. 4 SPECIAL MEETING PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 23, 2019 Mr. Dupps doesn’t see any problem with this ADU and said it’s in the same neighborhood as the other duplex’s that had to mitigate for this in the 1990’s. This is a workable solution and sees no problem with this. Ms. McGovern said she is playing devil’s advocate regarding if something was approved, built and then removed, should the current applicant get the bonus of putting it back in or should they pay mitigation because they didn’t do their due diligence. She suggested paying into something that would benefit housing employees instead of reestablishing something that most likely won’t be housing anyone. Mr. Dupps said he hears her concern, but he is currently working on a similar project like this and said it goes back to when it was first approved. From an HPC aspect, he feels this is in the same spirit of when it was first approved. To Ms. McGovern, this is a prime example of why this doesn’t work because there is no way for an employee to be housed. She doesn’t see how this helps with the employee housing crunch. Mr. Walterscheid said he agrees with Mr. Dupps. We’re not giving a bonus now and it’s non-conforming now as it was then, so he has no problem with this. Mr. Marcoux said he would like to see a microwave and for them to make the kitchen more functional. Mr. Love said he agrees with Ms. McGovern and Mr. Dupps. He’s bugged by the fact that it starts as an ADU and ends up not being that. But I guess in light of the historic nature, he is probably ok with it. Ms. McGovern asked how it is considered historic when it was built in the ‘90’s. Ms. Carver said she was definitely against it and then she walked by the property and said we have a lot of people living in these circumstances. It will probably never benefit employee housing in our community, so if approved, it would have to have access to the laundry and mechanical. She said she will be a hardliner and say no because it was taken out and they were allowed extra square footage initially. It’s only fair that they should mitigate it. Mr. McKnight said there are definitely two arguments and he sees both sides. If you are the new home owner, you have to maintain this ADU by current codes but with the crises that we are in, we should let them do this. We can’t force them to use this unit. He knows plenty of people that would die to have this unit as is, so he feels the option should be out there and he’s leaning towards yes. Ms. McGovern thinks they are supporting bad behavior. Mr. Walterscheid said we are supporting the code from the ‘90’s. The fact that they are relocating it to a spot where it could be used by a third party, whether they are a care taker or a stranger, he would still rather have it being used in this situation. They’re not proposing to expand, and they are not changing the footprint, just relocating. Ms. McGovern said she’d rather see it just be cash in lieu or housing credit to be extinguished and move on. She feels the unit would be very difficult to rent out. Ms. Carver said this board is setting a precedent. Mr. McKnight asked if the owners would be open to more construction to make it more blocked off and Mr. Bendon said they just remodeled the home and love it the way it is. They are not interested in doing more frankly and don’t want to chop up the space. Your task is to apply the criteria. Ms. Bryan reminded the board of the staff memo with the criteria that needs to be applied and what needs to be followed in making their decision. 5 SPECIAL MEETING PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 23, 2019 MOTION: Mr. Dupps motioned to approve resolution #06, Mr. Walterscheid seconded with amendment under section 1, point 2 and 7 with access to the shared mechanical room and laundry, shall be maintained. Access shall be maintained. Roll call vote: Mr. Dupps, yes; Ms. McGovern, no; Mr. McKnight, yes; Mr. Walterscheid, yes; Mr. Marcoux, yes; Ms. Carver, no; Mr. Love, yes. 5-2, motion carried. Ms. Phelan asked the board if they would like to have the discussion regarding their check ins with council and they agreed. MOTION: Teraissa motioned to adjourn, rally seconded. All in favor, motion carried at 5:58 pm.