Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20130806 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 6, 2013 U Erspamer called the meeting to order at 4:30 with members Myrin, Weiss, Gibbs,Tygre present. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 1. Erspamer suggested the P&Z draft a resolution of commendation for retiring deputy city clerk Jackie Lothian. 2. Erspamer said he would like P&Z to meet with City Council to discuss what Council feels P&Z's role is. Weiss suggested some more substance to the topic than just P&Z's role, like where the P&Z is at with the AACP. Ms.Tygre said she would like time with Council to go over P&Z's complaints and issues. 3. Jessica Garrow, community development department, thanked P&Z members who attended the Rubey Park open house last month. Ms. Garrow said she will send meeting minutes to P&Z. The next open house will be early September and P&Z can attend if they wish. 4. Ms. Garrow said Wednesday,August 14, at noon will be a work session with P&Z and HPC to discussion potential process changes on review of lodging projects as a result of Council direction to streamline the process for upgrading existing lodges and condominiums. Ms. Garrow said she is working on a code amendment to consolidate the PUD/SPA chapter and P&Z will be included in all information in the future. MINUTES June 11, 2013—Myrin noted his name is misspelled on page 5. Weiss moved to approve the minutes of June 11, 2013 as amended; seconded by Myrin. All in favor, motion carried. June 18, 2013—Ms.Tygre pointed out a correction on page 1; Erspamer said it should say"closed the public comment section" rather than "public hearing". Myrin moved to approve the minutes of June 18, 2013,as amended; seconded by Gibbs. All in favor, motion carried. July 2, 2013—Ms.Tygre moved to approve the minutes of July 2, 2013; seconded by Myrin. All in favor, motion carried. Gibbs said there should be a signature block on each set of minutes. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST There were none. 1 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 6,2013 ASPEN ALPS PUD AMENDMENT Jessica Garrow, community development department, noted this is a continued public hearing for the applicant,Aspen Alps, requesting rezoning, PUD and subdivision review. Council is the final review authority with a recommendation from P&Z. Ms. Garrow said this project should be renumbered as Resolution#18. At the previous meeting, staff outlined the project request, which is to memorialize the existing development with a PUD overlay. There are existing legally established non-conformities, which the applicant is requesting be memorialized. Ms. Garrow reminded P&Z there were many questions on how the non-conforming chapter works, how it relates to this project and the effect of establishing a PUD for this property. Ms. Garrow pointed out under the non-conformity chapter there are two ways a non-conforming structure can be rebuilt. To be considered a legally established non-conformity,the building has to have been built under the code in place at the time. When the zoning changes over time, buildings built legally at the time become non-conforming, which is the situation of the Alps. A non-conforming structure can be rebuilt through non-purposeful destruction, acts of God or acts of nature. Another way a non-conforming structure can be rebuilt is related to purposeful destruction when a building owner tears the building down and they can rebuild by complying with the existing code or they can go through special review process with P&Z. The latter is when a building owner wants to retain any parts of the non-conformity, like building over the adopted height limit. There are two non-conformities at the Aspen Alps that make this difficult. The first is unit size and the second is unit count. According to the non-conformity chapter, if one demolishes their building, they have one year to rebuild it to maintain the density and unit count. If it is not rebuilt within one year, a property owner has to get special permission to maintain the unit count. There is not the same provision for unit size. Ms. Garrow told P&Z at the Alps every building is over the code in terms of unit size. If the Alps were to come through the non-conformities chapter of the code,they would request the ability to build back the exact unit count and unit size in order not to create winners and losers in a redevelopment, where some owners might lose 700 square feet because they are a non-conformity in terms of unit size. Ms. Garrow said if the Alps does not receive approval to rebuild the same unit count and unit sizes,they will not go through with redevelopment. Ms. Garrow said going through the PUD or the non-conformity section of the code creates the same situation—what is there today is the baseline of what can happen with the parcel. The PUD would lock in the dimensions for each unit and for each building. If one of the buildings wanted to change parking, to expand, to increase setback,they would be subject to a full PUD process. Establishing a PUD does give some benefits to the city by establishing recorded dimensions for each of the units. When a property owner wants to remodel,they have to do floor area calculations and adopting a PUD would eliminate that work and that cost. Another benefit is that most of the utilities on the site are not located within easements or in sub-standard size easements. Going through the PUD process,the Alps will establish properly sized and located easements for the utilities. As part of the PUD process, updated lot descriptions will be created and will establish a clear legal description. Ms. Garrow noted adopting a PUD would provide some protection for the property owners to know what they have is legal and can be rebuilt rather than having to go through a discretionary process with an unknown outcome. Ms. Garrow reminded P&Z the parking for building 100 was discussed at the last meeting and the application stated there were 16 parking spaces for building 100; one of those spaces is on the Glory Hole condominium property. The attorney for Glory Hole states it is 1.5 spaces; the 2 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 6,2013 applicant is working with Glory Hole on an easement to continue use of the 151h spot. Staff recommends approving this request. Gibbs asked if there is a difference in how the common areas of the Alps parcel would be treated. Ms. Garrow said the non-conformity deals with the structure and the PUD is locking in building size. Ms. Garrow said the common areas at the Alps are governed through the master declaration, which would continue whether this is a PUD or not. Ms.Tygre asked whether the building measurements would be memorialized whether this is a PUD or not. Ms. Garrow said PUDs requires floor and site plans to be recorded and without that requirement, there is no need for the applicant to record these as an official document nor would it be recognized by the city. Ms. Garrow pointed out the Council ordinance and minutes regarding the Winter building have been included in the packet. Ms. Garrow said staff feels the intent was to put a PUD on the entire property but that is not the way the ordinance is written nor is it clear in the minutes. Myrin asked if it would make more sense to adopt a general code amendment for projects within the city rather than adopting this rezoning for the Aspen Alps. Ms. Garrow said that is part of the lodge proposals and any code amendment related to that will not be before P&Z until next year. Ms. Garrow stated Council may not want to determine that every short term rental building is conforming. Myrin asked if there is another way to establish dimensions without using the PUD. Ms. Garrow said the only way to vary dimensions is through a PUD process or a specific redevelopment through special review. Jim DeFrancia, representing the applicant, pointed out there is no specific development proposal. The purpose of this request is to memorialize the existing Alps improvements in a regulatory way. DeFrancia stated the PUD would create a consistency and reliability within the property and clean up issues like utility easements, what is private and what is public,ownership of the South Alps road and would give the city a better point from which to address any development applications. DeFrancia said infrastructure issues, like easements, mud flows, roads, need to be addressed within the entire Alps property and those issues would be identified in a PUD agreement. DeFrancia reiterated the only point of this application is to bring the property into regulatory context so the property owners can consider what they need to do on some of the older buildings. Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, told P&Z this application was referred to all referral agencies and the water and fire departments indicate some of the lines are inadequate to meet modern fire codes and to allow any redevelopment. Vann said the PUD would contain conditions requiring the Alps to comply with the city's new drainage requirements. Vann said City Council is concerned about retaining short term accommodations,especially older condominiums and how to facilitate replacement and upgrading of these facilities. Vann noted the lodge zoning permits multi-family and lodges and in the past decades mostly multi-family has been built. To address the concern of declining bed base, Council down zoned the lodge district regarding multi-family and cut the floor area ratio in half,which made many properties non-conforming. Part of the current discussion is a realization that existing multi-family is important to the lodging inventory and it should be maintained to benefit the tourist base. Vann said with a PUD, the applicants have the certainty of knowing the properties can be retained, upgraded and the Alps will remain an important asset of short term accommodations. DeFrancia said applying the PUD is not meant to be an endorsement of higher density or heights;this is to address buildings that were built legally. DeFrancia said an alternative is to address individual applications for special review through the non-conforming code, which is not in either the owner's or the city's best interests. Vann said these individual special review applications have both uncertainty and costs and do not address issues for the entire complex or for the city. Myrin asked about a 3 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 6,2013 commitment to short term rentals as part of this application. DeFrancia said that is not the purpose of this PUD application. DeFrancia told the Commission that 50 to 65%of the units are in the short term rental pool and that probably will not change. Ms. Garrow said when a PUD is established, all dimensional requirements are established and if a PUD is adopted for the Alps, it will be conforming no matter what changes are adopted with the lodging program. Tom Todd, attorney, told the P&Z adding their resolution or Council ordinances to chain of title would not trigger a call of mortgage loans; these would be looked at as enhancing the value of the collateral as making regulations more clear. Vann said the fire department commented they would like appropriate turn arounds at the culminations of the roads within the Alps as part of redevelopment. Vann pointed out other infrastructure the applicant would have to address would be adequacy of water lines for fire protection purposes; adequacy of the roads for the fire trucks; and drainage. These issues are a benefit to the city and an encumbrance to the Alps. Erspamer asked about the deed restricted housing units. Todd said the Board approved the deed restriction and these will be presented to the housing office for approval. Myrin asked if this request could result in the units being rebuilt exactly as they are. Vann said the plan is to record elevations,floor plans and dimensional requirements. Currently small changes, like windows or doors, can be approved administratively. Larger changes would have to go through P&Z for a PUD amendment. Ms.Garrow pointed out the recommendation from the water department is for 20' easements, which is their standard requirement. The water department recognizes there are constraints on this property and they can accept less in some circumstances. Erspamer opened the public comment. Jeanne Doremus, attorney for Glory Hole condominium association, reaffirmed there are 1.5 parking spaces on their property and they are working with the Alps to resolve shared parking. Susan Gaines said the square footage in her unit has not been ratified. Ms. Gaines said since this has come up, 25%of the Alps owners have put their units for sale as they are concerned about this application. Ms. Gaines told P&Z she lives at the Alps full time; she is not covered by insurance for landslides or unstable soil conditions. Ms. Gaines said this property is on a hill and there are a lot of unknowns. John Corcoran,general manager Aspen Alps,told P&Z that 25%of the units have not been put on the market and no Board members have put their units up for sale; there are about 8 units for sale. Peter Carmen, Board member, said a number of owners have expressed concerns about this process and some of them ran for the Board. The most incumbents were re-elected by the Alps owners. Larry Abramson,Alps owners, stated there is a communication problem between owners and the Board and perhaps this application will improve the communication better. Abramson said one of the biggest problems is this application and lack of information to.the owners. Erspamer closed public comments. - - - - Myrin stated he is not comfortable with an application based on the number of non-conformities. Myrin said if this is a direction the community wants to take, it should be a code amendment,which he could support as opposed to this process. Ms.Tygre said she would like the Alps to be able to maintain its structures and to do improvements. Ms.Tygre said she supports the memorialization, however, she has issues with the process—this is not a PUD, it was built before PUDs existed. Ms.Tygre said calling something a PUD after the fact seems to be a bad use of the PUD process. Previous PUD applications have been in conjunction with proposed developments not to memorialize an existing development; 4 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 6,2013 there is no provision in the code for a "reverse PUD". Contorting a process to fit an individual need creates problems. Gibbs pointed out there is already a PUD designation on a portion of the Alps and the intent was to make the entire parcel a PUD. Gibbs stated he supports this application; staff has explained the rationale and the benefits,consistent with the code. Gibbs said he does not see the negative impacts of approving this application. Weiss said there is a conflict between the Board and the Alps owners; however,that is not under the P&Z's purview. Weiss said he does not have a problem with this application. Erspamer agreed this application will probably better the process; however, there are some concerns. The first is the outreach process; the application instructs applicants to conduct outreach, which should include one's homeowners. Second, the city will draft a new code on lodging; no one knows what that code will entail and Erspamer said he is reluctant to approve an amendment that might be addressed by the code amendment. Erspamer stated he would prefer to wait to see the lodging code amendment. Weiss told the commission he attended the lodging incentive work session and it will probably not be major amendments,especially regarding condominiums. Myrin agreed with he would like to see what code amendments will come out of the lodging incentive. Gibbs stated basing decision on future code possibilities is an abuse of P&Z's discretion. Gibbs said the Commission should look at the application, look at what the code says and make a decision based on that. The application was submitted in good faith, under the existing code, and the Commission should make a decision. Myrin pointed out the chart in the packet illustrates that this does not meet any of the current code and he cannot support applications under the existing code that are non-conforming. Myrin said before adopting a PUD to vary these requirements, there should be things like a transportation study and a site visit. Vann reminded P&Z the Alps went through the process to build the Winter building under existing zoning. Vann said portions of the Alps were zoned conservation, R-15 and lodge through zone designations after the Alps was built. City staff said they could recommend approval of the Winter building with a PUD and rezoning to lodge so that the Alps is no longer a non-conforming use and as a quid pro quo to put a PUD over the entire parcel so the city could review an application on a global basis. Vann said the ordinance that approved the Winter building is unclear regarding the parcel descriptions and staff recommended redoing the PUD overlay as there are no documents of record. DeFrancia reiterated the core issue is cleaning up the property from a partial PUD to a total PUD with a PUD agreement, and identifying constraints and make it easier for the Alps addressing their future needs. Ms.Tygre moved to approve Resolution#18, Series 2013, recommending City Council approve a PUD amendment, PUD review, rezoning and subdivision for the Aspen Alps that memorializes the existing development;seconded by Gibbs. Myrin reiterated he is opposed to this as table 4 indicates this project does not meet current code. Weiss,yes; Myrin, no; Ms.Tygre, no; Gibbs, yes; Erspamer, no. Motion NOT carried. Myrin moved to recommend to City Council to deny the application; seconded by Ms.Tygre. Weiss, no; Myrin,yes; Ms.Tygre,yes; Gibbs, no; Erspamer,yes. STREAM MARGIN REVIEW— 1460 Red Butte Drive 5 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 6,2013 Jennifer Phelan, community development, told P&Z this application is to demolish the existing house and rebuild it with a new residence and an accessory dwelling unit. The requests are for special review approval to memorialize an alternative top of slope for stream margin review, approval of stream margin review, second special review to grant a variance to allow the proposed accessory dwelling unit to be attached to the residence, and variances from the residential design standards for the proposed house. Ms. Phelan said the stream margin review is to insure minimal impact to the Roaring Fork river and its tributaries and where development can occur is limited. The city has stream margin maps outlining engineer's surveys to locate the top of slope;there is an exhibit in the packet showing the existing footprint of the house, a top of slope and the 100 year flood plain. Ms. Phelan told the Commission there is the ability for applicants to request an alternative top of slope shown in exhibit 2 and is closer to the river. The engineering department went to the site and reviewed it and recommends approval of the alternative top of slope and staff recommends approval of this special review request. Ms. Phelan said if the alternative top of slope is approved, the residence will meet the stream margin standards which include setbacks from the top of slope and height requirements. Based on the new top of slope, staff finds the stream margin review is met. The third request is residential design standards, and the applicant is requesting 4 variations. One variation is building orientation, having the facade of the building face the street. The second variation request is from the standard that the garage width of a carport being no great than 24'wide; the third request is that the front door of the house should not be more than 10' back from the front of the building. The applicant proposes an attached garage and the front facade of the building is the garage and the front door is 40' back from the fagade of the garage. The fourth variance regards the amount of windows. Ms. Phelan noted there are two standards for variances and applicants need to meet one of them. One standard addresses specific site constraints. Ms. Phelan said this lot is over 31,000 square feet and staff does not feel there are site constraints. The other standard is neighborhood context and are there similar features in the neighborhood which might allow granting a variance. Ms. Phelan said the neighborhood is single family dwellings, some with accessory dwelling units, lots of landscaping and screening of the lots. Ms. Phelan said the request regarding building orientation,the building would only be a few degrees off and the neighborhood had a lot of houses facing the street and the request for building orientation still meets the intent of having a street facing fagade and should be supported. The second request is the garage or carport with the entry of no greater than 24'. Ms. Phelan pointed out the neighborhood has a number of 3-car garages with widths of greater than 24' and staff supports the variance from the garage width requirement because of neighborhood context. Staff does not recommend approval of the setbacks from the front door. In the neighborhood one does see the front door near the front fagade of the buildings. The request for windows full glass two-story element is not seen in the neighborhood and staff recommends against approving that request. Ms. Phelan said there is a special review request to have the accessory dwelling unit attached to the single family house. Ms. Phelan reminded P&Z that the ADU standards are geared to the unit be a separate,functional living unit, with a minimize size, minimum storage, kitchen requirements, and that the ADU be detached from the house. Staff recommends P&Z not approve this special review request. Staff recommends approval of the alternative top of slope, approval of stream margin review, approval of two of the residential design standards regarding orientation of the house and the garage width and staff recommends denial of the setback of the front door and the span of glass going through two stories and denial of the attached AUD. The resolution is separated by requests. 6 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 6,2013 Myrin asked about the criteria for approving top of slope. Ms. Phelan said if there are questions, community development staff defers to the engineering department. Ms. Phelan noted the standards for stream margin/top of slope determination are that it is developed by an authorized survey by a licenses surveyor showing a different determination and that the stream margin meets the criteria. The applicant used a surveyor to determine an alternative top of slope and had the engineering department go to the site, and they agreed to the change. Weiss asked if the change to top of slope is approved, how close the house will be to that top of slope. Ms. Phelan said after the top of slope is created, nothing can go in 15' and from top of slope, there Is a height restriction. The applicant said they are 25' from top of slope;the house is being moved toward the river and will be larger; however, it will meet stream margin criteria. Myrin moved to extend the meeting to 7:15 pm; seconded by Erspamer. All in favor with the exception of Ms.Tygre and XXX. Motion carried. Charles Cunniffe, representing the applicants,told the commission that top of slope has been updated with the city's agreement and on site one can tell the mapping is erroneous. The engineering firm staked the top of slope and the city engineer agreed with the alternative. Cunniffe noted the proposed size of the house is 600 square feet less than would be allowed. Cunniffe said the applicants are willing to give up on the ADU being connected to the house. Cunniffe said the front door being recessed from the front of the house is contradictory;the house is setback from the street and is not visible from the street. This is not a gridded area; it has large lots and a lot of greenery. Cunniffe said pulling the front doorjust to meet the design standards would add unnecessary square footage. It is obvious where the front door is without pulling it up to within 10'of the garage. The second variance is for the 9 to 12' band of windows and the applicants are interested in a suspended staircase, which they would like to be seen from the outside. The other windows are 9'6" and only are 6"outside that allowed. Cunniffe said the intent of the design standards are to have the houses in a neighborhood conform to each other and this is not trying to look like a traditional home. Myrin said regarding the 9'to 12' windows,there are two provisions of the code from which this could be decided; it has to be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness or provide appropriate design pattern considering context. Cunniffe said the context standard would be more applicable as other structures have large windows. Cunniffe said there will not be an ADU on site so the total square footage will be less. Erspamer opened the public comment section. There were no comments. Erspamer closed the public comment section. Myrin stated he supports the request based on the design pattern of the neighborhood and that the ADU has request been withdrawn. Myrin moved to approve Resolution#19, Series of 2013, as written,deleting section 2 and modifying exhibit 113; seconded by Ms.Tygre. Gibb moved to extend the meeting to 7:20 p.m.; seconded by Erspamer. All in favor with the exception of Ms.Tygre. Motion carried. Weiss said he does not feel the design codes are applied evenly nor are they enforced. Roll call vote; Weiss, no; Gibbs, yes; Ms.Tygre,yes; Myrin,yes; Erspamer,yes. Motion carried. 7 Regular Meeting Planning& Zoning Commission August 6,2013 Gibb moved to adjourn at 7:20 p.m.; seconded by Erspamer. All in favor, motion carried. 8