Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20200915Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2020 Page 1 of 8 Chairperson McKnight called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in Attendance: Brittanie Rockhill, James Marcus, Rally Dupps, Scott Marcoux, Teraissa McGovern, Spencer McKnight, and Ruth Carver Commissioners not in Attendance: Kimbo Brown-Schirato and Don Love Staff in Attendance: Amy Simon, Deputy Planning Director Jim True, City Attorney Michelle Bonfils Thibeault, Project Manager II / Planner Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None STAFF COMMENTS None PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES None DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Ms. McGovern noted she had a very brief conversation with Ms. Tara Nelson months ago regarding the property in tonight’s hearing, but she does not feel it will impair her ability to make a fair and impartial judgement. PUBLIC HEARING 705 Cemetery Ln – Special Review, ADU/Carriage House Design Standards Variations McKnight opened the hearing and asked Mr. True if proper public notice was provided. Mr. True stated he has reviewed the notice and found it appropriate. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to Staff. Ms. Simon asked the commissioners to keep their video on so it is evident they are participating in the meeting and will be able to vote on motions. Ms. Michelle Bonfils-Thibeault introduced herself and stated the hearing is a special review to create a deed restricted unit at 705 Cemetery Ln. She provided a picture of the site location and another showing the front yards of the existing duplex noting the units are separated by a garage in the center. She then Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2020 Page 2 of 8 reviewed the existing conditions of the 705 Cemetery Ln unit and the 707 Cemetery Ln noting the 707 unit is not part of the land use application. The 705 unit is owned by the City of Aspen and is a deed restricted unit for its employees. It is noticeably larger than most of the affordable housing owned by the City and is an opportunity to redevelop some of the sq ft to create two units within the existing building footprint. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault then reviewed the intent of the Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Standards Review Criteria. For clarification, she noted accessory dwelling units (ADU) are typically less than 800 sq ft and carriage houses are greater than 800 sq ft. So, for this application, the proposed unit is described as a carriage house at approximately 832 sq ft. The applicant is seeking a variation from three standards. 1) The unit will be detached to the main house. She displayed an existing and proposed layout of the second floor and noted the application proposed to develop the second floor of the existing building and creating the unit within the existing footprint. The proposed design will have two bedrooms with a shared bath, along with a kitchen, dining room and living room. The existing plumbing will be utilized. She pointed out the entrance to the unit using stairs. 2) There is a separate exterior entrance to the carriage house. She displayed an existing and proposed layout of the first floor and indicated where the access would exist for the main floor and the carriage house. 3) The calculation of storage toward the required 10%. For this variation, she first identified that 10% of the net livable sq ft is required for storage which is calculated at 83 sq ft. For the application, 47 sq ft is provided with interior storage closets. The applicant is proposing to utilize the half of the upper attic (150 sq ft) and garage storage (36 sq ft) in the calculation of storage space. Including the attic and garage space will exceed the required amount needed. She then provided a layout showing the proposed storage locations in the garage and attic. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault next reviewed the parking at the site. She stated one site is required for the carriage house and the applicant is not requesting a variation. A layout of the parking for each unit was displayed and she described where the parking spaces for each unit would be located. The applicant is proposing to improve the driveway by adding hammerhead turn-arounds which would be contingent on obtaining a permit to remove or relocate some trees. In general, staff finds the intent of the ADU design standards met by creating the new deed restricted unit within the existing footprint without creating any neighborhood impacts and creating a sustainable and economical unit for the City. She stated if P&Z approved the variance requests, the applicant has requested a modification to the resolution as provided in the agenda packet. The main revision is adding a note in which adds “, with the condition that the final configuration for the parking is to be resolved with staff” added to the end of the first sentence in Section 1. Within Section 1, there would also be additional text added to memorialize the exact variations being requested. And a statement below the variations would Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2020 Page 3 of 8 state “Insignificant changes to interior floor plans of the carriage house for the purpose of layout efficiency or code compliance will be reviewed and approved by staff at building permit submission.”. In closing, she stated staff is recommending approval. Mr. McKnight asked the commission if there were any questions for staff. Ms. McGovern asked if the application had been reviewed by the Building department as part of the submission. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault stated the Planning department had not and that would be unusual. Ms. McGovern noted HPC projects are reviewed by the Building, Engineering and Parks departments. She then asked how the fire separation was considered because she did not see anything in the packet regarding it. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault replied the applicant will speak to this, but she understands the Asset department has had discussions on this matter as well as separation of the mechanical systems. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to the applicant. Ms. Jennifer Phelan, Asset Department Development Manager, introduced herself and said she wanted to highlight a few items from the application. The City is looking at developing a carriage house within 705 Cemetery Ln and has requested an approval via a special review to look at a couple of design variations. Ms. Phelan displayed some photos of the site and provided background information for the site. The existing duplex was built in the early 1980’s and has a basement, main level and second story. Features around the approximate 25,000 sq ft site include the Cemetery Lane Trail adjacent to the front yard of the site and adding it backs to the Aspen Golf Course. Ms. Phelan reviewed the changes to the property. She displayed a layout of the proposed 832 sq ft ADU/carriage house (plus about 150 sq ft of attic space) with a generous deck. She noted the unit would be accessed via a shared vestibule from the existing front façade of the building. Ms. Phelan reviewed the three variations being requested. She then reviewed the two criteria to be met for the Special Review variations to be granted. Next, she discussed why the applicant believes the two standards are met: • Providing a carriage house for long term residential use meets the zone district’s purpose statement and is also a permitted use. • The unit will be located near transit, bike path, and adjacent to golf course, will be brand new, with outdoor living space and ample storage, which promotes livability and will be a desirable unit. • The unit is subordinate in size to the primary residence with no visual impact to adjacent neighbors or streetscape. She stated the applicant believes the two standards are met and respectfully ask for approval of the request. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2020 Page 4 of 8 Mr. McKnight asked if there were any questions from the commissioners for the applicant. Ms. Carver requested to see the blueprint of the entry. She asked if it would be possible to have two doors instead of one used a joint entry. Ms. Phelan displayed a floor plan of the entry and noted they looked at adding a second entry off of the back deck but discovered it would be nonconforming with the setbacks. On one side of the building there is a decent sized window well taking up the majority of the area way and in talking with the Building Department, it cannot be covered so there is not a feasible walking path to the rear of the property. Although they have also looked at a secondary access, using the existing entry and creating a vestibule seemed to be a better design solution. Ms. Carver stated she trusted it had been looked into before deciding on the proposed solution. Ms. Phelan then responded to Ms. McGovern’s question regarding reaching out to other departments. She stated they reached out to the Engineering Department, Fire Department, Building Department and Zoning. They are still working with the Building Department to resolve whether a landing is required at the top of the stairs. This would carve out about nine sq ft which she believes this would be good to add for safety reasons. Ms. McGovern wanted to know if they had reached out to other departments knowing the code requirements for a side-by-side duplex owned by the same person from the foundation to the roof is different than the code requirements for a tri-plex and getting into the dwelling separation between 707 and 705. Ms. Phelan stated the other departments did provide comments on the separation of the units. Ms. McGovern asked if they had reached out to Parker at the Fire Department. Ms. Phelan stated they need to evaluate the trigger of demolition and he asked they work with an inspection service to evaluate the size of the line and some other ideas as well. Mr. McKnight then opened for public comment. Ms. Nedra Oren, a next-door neighbor of the project, asked if the downstairs unit and new carriage house will be sold or rented to one person and could there be four single people living in the unit. She also asked who will maintain the outside, including the front lawn. Ms. Phelan replied affordable housing unit is no different than any other form of condominium ownership. These can either be sold or rented and that will be up to the City of Aspen. Historically, the 705 unit has been sold and used by City of Aspen employees. Regarding maintenance, the City will maintain its asset and as a condominium, it would be the unit owners or renters to maintain the lawn. This is like any other HOA where the owners could do the work or hire someone. She concluded that currently the owners of the units on site maintain the landscape. Ms. Oren did not feel her question had been addressed. Ms. Simon stated as a neighbor, she understands her concerns, but her question goes beyond what can be determined by a land use case. She added the City has standards for addressing properties with weed or nuisance issues, but that is not what this commission will address at a hearing. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2020 Page 5 of 8 Ms. Tara Nelson, owner of 707 Cemetery Ln, wanted to inform the commission she had submitted three items for their review. She wanted to let the Commissioners know that although the City of Aspen has submitted this application with it meeting the parking criteria, they wanted to share their priorities and feel it is a matter that could be addressed. She asked that her submitted public comment be reviewed. She does not believe the tandem parking would be ideal, especially with two additional homeowners or renters. She stated her first priority would prefer the unmaintained front yard space at 705 contain additional parking for the proposed new unit. Her second priority would be to add an additional space at 705 so there would not be three rows of tandem parking. She added that she has been in conversations with staff. In regard to general common elements, Ms. Nelson stated she has had conversations with staff relative to a pond and stilling well in the backyard including delineating the common elements vs the limited common elements. She added they have discussed having amendments to the condo declarations and a map with staff as well. She wanted to make sure the Commission was aware of them. Mr. McKnight asked the board members to review the submitted comment from Ms. Nelson. Mr. McKnight then closed public comment and asked if there were any questions to staff regarding the public comment. Mr. McKnight stated he would like to hear from the applicant or staff regarding Ms. Nelson’s comments. Ms. Phelan responded the City has been in conversation with Ms. Nelson regarding certain improvements she would like to see on the property. Ms. Phelan added as a condo unit owner, Ms. Nelson had to consent to this application, and she will also need to consent to any building permit application, so she does have the ability to not consent. Ms. Phelan stated they are working on baseline set of improvements which includes parking, which is why the memo states parking is not final in the memo provided for the hearing. Ms. Phelan stated she does not want to commit to anything at this hearing because this is currently in negotiations with Ms. Nelson. She noted the City has agreed to fill in the existing water feature at the back of the property and install a stilling well. Ms. Phelan added they have a budget to work within and need to be fiscally responsible of the expenditure of tax dollars, so they are looking at costs and expectations. Mr. McKnight wanted to confirm if the commission approves tonight’s resolution, Ms. Nelson will still need to consent to the building permit. Ms. Phelan replied this was correct. Ms. McGovern asked if it would be appropriate to add a note to the condition to the approval related to the parking to include working with staff and the neighboring unit. Ms. Phelan responded this would be part of the building permit. Ms. Simon wanted to clarify the condition states the existing units have two parking spaces each and the new carriage unit only needs one parking space. She believes Ms. Nelson is asking for a sixth space and she doesn’t think it would be good to change the condition since it is not required by code. She added staff will continue to work with the applicant to ensure safety regarding parking and any turnarounds needed. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2020 Page 6 of 8 Mr. Dupps asked if the applicant could look a bit more at the entrance because he feels a separate entrance is key. Ms. Phelan stated they want to stay within costs. If the vestibule option is used, the existing visual aspects of the property are not impacted. Mr. Marcus asked if there are already HOA documents that govern the property. Ms. Phelan stated there are existing declarations and they are woefully outdated, and they need to be updated to include the new unit and include modernized updates. Ms. Phelan added they are working on this with Ms. Nelson. Mr. Marcus asked if it is weird to approve a new unit without understanding how the HOA functions and not knowing the agreements. Ms. Simon stated there is a condominium plat and HOA documents in place that will be updated through an administrative process after the hearing. This is always an administrative process and even the City has limits in place how far they can go in regard to managing the units and what is defined as a shared element. This is private property and the two units are free market units owned by the City. The new carriage house is the only one that will be a deed restricted, affordable housing unit. The City will make sure the condo documents are updated. Mr. McKnight stated it seems there are a lot of things being negotiated after the hearing and wanted to know if things are happening in the correct order. Ms. Simon replied yes, the condominium documents is not something that goes before P&Z. Ms. Simon wanted to clarify the City owns the two duplex units and imposes deed restrictions that only City employees may occupy them, but this is not the same as the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) program. Ms. Carver asked if they couldn’t just put in a new door next to the existing door so there would be two separate entrances. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault replied it is technically possible, but it would be another variation to the Design Review Standards. Mr. McKnight opened for commissioner deliberation. Mr. Dupps stated he is generally in favor of the reallocation of existing City infrastructure and resources. He does feel the new unit needs its own entrance, but he will not vote against it for this reason. During his time working with APCHA, they would try to give everyone their own entrance. He thinks the City could spend a little bit of money to look into this more. Mr. Marcus stated it feels odd there are so many outstanding items to will be handled after the fact. He believes Ms. Oren’s points are valid and wishes there was more clarity. He does feel it is a good use of funds to create a new unit. Generally, he is in support of it. Ms. McGovern replied that Mr. Marcus’s concerns may be overstepping the Commission’s purview. When a condo has been approved in the past, the condo docs have never been brought up in regard to maintenance and other items. She does agree that the City and the neighbors need to work together to figure it out. She added both staff’s and the applicant’s presentation were clear that it doesn’t meet the letter of the code but based on the intent of not changing the character, the exterior of the building and Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2020 Page 7 of 8 footprint while achieving more housing. She doesn’t really like entrance but dealing with the setbacks and adding a new front door would be out of character for the neighborhood. Given the parameters, the shared entrance is the most appropriate approach. She feels they also look at all the options as well. Mr. Marcus noted issues seem to come up at the hearings that are not in P&Z’s purview. He thought one of the criteria for allowing the new use was asking if it was suitable with the surrounding areas. He feels there will be an impact by adding another person to the mix. Ms. McGovern agrees there will be an impact, but she doesn’t believe P&Z was asked to look at the parking because they did not ask for a variance on the parking which would change the exterior of the structure. They are compliant with the parking with the tandem spot and the garage spot for the ADU. Mr. McKnight agrees with Mr. Marcus that there is a lot out there that is unknown, but he trusts Ms. Simon’s response to their questions. Ms. McGovern stated she is generally in favor of it. Ms. Carver agrees with the other commissioners and she believes the other aspects are within the City’s right to address and hopefully the City will go in the right direction since it will have lasting impacts. She believes there could be two separate entrances with a little bit more time and money. She thinks it’s a great use of money and we need the resources. She is in favor of it. Mr. McKnight wanted to clarify that there would be one entrance into a common mud room and there would be an entrance for each unit from there. Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault stated he is correct. Mr. McKnight said that would be fine with him. He added he is in favor without any changes. Ms. Rockhill stated she feels they have met the criteria and is in favor of the project. Mr. Marcoux is in favor as well and likes the single entrance. He noted in the email received from Ms. Nelson, she alluded the 705 landscaping was neglected but she failed to bring up those issues tonight. He believes these issues could be dealt with after the hearing. He believes it is a good use of the space. Mr. McKnight asked for someone to make a motion to approve the resolution as written. Ms. McGovern motioned to approve the resolution with conditions as noted by Ms. Bonfils-Thibeault. Ms. Carver seconded the motion. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call. Roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Marcus, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Mr. Marcoux, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of seven (7) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Ms. Simon wanted to remind everyone of the upcoming meeting with City Council on October 21st to review North Mill. She thanked everyone for their time. Mr. McKnight thanked everyone and asked for someone to motion to adjourn. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission September 15, 2020 Page 8 of 8 Ms. McGovern motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Ms. Carver. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned. OTHER BUSINESS None Cindy Klob, Records Manager