Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19951003 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 Meeting was called to order by Chairperson Sara Garton at 4:30 P.M. In attendance were: Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney, Robert Blaich, Marta Chaikovska, and Steve Buettow. Absent was Jasmine Tygre. MINUTES Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of August 1, 1995. Blaich seconded. Vote was unanimous, motion carried. Blaich so moved to adopt the minutes of August 8, 1995. Hunt seconded. Vote was unanimous, motion carried. Blaich so moved to adopt the minutes of September 19, 1995 with corrections on the first page. Chaikovska seconded. Vote was unanimous, motion carried. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Chaikovska asked where the Commission stood on an alternate member. Leslie Lamont, Community Development, answered that she had spoken with Kathryn Koch, City Clerk's Office. Koch had understood when City Council had accepted Hunt's letter of appointment that the Commission had filled it's position in full. Lamont stated she indicated to Koch that they were not full, and that Buettow needed to be placed as a full-time member and an alternate needed to be appointed. Koch stated she would request Council make Buettow a full-time member and indicate to Council an alternate membership appointment was open. Chaikovska mentioned people have asked her about the open position and if it would be advertised. Lamont answered it would and one person, other than Hunt, had submitted an application for a position on the Commission but City Council did not appoint the applicant. Lamont stated Community Development does not know why people are appointed or not appointed, and what questions are asked. Garton stated she thought it was stated in the part of the ordinance about members of commissions under Planning & Zoning, if someone resigns, the alternate moves automatically into the full-time position. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 Lamont stated that Koch was under the assumption that City Council had to approve Buettow for the full-time position appointment, and felt that the Commission should make it a formal request. STAFF COMMENTS There were no comments. PUBLIC COP~ENTS There were no comments. INFORMATION ITEM Lamont gave a background summary stating when Silver City Grill was created, owners Susan and David Goldberg proposed the Hunter Street Pub; it went through two different hearings and concluded with a resolution with very specific conditions of approval. We have amendments to an approval; substantial amendments and insubstantial amendments. This item was reviewed as a Conditional Use and had the ability for staff to review it as an insubstantial amendment to an approval. An insubstantial amendment can be done at the staff level, substantial amendment is done at the Planning & Zoning Commission level. Lamont stated because of the very specific conditions of approval requiring the Commission's approval on any change in tenancy or expansion, she brought it back to the Commission, rather than make the Goldberg's wait on an agenda and submit a formal application. I reviewed their application and am putting it forward to you on an information item. If you feel it is not an insubstantial amendment and you want a review, and it appears we are going to get into heavy discussion, I recommend we put this on a regular agenda. MOTION Hunt moved to accept the information item on memorandum dated 3 October, 1995 and ratify staff's action. Blaich seconded. Vote commenced, unanimous in favor, motion carried. Discussion of Motion 2 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 Lamont pointed out the specific conditions of approval from the original approval in 1993 still remain, staff is not negating those. Garton stated with the two spaces combined, the number of people and delivery is declining, which is excellent. 820 E. COOPER LANDMARK DESIGNATION Garton opened the public hearing and requested the certificate of Notice of Certification. Amy Amidon, Community Development, stated she did not have it, but would submit it to the clerk at a later time. Amidon presented stating staff and HPC recommended approval of the Landmark Designation and three of the landmark standards were met. Amidon said Standard B. Architectural Importance; is a typical example of a gable end miner's cottage. It has very few alterations in both building form and materials. Standard D. Neighborhood Character; there are relatively few remaining 19th century structures in the east end of town and only two historic landmarks and it is important to preserve the original character of this neighborhood. In conclusion, Amidon stated Standard E. Community Character; is representative of the modest scale, style, and character of homes constructed in the late 19th century. The house is located on Highway 82 and is an important part of the perception of the character and history of Aspen as you enter town. Blaich asked if there was any planned development of the property. Amidon responded there is a planned development, of small scale. MOTION Hunt moved to approve landmark designation of 820 E. Cooper Avenue, Lot P, Block 11, finding standards B, D, and E have been met. Blaich seconded. Vote commenced, unanimous in favor, motion carried. Discussion of Motion 3 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 Amidon stated there were a series of code amendments taken at City Council and the landmark standards have slightly changed. There were six standards, now there are five, and two have to be met. Previously, only one standard had to be met. There was no deletion of any standard, two standards were combined. Garton closed the public hearing. SMALL LODGE TEXT AMENDMENTS Garton opened the public hearing. MOTION Hunt moved to table action and continue the public hearing on Small Lodge Text Amendments to 7 November, 1995 at the request of the Planning Department. Chaikovska seconded. Vote commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Garton closed the public hearing. ORDINANCE 30 TEXT AMENDMENTS Dave Hichaelson, Community Development, presented stating staff had found internal inconsistencies and unclear interpretative definitions and made changes drafted in a series of proposed amendments. Hichaelson stated the first dealt with a driveway cut. There was an appeal that went before the Design Review Appeals Board, and initially Ordinance 30 precluded anyone from cutting into a driveway inside the front setback. The case that went before the Design Review Appeals Board dealt with a subdivision that had been approved and it was clear they were going to have to cut into those driveways. Staff has re-written stating the only time it would be required to go before the Design Review Appeals Board is if it 4 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 exceeded two feet in height, and that was a compromise on the part of staff. The second deals with an internal discrepancy. Regarding accessory dwelling unit or linked pavilion; "any element linking the principle structure to the accessory unit may be no more than one story tall, six feet wide and ten feet long". Hichaelson stated they do not get any bonus unless the unit is separated from the primary structure by fifteen feet, staff has brought that down to ten feet. Hichaelson said in terms of height the text is a clarifying element. Ordinance 30 never changed the height of a unit, it changed how it was measured in terms of the relationship between the crown and the eave. Staff is saying you still have the underlying zoning, it is the method one uses to determine that which has been changed. Linking pavilion is a definition. There was no definition of linking pavilion, either within Ordinance 30 or the zoning resolution. Staff has always taken the interpretation it is a covered structure and enclosed. Staff has written that as clearly as possible. Regarding volume, staff has had discussions in terms of intent. Instead of working with how it is measured or what it means, staff has tried to clarify the language. The most important part, for example; any structure that violated the no-window zone, it doubled the FAR. What this language clarifies is if there is a window on both sides of a structure and violates twice, the volume will be doubled twice. The language in regard to elevation of the finished floor was in reference to questions from architects. Hichaelson said the Design Review Appeal Board has been changed to Committee and there was discussion about posting the property and language was devised stating, all meetings shall be open to the public and project sites for specific appeals shall be required to post the property at least five days prior to the hearing before the Committee. Stan Clauson, Community Development Director stated it was a resolution of the Design Review Board that there be property posting and the Board felt it imperative neighbors be notified and have an opportunity to come speak. Garton clarified there would be 5 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 only property posting and not official notification. Clauson stated that was correct. Hichaelson stated in terms of Article 7, the Residential Design Standards, staff has added one additional exemption. Ordinance 30 requires anything that requires a building permit to go through Ordinance 30 review. Staff felt it took too much time so it was decided that if someone is just repairing something, and there is no impact on the character of the neighborhood, it is exempt from having to go through Ordinance 30 review. Chaikovska stated for clarification if someone is repairing they have to go to the Planning Director. Clauson said that was correct. Chaikovska added the Planning Director may decide someone is exempt, as stated in the language, "if they add floor area and if there is an addition or remodel". She suggested changing it to read "if they add floor area or if there is an addition or remodel". Chaikovska said the language should be changed to add the word or instead of and so that all three criteria in Section 7- 301 General, Item D. Exemptions would be an exemption. Michaelson and Clauson agreed with Chaikovska. Hichaelson said another issue that was created internally was a set of submittal standards that an applicant has to submit for staff review. The set of submittal standards includes a panoramic photograph of structures on the same neighborhood block, elevations of what the applicant has in mind, etc. What has become apparent to staff is there are small additions where high detail levels are not needed, so staff has used HPC guidelines to define what is a minor and major development, and created a process within a pre- application conference where the planner who looks at a project would make that determination. The only difference is in the submittal requirements and staff has left the process open as it is modified continually. Hunt stated he would like clarification of the wording of Item b. under E. Minor Development. Language reads, "remodeling of a structure where alterations are made to not more than one element of the structure, including but not limited to a roof, window, door, skylight, ornamental trim, siding, kickplate, dormer, porch, staircase, and balcony. Hichaelson replied not more than one. Hunt stated the language should then end with the word or instead of and. Hichaelson agreed with Hunt. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 Chaikovska again referred back to Article 7., Section 7-301 General, D. Exemptions. She mentioned applicants doing any minor repairs would require many applications for the Community Development staff. Michaelson replied that anyone that pulls a building permit, their building permit stops until staff takes the applicant through Ordinance 30. Chaikovska said under Article 7., Section 7-301 General, D. Exemptions, Item c., "...and similar remodeling activities which create no change to the exterior appearance of the structure and have no impact on its character" is similar to E. Hinor Development, Item b., "remodeling of a structure where alterations are made to not more than one element of the structure, including but not limited to a roof, window, door, skylight, ornamental trim, siding, kickplate, dormer, porch, staircase, and balcony". Hichaelson agreed with Chaikovska and added that it was difficult within the confines of Ordinance 30 to write something that is going to completely exempt someone, and he wanted to leave an avenue open where he could look at every one of them, and have some flexibility internally. Hichaelson stated it is difficult to codify in language and draw clear lines of what should go through it and what should not, and what complies with it or what does not; that is one reason staff went to Ordinance 30 instead of Ordinance 35. I tried to stay loose but still recognize not everything should go through this whole process. Hunt stated he read Item b. as more of an addition to the structure and Item c. more of a repair to the existing. Hichaelson stated that was the intent. Hunt mentioned he had replaced a skylight and questioned whether he should have gone for a building permit. Clauson replied any repair, replacement, any building activity, any construction activity, whatsoever, requires a building permit. We recognize that these activities do go on, but the code does require any building activity be submitted to Community Development. Chaikovska asked if there could be a monetary amount to go by. Clauson replied it was not a question of money and that it was probably better to describe the types of repair than to put a monetary value on it, because it could quickly exceed the monetary value. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 Garton asked the status of a diagram regarding the procedure of the discussion and whether that still existed for an applicant. Michaelson responded the process does not change; what changes based on the new language, is what level of detail they are required to submit. Garton stated she wanted to be sure that diagram was in the pre-application packet. Hichaelson stated it was in all packets. Hichaelson continued stating there were two other corrections which defined staff's process. One issue with primary mass was staff did not want applicants to perceive that incidental exterior expressions such as dormers or bay windows would be considered by staff as modifying plate height, ridge height, or wall plane. It has not come up, but we expect that it will. Hichaelson said accessory dwelling unit or linked pavilion definition shows up twice, and the correction is exactly the same as on Page 1 of the memorandum. He said the only other addition that he missed was that staff felt it was appropriate to include a fee if applicants decided to appeal to the Design Review Appeal Committee. Hichaelson stated staff had not settled for an exact fee expected, but the text gives the ability to set something up. Garton asked if there was a fee now charged to an applicant who goes before the Board of Adjustment. Clauson replied there was a fee and separate from any fee that goes to Community Development. Chaikovska asked clarification on E. Hinor Development and F. Hajor Development. It was concluded that staff sees the applicant for pre-application conference, and applicant may be referred to the Planning Director if staff feels applicant is exempt from Ordinance 30, or it may go to minor or major development. The planner shall make the determination whether the project is exempt or a major or a minor development. Buettow stated his concern on driveways. He requested that the proposed requirement be made more lenient, and if the driveway cuts are more flexible he felt it may make more creative solutions. He related to the Commission his experience on the Design Review Appeal Committee and what he termed a "poor solution" Clauson stated of all the ordinance changes he felt what was being discussed was the most permissive. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 Garton expressed it was difficult for members of the Planning & Zoning Con~ission who were not members of the Design Review Appeal Con~ission to see what Buettow was up against. Buettow stated staff was correct in assessing many of the subdivisions to require the cuts because they are very complex and on large hillsides. Hichaelson stated in regard to Buettow's comments of the Design Review Appeal Committee proposal, when the applicants came before the Appeals Committee they were requesting a specific variance for a specific violation of Ordinance 30. There was interpretive discussion that went on regarding what other solutions could the Committee use. He said he understood Buettow's concern. Buettow stated the applicants were concerned because they had to come before the Appeal Committee for such a simple cut. It was a project in a very tentative location, in a subdivision that was not very well designed, and it forced them to design on a restrictive site and the solution was not very good. If these amendments were enacted the project would have been automatically approved. Garton asked why this language was in the floor area ratio section of the memorandum. Hichaelson replied the language was in the definition of floor area. In the definition it talks about floor area and then about garages in terms of what counts in terms of floor area and driveways. Hunt stated he could see a problem with the grade of the property or the accessway. He said a better solution might be bedding the garage into the hill. Does this text amendment tend to preclude that if it happens to exceed a two foot cut into the garage? Buettow stated the applicant would have to come to the Design Review Appeal Committee for appeal. Garton asked Buettow what measurement of driveway cut he would like to see. Buettow replied he would like to see a driveway cut of one foot. Garton asked what staff's rationale of the 2 foot driveway cut was. Hichaelson stated he did not feel a one foot driveway cut was significant but once one got to two feet it became harder to re-vegetate if it became apparent. He said the point of subdivision might be something important to think about as a subdivision is approved, platted, and hopefully someone reviewed the topography of the lots. Hichaelson stated he viewed lots in question and the lowest driveway cut he saw was two feet; some were eight and ten feet because of the way the lots were laid out. He said he was trying to get more at a recorded subdivision because PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 they are in the outlining areas, and would not see a two foot cut in the lower, older portion of Aspen, although there may be some exceptions. Haybe one way to deal with this situation is recorded subdivisions where you have more flexibility, rather than a lot located in the townsite. Chaikovska said she did not feel a two foot driveway cut was that significant as most of the driveway cuts came up in excess of two feet. Garton agreed but stated Buettow had something in mind in expressing his desire for a one foot driveway cut. Buettow stated he wanted to talk about the driveway cuts so everyone would think indirectly about subdivisions. In the future we are going to look at subdivisions and I want to see better ones with multiple accesses. Garton expressed she did not feel the two foot cut was radical and could see cuts happening even at one foot. Buettow replied he did not feel the two foot cut was bad, but wanted to open the subject for discussion. MOTION Hunt moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to Ordinance 30 as described in the staff report dated 3 October, 1995 as amended in these discussions. Chaikovska seconded. Vote commenced, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Garton adjourned meeting at 5:30 P.H. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 10 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION OCTOBER 3, 1995 11