Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19960206PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 Vice -Chairperson Jasmine Tygre called the meeting to order at 4:3 5 present were Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney, Robert Blaich, Steve Buettow. Excused were Sara Garton and Marta Chaikovska. Kathyrn Koch, City Clerk, introduced Amy Schmid as the new Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Tygre requested follow up on ADU study. Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director Planning & Zoning, replied that he had a preliminary summary from Dave Tolen and George Krawzoff who did the survey. Workshop scheduled for February 20, 1996, with Tolen, Krawzoff and P&Z Board. Tygre inquired about access to City Hall on weekends or times to pick up packets other than normal working hours. Michaelson replied that there will be a box located on the first floor of City Hall. There will be access until 7:00pm. He spoke with Tom Stephenson, Police, about leaving packets with him at the dispatch office if not picked up by 7:00pm. Tygre asked if there were any Planning Staff comments. Michaelson replied he did get a copy of the CDOT survey to Roger. Hunt stated that he had the original if anyone wanted to see it. Tygre asked if there were any public comments on items not related to the agenda. PUBLIC COMMENTS NOT ON THE AGENDA Hans Gramiger gave board members a packet to review regarding his transportation solution. Gramiger commented that his position is that the proposed four lane highway would destroy Aspen. The congestion and gridlock would kill the economy. His solution would preserve the Main Street entrance and install underground mass transit from Hallam Street into Rio Grande. Tygre asked if there were any other public comments not on the agenda. None. MINUTES MOTION: Hunt moved to approve the minutes of January 16, 1996. Second by Mooney. Motion carried, all in favor. 220 W. GILLESPIE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR TWO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Tygre opened the public hearing. Michaelson stated that this is an application for conditional use review for two ADU's on two separate legal parcels. Staff memorandum includes lot sizes for both lots A&B as well as the allowable FAR. "Moore lot split" and Hallam Lake ESA have been approved. Design component for the individual structures has been approved per ord. 30. Referrals from the Parks Department, conditions include permits for tree removal, relocation and remaining trees protected. Engineering requested that parking be provided on site due to West End parking problems. Note that seven spaces have been provided on the lot. Main house has two car garage and two car driveway apron. The guest house has a one car garage, apron and small hammerhead off the driveway approaching the ADU. Housing included two referrals 1) Guest house above grade. 2) Main house denied based on location of window wells and available light. Since that time applicant has revised design for main house including lightwells and windows on the North and South side. Housing has approved revised unit. ADU's are consistent with Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Zone district R6 is a relatively dense zone district and is compatible with the neighborhood. Remaining criteria main house unit has been improved quite a bit since the initial submittal, adequate infa-structure for the units. Proposed units are required by ord. 1 and will be deed restricted. Staff has included seven conditions of approval. Michaelson noted that an adjacent property owner had significant concerns, not with the ADU's but with the physical design of the unit in relationship to his property. He will testify. Michaelson stated that he made it as clear as possible that the boards view under this review is the ADU themselves and that the units were approved per ord. 30. Michaelson stated that ord. 30 is not sensitive to neighborhood characteristics. Ord. 30 review deals with a structure and has very little to do with the relationship of that structure with what is around it. The design of these units did pass ord. 30 review by staff. Martin Mata, with Lipkin -Warner, stated -this project did go through ord. 30 review and was reviewed by staff extensively. Michaelson commented that when staff came before this board during the ESA review, interpretation was requested on access and orientation, & at that point the Planning Commission felt the orientation was consistent with the intent of ord. 30. 0 COMMISSION COMMENTS Hunt verified that the site plan is the old version and page 13 is the newer version regarding the designing of the unit and lightwell orientation. Michaelson responded that the major revisions start on exhibit "D", showing revisions of lightwells as well as a light shaft, the stairwell and snow loading concerns. Hunt inquired about the grate over the main lightwell. Mata replied that grate no longer exists. Hunt asked if the lightwell is off the walkway and not grated. Mata replied that is correct. Buettow asked if any of the adjacent properties have ADU's or rentals. He stated that he was a little hesitant about putting rental or ADU's into a single family neighborhood where it is exclusively used for families. Michaelson replied that his understanding is that one other home has been built with an ADU since the ADU portion of the code was adopted. It is on the same ridgeline. Buettow stated that item B is concerned with the neighborhood character, recalling that it is exclusively single family/historical homes. Michaelson replied the way ord. 1 is currently set up, anytime a new single family home is introduced, the potential for an ADU is going to arise. They have two choices an ADU or Cash in lieu. Buettow responded that he realized the consequences of ord. 1, he was concerned with the neighborhood character point of view. Michaelson replied that staff s perspective was that R6 is a very dense zone district and that was the basis of their determination. Buettow commented that this particular street is not a regular R6 area. It is separated and has unique character. Tygre inquired of Buettow that given his druthers, his opinion would be that Cash in lieu is a better solution than an ADU on this particular site. Buettow responded that cash -in -lieu should be considered in this particular neighborhood and asked if a fourplex appropriate? Michaelson stated that if they were fully occupied, fully rented out and both of the homes were year round residences, you are right. Hunt inquired as to whether, given the square footage area, the units were separable. Hunt noted one lot size is 9975 which is certainly acceptable for a duplex and the other is 24089 and is also acceptable for a duplex. Michaelson responded that their would have the opportunity to put duplexes on both of the parcels. Mata replied that they have been conscious of the impact on the site and are not building up to the allowable FAR. Michaelson replied that if this was under•ord. 35 they wouldn't have to go through design guidelines because they are less than 85% of allowable FAR. Mooney asked what the owners intended to do with the ADU. Mata responded that there intent is to use one for the person who cares for their children and the other is for renting to a friend employed in town. PUBLIC COMMENTS Bob Starodoj, public, owns house adjacent to the North of the applicants property and has lived there for 15 years. Victorian home that was there before had been torn down and he stated he knew something would be built there. The previous owner of these lots, Mr. Moores had applied for a lot line adjustment. Starodoj asked what the status of the lot line adjustment? Michaelson replied the position of the City Attorney and staff is that because the lot line adjustment was based on design review and ADU approvals that they could be approved and the lot line adjustment would follow on the back end. The lot line adjustment would be a staff level review unless the Community Development Director felt it was a substantial amendment to that approval. In his opinion it would not; the lot line shift is relatively minor. Tygre inquired whether or not they are two separate legal parcels. Michaelson replied that they were two separate legal recorded parcels. Michaelson asked if the configuration in front of the Planning Commission, with the original lot line definition that were approved as part of the lot split, conform to setbacks. Mata responded they would not, but the original lot split called for a lot "A" and a lot "B". Lot "A" being larger than the lot "B". There is still a lot "A" and a lot "B", they are flip flopped on the site. S Starodoj commented that the impact on himself, the way the houses are now being proposed will be substantial. He is here this evening not to argue the merits of ADU, because they are valuable, but to argue the positioning of the ADU's and how they affect him. He suggests that the commission take a field trip to see the affect of the positioning, to stand in his living room and see the impact. He will be looking at a monolithic wall that is 40ft long and 21 ft high. Passed out a drawing of the Hernandez Guest house elevation sheet. In ord. 30 the homeowners or neighbors are not taken into consideration. Carol Craig, public, lives a block away and never received notification, she is here on behalf of neighbor. She lives at 3rd and Gillespie. Mata stated that proof of notification was done by Aspen Title Corp. Michaelson replied that the requirement is 300 feet. Ms. Craig lives to far away. Elizabeth Altemus, public, stated that she did get notice, lives on Lake Ave and 3rd street. In a letter to Sara Garton she wrote: "Hernandez request for two accessory dwellings is another example of over development. Your board seems reluctant to take a stand for these extra dwelling spaces in the West end. I've opposed three other similar occasions before you and you've approved them all so I feel it is a waste of my time to come and protest again. I agree with Mr. Starodoj, my view is blocked by my neighbor and I think I would resent it if his view was blocked". Cecil Hernandez, public (applicant), stated that his view is also blocked by trees that he cannot remove. Also, Mr. Starodoj's living room is sunken. It is unfortunate that as the homeowner we seem to get looked at last, we are here to get ADU's approved that we are required to build. Agree with neighbors about the density issues, trying to conform with all the requirements. This lot with the ESA, ord. 30, and ADU's, the amount of money he has to spend on soft costs to build a house for his family is enormous. Dan Martineau, public, responded that he is a neighbor and feels the applicant should be applauded for design, and they could have done a lot bigger and worse on the property. As neighbors we should appreciate that. Blaich asked Mr. Starodoj if the previous owner had the lot split, with the potential of building a main house by your property, a guest house would have reversed the plan. Starodoj replied that was correct. Blaich asked if that was the case wouldn't it have been more of an obstruction if they built the bigger house up there instead of the guest house, because it is the smaller of the two? 5 Starodoj replied no because of the position. The old plans were not up against the fifteen ft. setback requirement, and there was some character to the back side of the house. Starodoj said he is presently looking at a wall. That is my concern. Maybe there is a medium ground where the P&Z can show some flexibility. Maybe the architect can understand my problem and there are grounds by which we can solve the problem by twisting a building or moving a building so I don't have to look at a wall. Blaich inquired that Starodoj concern is basically aesthetic. Starodoj responded that and the mass. Tygre closed the public hearing. COMMISSION COMMENTS Blaich began that he felt is was unfortunate that the recommendation for a site visit was not taken up prior to this meeting. This has been on the agenda and I think it should have been here so we could have had that prior to the meeting. Stardoid replied the adjacent property owner just got notification. Blaich asked when notification was made. Mata responded that notifications were sent well within the time required. Michaelson stated the time required is at least 10 days. Mata answered that notification was sent before that because the property search was done weeks before and they were waiting on some hold ups. Blaich asked how long Stardoid had been aware of the elevation? Stardoid responded that he had met with the Hernandez's this weekend. Mata stated that as part of a previous hearing with P&Z concerning the ord. 30 issues which addressed the aesthetics and mass. As part of that both houses were staked out with story poles showing the approximate location. That was a public hearing as well. Michael LeCant, public, stated that he was working with the Hernandez's on the design of the house. There are some things that should be realized when dealing with both the standards codes and extremely restrictive height and set back issues from the edge of Hallam lake. These force the house to the back of the property. Slope reduction was also a concern. This is an extremely expensive piece of property with diminishing possibilities of what one can do with it. The Hernandez desired a little open space on the property for their children to play on. Although the house is off the grid, if the Starodoj's were within the grid system this would be a standard backyard condition where the back of two lots face each other with a 1 Oft. set back requirement. Ord. 3 0 requires that important rooms be put on the street. Hunt stated that the ADU's are appropriate in the area, both being built below the maximum FAR. MOTION: Hunt moved to approve the conditional use of two ADU's of approximately 478 and 500 square feet each at 220 West Gillespie with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with the following: A. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restrictions to the. Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval of the deed restrictions by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restrictions with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The deed restrictions shall state that the accessory units meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Units, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer; and B. Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADU's. 2. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling Unit on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. 35 sound attenuation requirements. 3. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning Department shall inspect the unit to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 7 4. All new surface utility needs and pedestals must be installed on -site. 5. The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, and the Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from the City Streets Department. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a tree removal and mitigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parks Department. Tree removal permits shall be required for the removal or relocation of any tree greater than 6" caliper. 7. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Motion second Blaich. Motion carried 4 - 1. Buettow voted no. Tygre commented that the issue in this particular instance is not the presence or absence of the ADU that is causing the design problem which is affecting the neighbors. According to the criteria established in the code for ADU's as proposed they do in fact meet the criteria for an ADU. Unfortunately for other neighbors who are concerned the design impact of the ADU's, that is not an issue that is within this particular ADU review. The buildings would look the same whether there was an ADU or another bedroom. Maybe ord. 30 & 35 need to be looked at again. Michaelson agreed that is staff s position. 820 EAST COOPER CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Tygre reopened the public hearing. Tygre asked for proof of mailing. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated that Jake Vickery had provided Certificate of Posting and Certificate of mailing presented at the meeting and the board has legal jurisdiction. Amidon stated that the ADU is a voluntary unit proposed as part of a renovation of a Historic resource under review by HPC. The unit is not required by ord.1. Meets HPC standards and staff recommends approval with the conditions outlined in the Motion. Vickery commented that the small back house has a three ft. alley encroachment which is currently a nonconforming free market unit, on a nonconforming slide. Currently there are no onsite parking spaces and this application provides two onsite parking spaces. Hunt asked if the alley encroachment is covered in the conditions. Amidon stated that the building is being eliminated. Tygre closed the public comment portion of the hearing. MOTION: Hunt moved to approve the conditional use of an ADU of up to 700 sq.ft., at 820 East Cooper with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall: A. Verify the net liveable square footage of the ADU with the Zoning staff; B. Upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office and forward proof of recordation to the Planning Department. the deed restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for six months or longer; C. Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADU's; D. Verify compliance with RMF open space requirements with Zoning staff; E. indicate on building plans the one parking space dedicated for the occupant of the ADU. 2. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. Chapter 35 sound attenuation requirements. 9 3. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the Planning Department shall inspect the unit to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and HPC shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 5. There will be no door directly connecting the free market unit to the ADU. Motion second by Mooney. Motion carried, all in favor. Buettow asked if there were three parking spaces required. Vickery replied that HPC granted a reduction in parking spaces, one for the free market unit and one for the ADU. Mooney asked what the owners intended to do with the ADU. Vickery responded the owners in this case intend to rent the ADU out. They look at is as a source of income from the property and also to provide housing for locals. SHOW CAUSE HEARING BUCKHORN LODGE Hoefer stated that Leslie Lamont's concern was that the application was made and they let the application sit without going forward. In the City's letter to the applicants we indicated they had three options; 1) To let the board vote on it, 2) Go forward with their application, and 3) Withdraw their application, have we heard from the applicant nor the applicants attorney. Staff s concern is that the files cannot be kept open indefinetly. Tygre asked exactly what "Show Cause" means. Hoefer replied that "Show Cause" is a legal term, what it involved was a notice was sent indicating that a hearing would be held tonight and they were welcome to come and participate. "Show Cause" means they can appear and show cause why the action recommended by the Planning Staff should not be followed. Recommendation of the Planning Staff was that the project should be denied if they did not appear. Tygre asked for a resolution or memorandum so the board can take action. 10 Hoefer replied that in the original packet he had submitted a proposed resolution stating that the parties had been provided an opportunity to appear and that they did not appear; therefore, the board moves to deny their application. Tygre asked if the board could act without the resolution before them. Hoefer replied yes, and he will draw up the resolution for the signature of the Chairman. MOTION: Hunt moved to request the legal department draw up a request to be signed by the Chairman, denying the continuance of the application of the Buckhorn Lodge. Denied for the reason that they have failed to pursue it. Motion second by Blaich. Motion carried, all in favor. Blaich inquired going back to the Hernaridez's property, if Mr. Starodoj had any recourse, for example to come before the design review committee. Michaelson responded that in his opinion the board would not have been able to act on his concerns because the portion of the structure that he was concerned about met the intent of ord. 30. The only thing that came before the board regarding those structures was the orientation of the garage. Michaelson stated he is sympathetic to where he is coming from because ord. 30 completely misses the issue of neighborhood compatibility. Blaich commented that ord. 30 works best on the grid. His question is, does Mr. Starodoj have another appeal to come back on the design review. Michaelson replied that he had none. The only thing Starodoj could argue is that there was criteria in ord. 3 0 that the city either did not apply or misapplied when it was reviewed. In relation to Mr. Starodoj, that is not the case. WORK SESSION Hoefer passed out new Planning & Zoning Manuals. Discussed legal issues and generally reviewed the manual. Session was recorded minutes were not taken. Tygre adjourned the meeting at 6:1 Opm. Amy G. Sc id, Deputy City Clerk 11