Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19990921ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21~ 1999 Jasmine Tygre, Vice-Chairperson, opened the regular Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting at 4:35 p.m. The following commissioners were present: Steve Buettow, Jasmine Tygre, Roger Haneman and Tim Mooney. Bob Blaich, Roger Hunt and Ron Erickson were excused. Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Ohlson, Chris Bendon, Amy Guthrie and Nick Lelack, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Tim Mooney said that there were concerns for housing regarding deed-restricting some housing with a separate lottery for handicapped qualified people in our community. He said that he didn't know what the commissioners position was, but wanted to put the thought out there. Mooney said that he received a unique letter dated 09/07/99 from John McBride regarding 8 different public projects that were to be built under one project and to be approved in a couple of years. He said the letter goes on to say that this would be a mistake in not scrutinizing these projects with due process and it would break all the rules in the application process. The letter also stated that all the other private projects would be compromised. Mooney noted there was also an article in the newspaper today regarding the fast tracking of these projects. Roger Haneman said that what he thought that Tim was referring to was what happened at the Housing Symposium; the consensus was to pursue all the projects equally but not necessarily submitted as one. He said the easier projects would find their way to the lead, first but each project would be handled individually. Joyce Ohlson stated that nothing has changed in the code for the way business was done. She said if something was changed in the code, it would come before this commission. Jasmine Tygre said that members of the commission have been concerned about what may appear to be different approaches or playing fields for private and public projects. She noted that they have gone over this many times before and it was certainly something they were all well aware of. Mooney said that Don Bird, Pitkin County, was looking for interim housing for people who were waiting to go into treatment but had no place to live. He asked to explore the 7th and Main affordable housing development as a possible place for some one like this to have a short term place to stay. He said that instead of the 7- 11 maybe some type of interim housing could be there which would some of our community needs better than a commercial element. Ohlson said that there was a handout with follow-up items including a memo from Sarah Oates on the Apex signs. Ohlson stated that the Sundeck maximum occupancy was 575 and the county staff would do whatever they needed to do. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21~ 1999 MINUTES MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to approve the minutes from September 7, 1999. Roger Haneman second. APPROVED 4-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Jasmine Tygre noted this was important since there were only four members present tonight. None were disclosed. PUBLIC HEARING: YELLOW BRICK REZONING TO PUBLIC Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. She said the applicant requested a continuance. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to continue the Yellow Brick Rezoning Public Hearing to October 19, 1999 at 4:30 p.m. Roger Haneman second. ALL IN FAVOR. APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 426 NORTH 2m~ STREET - LANDMARK DESIGNATION Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing. She explained to the applicant that with only four members present, a 2-2 vote would result in denial. Tygre stated that at this time the applicant had the right to table action and continue the public hearing to a date certain. Jess Pedersen, architect, stated that he would like to proceed with the public hearing tonight. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated there was proof of notice, which met the jurisdiction of the board. Amy Guthrie passed around some photos of the property. She noted there was a historic house on the property, built in 1888 with an addition from 1970. HPC believed the addition was compatible. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to recommend City Council approve landmark designation for 426 N. 2nd Street, Units A and B, Second and Smuggler Condominiums, finding the criteria have been met in P&Z Resolution #99-26, with standards B. Architectural Importance; D. Neighborhood Character and E. Community Character. Roger Haneman second. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Haneman, yes; Mooney, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 4-0. The order of the agenda was amended. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21~ 1999 PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT - RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY {RMF} Jasmine Tygre opened the code amendment for residential multi-family. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated for the record that proof of notice had been provided and the commission had the authority to proceed. Chris Bendon stated that the code was just reorganized (Title 26) and added Title 20, the housing replacement program. He said that the new definition lacked the substantive issues that were applicable to units within a multi-use building. This was an amendment to close a loop-hole in the code. Roger Haneman asked for an example of 3 or more detached dwellings on a historic property. Amy Guthrie replied that Chuck Tower's property on Cleveland was one. Tygre said this was a housekeeping issue. Bendon noted that when multi-family housing units were demolished, the requirement was to replace with deed-restricted housing at ½ the square footage and ½ the bedrooms. He said this was to protect housing that has housed working residents. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to recommend that the City Council amend the term "Residential Multi-Family Housing," as provided in P&Z Resolution #99-28, finding the criteria have been met. Steve Buettow second. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Buettow, yes; Mooney, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 4-0. PUBLIC HEARING: WILLIAMS RANCH SUBSTANTIAL PUD AMENDMENT Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing and explained to Chuck Brandt, attorney for applicant, that there were only 4 members of the commission present, if the vote were 2 to 2 that would result in a denial. She said that as the applicant he could request a continuance prior to going any further. Brandt stated that he was willing to proceed. Chris Bendon stated that this was actually a continued public hearing. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, distributed the criteria sheet. Bendon commented that this originally gained approval by Ordinance #94-52. He noted there were actually 2 subdivisions: SilverLode 15 lots and Willaims Ranch, 35 affordable lots. He said it was annexed into the city and went through a PUD process in 1994. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21~ 1999 Bendon said there were 4 amendments. (3 Aesthetics. The Salvation Ditch was historically an open-air ditch. Bendon said the developer was to come back after covering up the ditch and re-create a ditch feature, which would have water in it. There was some discussion of where this would be located, the open space parcel or on a residential lot or the park that was now city owned. The Salvation Ditch owners were not open to having construction within their easement or the ditch. The homeowners had concerns and did not want reconstruction of the ditch. Bendon indicated the park parcel and the open space parcel on a map. The open space parcel was owned by the homeowners association and was less aesthetic and was essentially weeds. © Pedestrian Movement Bendon said this was essentially sidewalks and during the review the city engineer requested sidewalks. There was concern from the homeowners association about the aesthetic that would be created by that because there was a swale in front of some of the units that looked quite nice. The developer asked to be released from the sidewalk obligation since the homeowners did not want sidewalks on both sides of the streets. Bendon said the original purpose of the sidewalks was pedestrian movement through the subdivision. There were 2 trails through the subdivision for the residents as well as the area in general. Bendon said the city can develop the Mollie Gibson Park trail but the open space parcel, owned by the homeowners association, had a crude trail and needed help. He said because of the steepness of the platted vertical trail, there was no way to develop it. The pedestrian movement could be served through the subdivision streets, which were not heavily trafficked. ® Soil Erosion Control on Smuggler Mine Property and ® Emergency Access. Tim Mooney noted that entrance was a mess. There has never been grass but a huge pile of sand deposited where the access meets the pavement. He asked if the developer had any landscape condition that that was signed-off on when the pavers were installed. Albert Prezybylski, public, said there was a dispute with the fire access and it was virtually stripped of all the topsoil by construction vehicles moving through that open space parcel. There has been no restriction on contractor use of the area. Fred Soyka, Centennial resident, said that it was his understanding that the emergency access was to be restricted by some sort of locking gate that only the fire department could access. There was only tape preventing access, which was run over by vehicles. He said that trees were removed and since then the erosion down Spruce Street was horrendous because there was no vegetation or trees. He said the city comes by and cleans it up but its getting worse every time there is a 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21~ 1999 big storm. Soyka stated that his understanding with the ditch was that it would remain open and left "as is" and now it was gone in spots. He said there were promises made in public meetings and none were followed up on. Kevin Owen, Williams Ranch resident, said there was a problem with the job done by the developer not living up to their word in terms of re-doing the ditches. He said the first wave of home were done, the developer promised to come back and put the ditches for the rest of the homes back in good order but this hasn't happened to the entire area, only one section. Owen asked that before any final approvals were given, that the developer needed to follow-up with what was promised from the past approvals. Bendon stated for clarity those ditches were along the internal island of Williams Ranch and were actually swales between the cart-way and actual houses. Tygre commented that there were certain issues that should have been assumed from the conditions of approval for the original PUD. It seemed that these conditions have not been addressed and now we were in a situation that questions who will remedy these issues. Tygre said those original representations may have to be re-reviewed in order to get to the base of the original PUD and who was supposed to do what. Tygre stated concern for the representations regarding re- vegetation, tree removals and mitigation, trail easements. Hoefer asked if the questions could be answered tonight or would there need to be a more in-depth research. Tygre responded that those representations being actually in front of the commission might be more useful for the determination. Bendon responded that he based the memo on the approving ordinance and subdivision agreements, which did not include the specific representations. He noted the difficulty in that information was that sometimes some of the suggested solutions were changed through the course of the review process. Mooney said that the developers responsibility was something that needed to be looked at. Tygre inquired about the approved 80° pitch in the trail that was now questioned. Mooney said that if the subdivision did not want sidewalks, then maybe they should not be imposed on them. He said smaller sidewalks might be a possibility for the area and help to utilize play space also. Mooney said the beaten path of where people move through the subdivision was to get down to transportation. Buettow noted there was an erosion problem, the pavers and emergency access did not have adequate landscaping replaced which affects the safety of the people that live in the area. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21~ 1999 Chuck Brandt said the Williams Ranch Homeowners Association amended their covenants to preclude sidewalks; they don't want them. He said that every 40 feet there was a driveway and there was a drainage problem. He said there were some true logistical constraints that were not contemplated in the vacuum of the subdivision approval. Brandt said some of these features don't work and to please excuse the developer from the obligations. He said that Williams Ranch Joint Venture had no problem connecting this small area that was grassed over, from the end of the vertical trail to SilverLode Road. Brandt said there should probably be a culvert there because of the drainage ditch feature so that people could step safely from the end of the trail to the pavement. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to continue the public hearing for Williams Ranch Substantial PUD amendment to November 2, 1999. Roger Hanemen second. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Haneman, yes; Mooney, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 4-0. Klm Popish, Williams Ranch, stated that there was a letter from the homeowners association stating that they did not want sidewalks. She said they were happy with the trail and did not want to see a trail go through the backyards of the neighbors. She said that they were in the process of adding dirt to the open or common space and were not holding their breath to have the developer do that. She said that the SilverLode Homeowners Association was pursuing the owner of Lot 1 to be responsible for the area. Mooney requested that Parks; representatives from Williams Ranch, SilverLode and Centennial Homeowners Associations; Engineering be present at the next meeting. He inquired as to the reasons for the ditches, the trail construction, and the open space re-vegetation not being satisfactory. Tygre questioned who was responsibe for the access and where it lies. Buettow asked for what was actually represented at those previous meetings. Bendon stated that he would provide the minutes form the approval process. Mooney asked that the discussions between the developer, city and homeowners continue to iron out as many of the issues as possible before hand. PUBLIC HEARING: DALY ADU- 1590 HOMESTAKE DRIVE Jasmine Tygre, Vice-Chair, stated there was the minimum number for a quorum of four members and asked if the applicant wished to proceed tonight. Tygre explained that a split 2-2 vote would automatically be a denial. Tom Daly, applicant, stated that he would like to proceed tonight. David Hoefer, Assistant 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21~ 1999 City Attorney, stated the affidavit of public notice was provided and the board had jurisdiction to proceed. Tygre opened the public hearing for the Daly ADU Nick Lelack, planner, said the application was for a conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit which would be 366 square feet. He said this was also an application for a growth management exemption, which meant it would be deed- restricted but not mandatory occupancy. The property was vacant and located in a neighborhood with other accessory dwelling units. Tygre asked for clarification on the entrance to the ADU and separation between the ADU and the rest of the house. Lelack responded that it was integrated into the house on the first floor. Tim Mooney asked if the entrance to the ADU came off of the driveway. Leland replied there would be a path, concrete or flagstone in the conditions of approval. Steve Buettow inquired about a parking place. Leland answered that it would be in the garage as designated in the conditions of approval and shown in the building plans with an overhang over the entrance. Daly said the unit sat to one side of the house along with the garage. He said it was separate with a locked door from the inside. Buettow asked if there were double doors. Tygre stated there usually was a separation. Buettow asked if there was opposition to removing that door. Mooney said with the parking in the garage, the ADU occupant would come through the house, past the office and laundry down the hall, to enter the unit. Roger Haneman asked if there was an intended use. Daly replied that they did not have anyone in mind. Josephine Mann, public, stated that she lived at 1515 Homestake. She said that she was the first house there and has watched all the building and did not hear much about the plan except the size was not frightening. She said that she had no objection to what she called a mother-in-law unit. Daly stated that 80% of the house was one story and spoke to the neighbors and cut a lot off the top of the house. He thought it would make a great unit and if it had to be rented that would be okay. Daly stated that this was a nice ADU unit with an inch and DA door with a lock from the inside. The commission liked the ADU having it on the street level, very light with large windows but they took exception of the door connecting the main house to the ADU. Daly stated that if it was the desire of the board, he would remove that door and put in a wall having access to the ADU from the outside only. Condition "k" was added. MOTION: Tim Mooney to approve the Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit of approximately three hundred sixty six (366) net livable square feet to be located on the main level of a single family 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21~ 1999 residence at 1590 Homestake Drive, which meets the standards and with the following conditions: 1.)The building permit application shall include: a) a copy of the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission resolution, b) a current Site Improvement Survey indicating the nature of all easements of record indicated on the property title commitment, c) a completed and recorded sidewalk, curb, and gutter construction agreement and an agreement to join any future improvement districts for the purpose of constructing improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula, d) a completed and recorded ADU deed restriction on the property, a form for which may be obtained from the Housing Office. The deed restriction shall be noted on the building permit plans, e) a drainage report and a drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2 year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. If drywells are an acceptable solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with percolation test to verify the feasibility of this type system. Drywells may not be placed within utility easements. The foundation drainage system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained on site, and must be shown on the drainage plan. The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the retention volume meet the design storm, f) a tree removal or relocation permit from the City Parks Department for any trees to be removed or relocated, g) a completed tap permit with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. The applicant shall connect the ADU to the sanitary sewer in a manner acceptable to the ACSD superintendent. 2.) The building permit plans shall reflect/indicate: a) Conformance with all aspects of the City's Residential Design Standards. b) The proposed ADU is labeled as such and meets the definition of an Accessory Dwelling Unit. c) The ADU will contain a kitchen (having a minimum of a two-burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer) and a bathroom (having a minimum of a shower, sink, and a toilet), d) The ADU has the minimum one (1) off-street parking space provided; the building permit plans shall indicate the designated ADU parking space. The ADU space must have clear access and cannot be stacked with a space for the primary residence, e) The ADU meets all applicable UBC requirements for light and air. f) An overhang shall cover the ADU entrance designed to prevent snow and ice from falling on, or building-up on, the entrance to the ADU. g) Conformance with the City's requirements for driveways. Driveways must be separated by 25 feet or more (including neighboring driveways), and must be paved from the edge of the street to the property line. Paving alternatives may be approved by the City Engineer. h) A fire suppression system if the gross square footage of the structure exceeds 5,000 square feet. i) A five (5) foot wide pedestrian usable space with a five (5) foot wide buffer for snow storage at the edge of the street paving, k) A pedestrian connection from the ADU entrance to the driveway shall be indicated on the building permit plans. The pedestrian path shall be constructed of concrete, flagstone or other pedestrian- usable surface material, l) Building plans shall be amended to reflect that there shall be no interior door connecting the ADU to the house. 3.) The applicant should provide separate utility taps and meters for each residential unit. 4.) All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the site improvement survey. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed. $.) The applicant must receive approval for any work within public rights-of-way from the appropriate City Department. This includes, but is not limited to, approval for a mailbox and landscaping from the City Streets Department. 6.) All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. 7.) The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday - Saturday. 8.) Before applying for a building permit, the applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 9.) 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. Steve Buettow second. Roll call vote: Haneman, yes; Buettow, yes; Mooney, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 4-0. The commissioners thanked the applicant for the nice ADU. Adjourned 6:50 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 1 MINUTES ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 YELLOW BRICK REZONING TO PUBLIC .....................................................................................................2 426 NORTH 2N~ STREET - LANDMARK DESIGNATION ............................................................................. 2 CODE AMENDMENT - RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY (RMF) ................................................................ 3 WILLIAMS RANCH SUBSTANTIAL PUD AMENDMENT ............................................................................ 3 DALY ADU - 1590 HOMESTAKE DRIVE ........................................................................................................ 6 10