Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19991116ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 COMMISSIONER, STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ................................................................................. 1 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .......................................................................................... 1 LAUDER, SECOND ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISION LOTS #6 & 7, 870 & 866 ROARING FORK DRIVE - DESIGN STANDARDS VOLUME VARIANCE AND SPECIAL REVIEW VARIANCE ................ 1 CODE AMENDMENT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 4 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Bob Blaich opened the regular meeting held at 4:50 p.m. after the work session on Code Amendments. Commissioners present: Jasmine Tygre, Tim Mooney, Roger Hunt, Steven Buettow and Bob Blaich. Roger Haneman and Ron Erickson were excused. Staff present: Julie Ann Woods, Joyce Ohlson, Chris Bendon and Nick Lelack, Community Development; David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Bob Blaich asked about the follow-up on the list ofADUs. Joyce Ohlson said that there had been a great deal of discussion and there was a resolution passed by P&Z. She said that community development was completing the list, which will be reviewed by Housing. Blaich inquired about new information on security signs. David Hoefer replied that he was in negotiation with them and was waiting for their proposal. He said that he would follow-up with their attorney. Blaich asked about the breakout of square footage and tenancies of the Yellow Brick. Nick Lelack replied that it was scheduled for the November 30th meeting. Blaich asked for the response from CDOT regarding Buttermilk intersections and minutes from the meetings. Jackie Lothian replied that those minutes have been requested from the county. Blaich noted construction sites around town with an excessive amount of cars. He asked that these sites be documented and asked for some kind of mitigation for parking. Tim Mooney asked that the commissioners review the urban growth boundaries and the Aspen Area Community Plan. Ohlson provided the schedule of meetings for the commission. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARING: LAUDER, SECOND ASPEN COMPANY SUBDIVISION LOTS #6 & 7, 870 & 866 ROARING FORK DRIVE - DESIGN STANDARDS VOLUME VARIANCE and SPECIAL REVIEW VARIANCE Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. David Hoefer stated for the record the notice was sufficient for the commission to proceed and provided the criteria sheet. Hoefer noted that there was a change in the review; the ADU was being reviewed administratively. He said the criteria for the ADU would not be applicable. Roger Hunt noted there was no site plan included in the packet. 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Nick Lelack said that the application contained 3 requests. Lelack said that the Accessory Dwelling Units portion was withdrawn because of the code change and re-submitted under the new program administratively as long as it met 2 criteria; it must be deed-restricted and meet the design review standards. Joyce Ohlson noted that Accessory Dwelling Units would be approved administratively if the criteria were met; if the criteria were not met, then the application would come before r&z. Lelack stated that this ADU would be mandatory deed-restricted and noted it was in a terrific location. Alice Davis, planner for applicant, stated that they would take full advantage of the new 100% exemption with the unit being mandatory fully deed-restricted and a detached ADU. She noted it caused a few changes in the plans that were before the commission. There was an additional 275 square feet goes to the free-market primary residence because of the extra exemption. Lelack stated there was a (3 variance request from the residential design standards for the "no window zone" or volume standard and © special review for a variance from the subdivision for fire access. He said there was a separate insubstantial amendment to the subdivision, which could be done administratively moving the fire/emergency access location. (3 Staff did not feel that any of the 3 criteria were met for these street-facing windows; therefore recommended denial. Jasmine Tygre stated that she did not like the residential design standards but the commission did have to apply the criteria from the code equally. Bill ross, architect, stated to design a house to comply with the strict guidelines and relate them to the neighborhood was not easy and the other houses did not apply the design standards. Hoefer noted that some of the other houses were built prior to the design guidelines, ross responded that now this one house has to relate to those guidelines, ross said that they were combining two lots and building one house and one ADU instead of two houses and two ADUs. ross explained that they were combining mass with a cascading roof where the principal window was located. He said that as the code stated in a single or one story would not have a street facing window spanning to a second story. He said that they were applying the street-facing window as the principal window to their design. He said that he thought that they had done a good job and offered that for the variance request. Tygre reiterated that upholding the design standards, even though she did not like them, was part of the code and did not see the reason for the variance. She complimented the design but she stated that it did not meet the criteria. She said that the house may be the smallest on the block but it was 5,000 square feet and she did not see the need for the variance. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 Buettow asked what purpose the extra height for the window accomplished. Poss replied that it broke up the horizontal line and made it appear more principal, as the principal window, ross said the strict interpretations of the code were hard to interpret. Alice Davis stated that the land area to FAR needed to be taken into account because if two large homes with two ADUs were built here instead of this one, the human scale would have not been met. ross said they felt they had a hardship with all of the other restrictions of the area. Hunt stated that he agreed with Jasmine on the design standards. He said that if the one-story element looked like a one-story element with a gable, that would be okay, but it looks like a two-story element. Mooney said that was the first question to ask was there a design that could work here. He said what was creating the hardship, the idea of only one design that worked here, or was that not the case. He said it was a house without a huge entrance way with a street presence and was in the West End. He asked if the variance was needed for reasons of fairness. No public comments. ross said the height element was 29' to the roof, it was held down and really looked like 25' because of the mound. He said the window was hidden also by the mound. He said the house was small in scale and took advantage of the area. He noted the door was an 8' and was in human scale. He said that the mound would be taken down somewhat. Mooney asked if there was a plan for sidewalk, curb and gutter. He noted these were not the walking kinds of lots on the edge of the city grid. Blaich stated that by scale it would not look big because of the other baronial houses in the neighborhood. He asked the question of appropriateness for the window standards. He said that this was his neighborhood and did not think that sidewalks would be a problem in the area. Blaich said the house was not inappropriate in this area. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to approve the volume variance to the Residential Design Standards finding that it was clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual or site specific constraints, the natural topography of the lot, for street facing principal window on the south elevation of the single family house located 870 and 866 Roaring Fork Drive, Aspen. Steven Buettow second. Roll Call vote: Hunt, yes; Tygre, no; Buettow, yes; Mooney, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 4-1. Lelack stated that the insubstantial amendment administratively was to move the existing access to Lot 7A. He said the request was to reduce the width of the 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 emergency access to Lot 7A from 20 feet to 16 feet. He said that the Fire Marshall and the City Engineer both approved that request on the condition that the extension into Lot 7A has the turn around for fire vehicles and provided that the house has an upgraded sprinkler system as well. Lelack noted that the Lauder family owned all 3 lots (6,7 & 7A). Davis said that the narrower driveway achieved less disturbance to the environment; there was a chance that the driveway might be heated. She said that they have been working with the neighbors on the visual impacts and that was probably why no neighbors attended this meeting. Buettow asked if they were going to meet all of the requirements from the Fire Marshall. Davis replied that they would. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to approve the Special Review for the subdivision variance to reduce the emergency access easement from 20 feet to 16 feet because the proposed subdivision shall be more consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) with the following condition: Prior to the submittal of a building permit application for Lots 6 and 7 of the Second Aspen Company Subdivision, a legally binding agreement from the owner of Lot 7A shall be submitted and approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal and Community Development Director requiring the installation of a driveway serving Lot 7A with a full fire truck turn-around (minimum of a 50 foot turning radius), and also requiring the upgrade of the required 13D fire sprinkler system to a 13R system for the future residence(s) on Lot 7A. Roger Hunt second. Roll Call vote: Tygre, yes; Buettow, yes; Hunt, yes; Mooney, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 5-0. Tygre complimented the applicant on the quality ADU proposed. Ohlson stated that the conditions for the resolution would be revised from the meeting (and were reflected in the above motion). Bob Blaich reconvened the regular Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting at 7:10 p.m. after the Gramiger Sketch Plan. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the meeting until 7:30 p.m. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 4-1. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Bob Blaich opened the PUD public hearing. David Hoefer stated that for the record sufficient notice was provided. Chris Bendon stated that this code 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 amendment would extend the allowance to go through a PUD process for parcels that were smaller than 27,000 square feet if prior to the application they could demonstrate how their parcel could further benefit the community goals as expressed in the community plan. He said that community development was also looking for an in-fill program; a PUD could bring an advantage to the community. Stone Davis, public, said that he would have been much further along with his PUD had the director been able to approve or deny in the beginning. Bendon said an applicant with a small parcel could apply to the community development director for a PUD; if turned down then the applicant would go to P&Z. He said there would not be any special rights granted, only the ability to apply under the process. Hunt said that this was a procedural addendum to the regulations. Hoefer responded that it would not change the PUD regulations but rather the ability to get into the process. Bendon stated that it would still go to P&Z. Tygre noted that there could be an application proposed but the criteria needed was not in place, which would allow the applicant a false sense of expectation because they were told that they could apply. Hunt asked who would review the initial application. Julie Ann Woods said that if the main concern was who would review for the community benefit that could certainly be taken to city council. Mooney said that this would add another step to the approval process to take it to city council first and then bring it back to P&Z. He said the sequence of events should follow. Woods said there was no vesting any project in the initial go-round. Hunt asked that the regulations be such that community development was able to move the applicant through the process. MOTION:Roger Hunt moved to adopt P&Z Resolution #99-37 with the procedural amendments to allow PUDs on parcels that may not otherwise qualify under the current regulations with the language amended as follows: That the City Council should amend the applicability provisions of the Planned Unit Development regulations with the inclusion of the following underlined text to be included in Section 26.445.020: A development application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be applied for by the property owners of any proposed development in the City of Aspen that is on a parcel of land equal to or greater than twenty-seven thousand (27,000) square feet intended for residential, commercial, tourist or other development purposes. A development application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be applied for by the property owners of any proposed development in the City of Aspen that is on a parcel of land less than twenty-seven thousand (27,000) square feet intended for residential, commercial, tourist or other development purposes if, prior to application, the Community Development Director determines the development of 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 16, 1999 the property may have the ability to further one or more goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan and that the provisions of the Planned Unit Development land use review process will best serve the interests of the community. By virtue of this determination, the application shall not be granted any special rights or privileges and shall be required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable portions of this chapter. If the Community Development Director determines the proposed development is not suitable to be reviewed as a Planned Unit Development, the property owner may appeal the decision to the Plannin~ and Zonin~ Commission and the Commission, by Resolution and after considerin~ a recommendation made by the Community Development Director, may determine that the development of the property may have the ability to further one or more ~oals of the Aspen Area Community Plan and that the provisions of the Planned Unit Development land use review process will best serve the interests of the community. By virtue of this determination, the application shall not be ~ranted any special rights or privileges and shall be required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable portions of this chapter. A development application for a Minor Planned Unit Development (Minor PUD) may be applied for by the property owners of a parcel of land located within the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District intended for development consistent with the purpose of the LP Overlay Zone District. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 4-0. Meeting adjourned 7:40 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 6