Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19991130ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 30, 1999 COMMISSIONER, STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ................................................................................. 1 MINUTES ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................................................................. 1 (PUB) PUBLIC ZONE DISTRICT & DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................ 1 YELLOW BRICK REZONING TO (PUB) ......................................................................................................... 1 1395 RIVERSIDE DRIVE - ADU ....................................................................................................................... 2 518 WEST SMUGGLER - ADU .......................................................................................................................... 6 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 30, 1999 Bob Blaich opened the special meeting at 4:35 p.m. with Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Steven Buettow, Tim Mooney, Ron Erickson and Roger Haneman. Staff present: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Ohlson, Nick Lelack, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Jasmine Tygre stated that the Snyder project had many people exploring the site. She said that the homes did not receive any sun on the interior of the units, but they looked nice from the outside. Joyce Ohlson stated that there was a streamlining process for public projects. She distributed the ADU list. The commissioners discussed the list and the use as a tool for the benefit of the community. The information was public record. Ohlson said that she would prepare a letter for the Housing Board, City Council and the Realtors Board to accompany the list. Ohlson provided transportation issue notes from Claude Morelli on Burlingame. She asked the commissioners if they wanted to have a site visit to Snyder and Country Inn. The commissioners were interested in viewing the inside of the units. MINUTES MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of 2 November 1999. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 7-0. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Jasmine Tygre noted a conflict on 1395 Riverside Drive. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: (PUB) PUBLIC ZONE DISTRICT & DEFINITIONS YELLOW BRICK REZONING TO (PUB) Bob Blaich opened the public hearings. Nick Lelack stated that the City requested that the public hearing be continued to January 11, 2000. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearings for the Public Zone District Definitions and the Rezoning of the Yellow Brick to 11 January 2000. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 7-0. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 30, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING: 1395 RIVERSIDE DRIVE -ADU Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. David Hoefer stated that for the record the public notice was provided. Jasmine Tygre recused herself. Nick Lelack explained that staff did a site visit on October 12th and discovered that this ADU was essentially completed with a full kitchen. He said the proposal was for a bedroom with a wet bar; all that was added was a stove and a microwave oven completing the kitchen facilities. Staff notified the applicant immediately that this was not acceptable and they came in to submit a change order to the building permit to add the kitchen to the facility making it an ADU. A certificate of occupancy would not be issued for the duplex or the ADU until ADU approval was received or cash-in-lieu was paid. Hoefer asked for clarification that the applicant did not apply for an ADU prior to this time. Lelack affirmed. Lelack stated that the ADU was about 634 square feet of net livable space, a studio efficiency with an interior door to the house. He said it was a beautiful unit and very well done. Engineering raised concerns about a new berm and fence that were constructed since the site plan was submitted in October 1998, it was partially in the public right-of-way. A code requirement was that the stairwell to the ADU be covered or have snowmelt to avoid snow or ice accumulation on the steps. Lelack said that a neighbor contacted him with concerns about the neighborhood being a working resident occupied area and this duplex would not be lived in and the ADU was not being deed-restricted for employee occupancy. Stuart Lusk, applicant representative, stated that he designed the house (duplex) on a 17,500 square foot lot. He said that at the time the ADU laws were up in the air as far as mandatory occupancy status and it was designed thinking that at some point it would become an ADU. He noted that initially when he laid out the main structure, the main driveway was to remain where it was without access to highway; that was the reason for the berm. Lusk said Riverside Drive was the access with pretty much the same as it was before, a rental. The entrance (stairs) to the ADU was between 2 existing 20 to 30 foot tall trees and there was a natural swale to the south. There was snowmelt on the driveway closer to the garage doors and the 10'xl0' terrace for the ADU. Lusk noted there was a flat deck overhead so it was not subject to snow sloughing. He said it was a fairly bright unit with 38.35 square feet of glass with southern exposure; the inside door was an amenity for the ADU occupant to access the laundry and media rooms. He said that having one larger ADU rather than 2 smaller ADUs served the purpose for neighborhood and 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 30, 1999 livability. Lusk said that this was a great location for a family and a caretaker; he requested approval. Roger Haneman asked if the front door and window were the only source of light for the ADU. Lusk replied that there were 2 6-foot windows and a glass panel in the door, which supplied a lot of light and ventilation. Ron Erickson asked where the ADU parking was located; he asked why the city wasn't notified until after the ADU was built. Lusk pointed out parking on the map and stated that they were still under construction and was delayed in going through the appropriate process. Steven Buettow asked about the south elevation drawing noting a roof over the door and 2 windows for the ADU; how far did that extend out from the building. Lusk answered that his view was a possible awning because he wanted to keep the solar gain. There was a solid parapet railing for the deck above and there was no way for snow shedding to come off the deck. He said that after the doors went in the awning would take away from the only light. Lusk said that both roofs were snow-melted. Ralph Whipple, owner, said there was no chance or opportunity for any snow to shed down into that area; that area had snowmelt. He noted that there was a signed contract with a snow shoveling outfit to do the driveway and stairs. Tim Mooney asked what the box in the west corner of the ADU was. Lusk replied that there were 2 closets and another storage space. Erickson asked if the ADU was separately metered. Lusk responded that each unit was separately metered but not the ADU. He said the door to the laundry room was an amenity and separate from the other 2 bedrooms. Erickson asked if the ADU was not approved, what were the consequences. He asked what about mitigation. Lelack responded that this case was prepared prior to the ADU changes; if the application was denied tonight, they could come back under the new rules for an administrative review. He said that then they would be required to remove the connecting door and they would still be subject to the design review standards. Joyce Ohlson stated that they were here to keep the internal door and would have to prevent snow from falling on the stairway. Lelack noted the issue of the fence and berm would still have to be dealt with in the change order for the building permit. Mooney asked about the garage floor for livability of the ADU below it. Lusk responded that the decking was microlam 14", 38 insulation and a layer of DA" ply 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 30, 1999 with in floor heat in the garage. He said the back of the garage and ADU were built into the berm. Tom Kurt, public, stated that he and his wife Carol owned the house on Lot 24, adjacent to this property on the south side. He stated concern for the ADU and the entrance for the ADU; he provided photographs of the area (exhibits 4A, 4B, 4C). He said the builders were caught red-handed building the ADU. Kurt said they would like to see the door between dwelling and the ADU removed and the unit be maintained by a permanent person within the community. He said Betty Erickson, a long-term member of the community, owned this house and then her daughter rented it out for a short time. Kurt stated that he had been a neighbor of that house for 20 years. He said there were glaring spotlights that were erected above the ADU door which could be seen in the photographs; something needed to be done about these lights. He noted the wall that separated the unit could have erosion problems; the driveway seemed to have been moved from the original driveway, which now crossed over to his property line. Kurt stated that the construction vehicles blocked the street. Kathy Welgos, public, 1295 Riverside Drive, asked if the ADU had a separate entrance from the rest of the house or if it was only accessed from the house. She asked the number of parking spaces for the ADU. Blaich responded that there was a separate entrance and one parking space provided. Welgos said that she had concerns for the parking because of the congested street. She said that during construction the street was blocked and hoped that an employee of Aspen would reside in the unit. Cheri Grinnell, public, resident of Riverside Drive, asked why the request for this unit was coming up at this time during construction and asked if there would be funds required if this unit was not built. Lusk responded that there was a lot of talk about the ADU program over the years and this was a local owner who was allowed to waive mitigation until the time of the sale of the house. He said that was why this was the last ADU for review. Hoefer stated that normally the applicant would come in for ADU approval prior to construction. Grinnell asked if this was not approved would there be another mitigation requirement. Ohlson replied that they would be required to pay a fee in-lieu of the ADU being built. Donna Fisher, public, 1235 Riverside Drive, stated that this ADU was just another bedroom rather than housing an employee. She said that the developer should be paying into the employee housing fund because most people who buy a product like a 3 ½ million dollar unit will not put an employee in that unit. She noted it was a way for the developer to escape providing employee housing. 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 30, 1999 Blaich asked Joyce Ohlson to clarify the new ADU rules. Ohlson noted there was a policy shift as the land use code related to accessory dwelling units. ADUs may be permitted administratively, which means without a P&Z special review, without an additional regulatory step in the process of gaining approval for an ADU. Ohlson stated that there was a set of standards that needed to be met in order for that ADU to be approved. That evaluation would be based upon square footage, setbacks, adequate parking, height requirements, no internal door and stairway entrance covering. Lusk stated that 13-14 cars could be parked in the driveway and garages. He said that during construction the parking was more of a problem than it was now. Hoefer noted that if the driveway violated the code then a C.O. would not be issued. Lusk responded that the driveway was not on anyone else's property; it was surveyed with a 7-10' strip along the property line than was undisturbed. Donna Fisher reiterated that any developer could put in a structure with an ADU if it passed legislatively following the rules; not have it lived in but have it be part of their house and not have to pay any money to the city for employee housing. Ohlson replied that there were certain provisions that required occupied deed- restriction but there was no mandatory occupancy requirement. Fisher stated for the record that the city was doing a tremendous disservice to the city of Aspen by having that kind of a law. Blaich commented that P&Z also voiced a similar feeling and city council was the body that Ms. Fisher should address. Whipple stated that he built 6 of these units and 4 were occupied. Helen Klanderud, public, 1380 Riverside Drive, stated that she lived directly across from this new duplex. She said that she knew about the ADU in this house and was surprised by the public hearing after the fact. She noted that Riverside subdivision was one of the few remaining long-term residential working people neighborhoods in the city; it was slowly going and the neighbors were very much concerned. Klanderud said there was no objection to the ADU as long as it was used for an employee or caretaker or some other working person. She said that she hoped that the owner would use this as an affordable unit. Klanderud stated the lights were of concern on both duplexes and they sat higher than all of the other properties in that subdivision. She said that when the drive was shoveled it would be again shoveled onto and in front of her property. Klanderud stated that she did not want to have curb and gutters installed but wanted to keep the large tree that was probably in that right-of-way. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 30, 1999 Buettow asked about an awning for over the ADU entrance to protect. Lusk replied that when the parapet was enclosed, there was no chance of snow coming down over the retainer wall. He said that the patio snowmelt was sensored to precipitation. Blaich noted that the sketches were sketchy. Hoefer said the interior door was part of the approval. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to approve the Bass/Cahn property ADU located at 1395 Riverside Drive with conditions outlined in the community development memo dated 11/30/99 adding condition/414, requiring snowmelt on the ADU stairway. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Haneman, no; Erickson, no; Hunt, no; Mooney, no; Buettow, yes; Blaich, no. DENIED 5-1. The commissioners discussed the interior door, adding an additional interior door on the other side of the laundry facility and that the criteria was not being met because they did not think that this would be an employee occupied unit. Other criteria not met were that this was not consistent with the purposes, goals and objectives of the AACP or with the intent of how ADUs should be constructed and utilized; the neighbors concerns were not addressed. Emergency access and lighting above the door were also issues. The applicant stated that the lights were adjustable and had been pointed downward but were for safety for the stairs with a motion detector. Whipple also responded that removing the interior door did close off the second exit in an emergency. Cheri Grinnell said that her house was 1½ blocks away and the lights from the gables and under the eaves were very bright and could clearly be seen from her bedroom window. Lusk said that the outside bulbs could be reduced. PUBLIC HEARING: 518 WEST SMUGGLER - ADU Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. David Hoefer stated for the record that the affidavit of notice was sufficient. Nick Lelack stated that the applicant and staff mutually agreed to change the access points to outside of each unit and provide drawings reflecting these changes prior to this meeting. The drawings show one of the two access points still in the middle; the proposal met the requirements. The staff report dated 11/30/99 did not reflect this design but with the stairwells on the outside points. Lelack explained that the commission could continue to the next meeting. Roger Hunt asked staff if they were comfortable with the changes. Lelack replied that they were. Jasmine Tygre stated that she did not like approving reviews without the proper and correct information and drawings. Lelack stated 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 30, 1999 the only reason these ADUs were before the commission was because of the interior doors. Lelack stated the existing duplex would be demolished and replaced with 2 single family residences including 2 ADUs located under the garages. He said the units were 454 square feet and 427½ square feet; the parking standards were met. Stuart Lusk, applicant representative, stated there was an egress well on the east unit. He noted that the memo reflected incorrect FAR figures, the allowable was 4,080 with 2,040 per residence. Lusk said the west unit with the window well to the south should provide some great south light. He noted there were some large trees on the property. There was 41 square feet of glazing in the west unit and the east unit had 44½ square feet, which was probably double of what was required. Lusk said the entry door pads would be snowmelt and covered; the ADU parking and driveway would also have snowmelt. Tygre asked where the connecting door to the residence was located. Lusk explained that the door in the west unit went into a long hallway and the east unit door went into a common family area. Tim Mooney inquired about the garage floor and what the heat and insulation in the ceilings of the ADUs would be like. Lusk replied that the insulation was R38 with a 4-5 inch concrete heated floor. Mooney explained to staff the David Brown condition for sub-grade, below garage units to include safe-guards for the livability of the unit. Ralph Whipple, owner/applicant, stated that in his home there was an ADU rented for the past 4 years without a door to the residence. He said it was not convenient for the tenant to do laundry or in the situation of the nanny having no access to the house without going outside. Whipple noted that most owners would built ADUs as long as they weren't shoved down their throats. He said that he had a 75% success rate in renting ADUs. He noted the extra door was also a safety issue with an additional fire exit. Lusk said that the ADU living situation was better with a door to the house. Blaich responded that the argument was well taken if the ADU was going to be employee housing. Tygre stated that her concerns have been that when ADUs were proposed as mitigation it was a philosophical issue about the use of an ADU. She noted that many of the problems in town stem from exemptions from Growth Management. She said the ADU had to fulfill the criteria. Tygre stated that the doors mean that the ADUs do not meet the criteria. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 30, 1999 Mooney said in the spirit of compromise, if the applicant stated that one of the units would be occupied as an ADU, then he would make a motion to allow one unit with interior doors. Erickson said that he agreed but did not think that the applicant could guarantee this use. Whipple commented that his intent was to supply an ADU; he said it would cost him more than the $50,000.00 mitigation fee to actually build the ADUs. Tygre stated that she did not doubt his intentions but he was not the ultimate owner of this property; that was why they were having a difficult time with the review. No public comments. MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to approve Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Whipple Accessory Dwelling Units located at 518 West Smuggler Street 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 for each ADU, a form 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). meet with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to determine what fees will be applied, and complete a tap permit with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. The applicant shall connect the ADUs 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 ADUs are labeled as such and meet the definition of an Accessory Dwelling Unit. (c). The ADUs will contain kitchens (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). Each ADU has the minimum one (1) off-street parking space provided. The City Code minimum is 81/z'x18'. The building permit plans shall indicate the designated ADU 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 30, 1999 parking space with a rectangle crossed with dashed diagonals. The ADU spaces must have clear and direct access from the driveway and cannot be stacked with a space for the primary residence. (e). The ADUs meet all applicable UBC requirements for light and air. (f). An overhang shall cover each ADU entrance designed to prevent snow and ice from falling on, or building-up on, the entrance to each 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 including the ADUs exceeds 5,000 square feet. 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 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. 5. 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. Roger Haneman second. Buettow, yes; Tygre, no; Erickson, no; Hunt, yes; Haneman, yes; Mooney, yes; Blaich, no. APPROVED 4-3. Erickson stated that the applicant did a good job on the units. Meeting adjourned 6:55 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 9