Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19981208ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 08, 1998 Sara Garton, Chair, opened the special Planning & Zoning meeting at 4:35 p.m. held at the Pitkin County Library. Commissioners Steve Buettow, Ron Erickson, Tim Mooney, Tim Semrau, Jasmine Tygre and Sara Garton were present. Bob Blaich and Roger Hunt were excused. City Staff in attendance were: Chris Bendon, Sarah Oates and Mitch Haas, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS Jasmine Tygre said the article by Hal Clifford on Burlingame brought up many points that P&Z tried to bring up at the meeting which were very interesting and well taken as was the following quote: "elected officials recently and publicly slammed P&Z volunteers who dared to think outside the box.., to city hall...thou shall not defecate upon your volunteers." Sara Garton asked if the assistant city attorney would be present tonight, he was not. She said because of the sensitivity in city hall and the county over conflict of interest; she inquired how Jim Curtis represented the housing authority as the planner for Burlingame and also represented the SkiCo and MAA for their housing? Ron Erickson noted he spoke to Edward Sweeney who had not thought about that but maybe he should obtain a different planner. Erickson did not want Curtis fired from any job; he seemed to be the only land use planner able to do affordable housing, but he was representing both sides of the issue. Tim Mooney asked the determination of Jim Curtis because he would be in conflict on both sides and could not represent either side now. He asked about the housing board negotiating with the SkiCo; he said usually there were steps for an application to be processed for mitigation determined during that process. Mooney asked if housing had the authority to negotiate mitigation now and what was the attorney's view. Mitch Haas replied there was no new policy; generally housing made a recommendation on the mitigation. He said the final decision was from city council and P&Z could also recommend mitigation. Mooney said from the article it seemed as though housing was determining the affordable and free-market mix for this segment of Burlingame. He said he hoped that he was wrong. Haas stated that he didn't know if council had asked housing to serve in that capacity. Chris Bendon said the issue with the seasonal housing was the housing board made a recommendation as to the method in which affordable housing was provided. He noted from the housing guidelines criteria was the units were not to be leased for less than a 6 months; SkiCo had an issue with that and discussed any flexibility on that policy. Bendon said the more formal discussions have been in the newspapers about the possibility of a person who gained the housing and a ski pass and then quit SkiCo; the question 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 08, 1998 was how to get that person out of the unit. Bendon commented that Frank Peters brought up the issue whether or not the AH-1 zone district should be used to mitigate and whether mitigation should be applied for future projects. He said it was not a consensus on the housing board but Frank's difficulty with mitigation in the AH-1 zone district. Bendon stated he spoke up for zoning by saying the zoning requirements should be physical: height, setbacks; and policy, which should be growth management or housing guidelines. He said another issue was if this was mitigation for future projects. He noted there was a process for that and the city has done it; large employers had to make up for that and now were in a position to build affordable housing, to make up for what they hadn't done. He hoped this wouldn't get attached to a zone district, that was inappropriate. Garton responded that policy was being discussed; the mitigation should not be decided before it comes to P&Z. Mooney commented that there was almost a pre-arrangement between housing and parks on Snyder; it cut up the project. He said it was almost like housing and SkiCo were putting together a project, telling P&Z that by consensus with the neighborhood or the applicant, that certain things were already decided. Garton said she read it as they were in agreement and were just putting it out there. Mooney noted at the Dec. 1 st meeting when Tom Cardamone, ACES, stated that he expected every applicant be dealt with on the same level, even if the city was the applicant. He said there was the essence of a deal being made here. Haas commented there were those concerns and he would consult with the city attorneys about this and get back with P&Z next week. Erickson stated his understanding was the MAA/SkiCo was a private project which would follow housing guidelines and housing was not a partner in this deal. He asked why should there be any agreements between housing and this development? Mooney stated there should be an application for the project. He said the city then wanted to include some emergency response people in the project so there might be some blending and was not sure how this would work. Erickson thought that city council may have wanted an additional codicil in the agreement prior to the application. He said the number of people, allocations and percentages should be part of the application. Mooney hoped the issues would be on the table before the deal was done. Erickson commented there was smoke and not the cleanest of issues with the same consultant. Haas reiterated that he would speak to the city attorneys, David Hoefer and John Worcester. Mooney noted the city attorneys were not at the 12/01/98 meeting. He said this was the biggest project being built; there was a strip mall of housing which was still sprawl and may be ok with a consultant who works for both sides but this was not ok with him. Mooney stressed this request was from the P&Z commission, not staff. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 08, 1998 Haas went through the items on the memo from Julie Ann Woods; Mitch Haas would be acting as the deputy director. Haas said the LP program was scheduled tentatively for next week. Georgia Hanson was chosen the volunteer of the year. Haas stated there have been new policies for construction parking. Garton commented that the town of Vail had given over an area to construction parking; the workers and were bussed to job sites. She thought about the possibility of talking with construction managers about parking at Buttermilk or other areas instead of the places where the parking doesn't currently work. Mooney noted there were 7 cars parked on Park Avenue all day from the same construction crew and the bus had a hard time getting around those vehicles. Tim Semrau stated that his company bought a Suburban; 9 guys ride to the job site in it. He suggested an incentive for construction companies carpooling by having expedited building permits or parking vouchers. Haas noted there was discussion at council last night on incentives being used. Bendon noted the HPC home tour on Friday, 12/11 at 8:30 a.m. Erickson asked what was so special about these homes. Haas replied that the Gluck house was very modem and had gone through DRAC. Bendon responded that the Lindenau house would be featured in Metropolitan Home this spring. MINUTES MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to adopt the minutes from November 17, 1998. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 6-0. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Steve Buettow stated that he would step down from the West End Partnership Public Hearing. PUBLIC HEARING: CASTLE CREEK CONDOMINIUMS (RED HOUSE) - REZONING Sarah Oates, staff, provided the notice and would deliver the list to the deputy city clerk by 5 p.m. on Wednesday. She illustrated the parcel location on a map and said the property was currently zoned R-6 in the county, the proposal was to annex and rezone as RMF into the city. Oates stated there were 6 units to be sold as affordable housing. The parking was not on site but on an adjacent parcel. Jasmine ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 08, 1998 Tygre asked who was the grantor of the 17 parking spaces. Sara Garton noted the warranty deed provided by Brooke Peterson was in the packet. Tim Semrau asked why the RMF zone district. Chris Bendon replied the zone district needed to be compatible with the neighborhood and RMF allowed the AH component. No public comment. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Castle Creek Apartments, 855 West Hallam, rezoning to Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district and the parking requirements are hereby established as no on-site parking but the existing parking easement remain. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: WESTEND PARTNERSHIP - 234 HALLAM, CONDITIONAL USE 2 ADUs Steve Buettow stepped down. Chris Bendon provided the notice and property owner list. Bendon explained there were 2 new single family homes being constructed at 234 Hallam with an active building permit. He said the applicant originally had a growth management exemption and paid the housing cash-in-lieu fees. The building inspector raised questions on the window wells for the main unit. Bendon said the applicant responded to the request by adding to the drawings of the window wells and adding 3 more windows above the wells. Jim Colombo, applicant, provided new drawings citing the new window wells. Tim Mooney questioned the window well as an egress for life safety; how a person gets out. Colombo responded that it met all lighting, ventilation and building code requirements; the windows did not have to be kick-out. He said whatever was necessary to meet the requirement, a ladder would be provided if necessary. Bendon said there were no variances requested but questioned access to the mechanical rooms. Colombo stated that was addressed in the conditions of approval. He said every condition has been or will be accommodated. Jasmine Tygre inquired into the applicants change from payment in-lieu to now adding the ADUs. Colombo responded that the payment-in-lieu was a severe payment and the ADUs met the community plan. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 08, 1998 Mooney inquired about the UBC sound requirements; that was not listed in the conditions. He noted that was an issue on the quality of life for the residents. Bendon said the sound attenuation would be added to the conditions. Garton noted that was a condition of approval that was included previously for ADUs. Bendon stated the building department does require the sound attenuation for duplexes. Garton stressed the commission desired occupancy for the ADUs. B.A. Erickson, public, stated that he and his wife Billie lived at 220 Hallam for the past 41 years. He said they feel their land as "hallowed ground". He said the ADUs would attract transients to the neighborhood. Colombo replied the ADUs have their entrances from the alley; the units are integrated into the houses and won't add additional traffic. Erickson stated the structures were handsome but no provision for playing with any private lawn area. He said from studying architecture the two most difficult things to provide were privacy and tranquillity. Sara Garton explained that when a house was re-developed, the city required an ADU be built or cash-in-lieu for the employee housing program to benefit the community as a whole. Erickson did not agree with adding ADUs to their neighborhood. Erickson asked Colombo to have his employees to meet his eye. He requested a definition of a duplex. Billie Erickson said their property was on three lots, zoned duplex. Bendon said zoning allowed 2 single family homes or duplexes on this size lot and ADUs were not considered units of density. He said the land would be owned by a joint partnership because the total square footage was 9,000. Mooney explained by doing 2 smaller houses, there would be different personalities in each house rather than one more large house in the neighborhood. He thanked the Ericksons for coming to the hearing. He felt the owner could be asked to pay cash-in-lieu; these were marginal units, under the garages, not knowing if anyone would ever live in them. Mooney said even by reducing closets in the main residences, that would add enough square footage to the ADUs to add a table to sit down at so they did not have to eat dinner sitting on the bed. Tygre agreed with Mooney on the over all design of these ADUs. She said the fact that these ADUs would not be required to be occupied and they were underground, probably would not provide the use in which the code intended for ADUs. She said that as a community, the cash-in-lieu would be more beneficial. Tygre stated there would be more density on the site regardless of the ADUs. She said demolishing a residence required an exemption from GMQS, which was a very serious matter. Tygre stated that in her mind to mitigate from GMQS, the need to generate an employee unit meant actual mitigation, required occupancy. She said she could not support this because there was no representation to fulfill standard "A". Tygre stated there was a third option, off site housing mitigation. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 08, 1998 Bendon read George Robinson's letter into the record which opposed the increase in density with significant degradation to the neighborhood. Ron Erickson concurred with Tygre and Mooney on the fact that ADUs not required to be rented were not beneficial to the community. He said subterranean apartments were not what the AACP meant for the quality of life; cash-in-lieu would go towards an improved quality of life. He stated he would not agree with this plan. Tim Semrau stated this was a marginal situation. He said this was a good neighborhood for ADUs and even though they may meet the requirements he would like to see more light into the units. Garton agreed with the P&Z mandatory occupancy of ADUs and stated she was in favor of building the Affordable Housing rather than cash-in-lieu. She applauded city halls effort to try to get the ADUs rented. Garton supported the plan in spirit. Colombo explained the neighborhood was the perfect place for these ADUs with alley access. He asked for the criteria of judging these units from the commission. Colombo took exception to the commissioners personal feelings and as an applicant could only use the rules that were applicable. Garton reiterated that the commission was frustrated with the ADU program not requiring mandatory occupancy; the commissioners could vote finding the proposal did not meet a standard. Colombo requested a "straw vote". Jackie Lothian replied that a "straw vote" could not be taken per the assistant city attorney. The commissioners agreed and had stated their opinions. Mooney stated the rules were not changing; if a commissioner finds the unit marginal, then suggestions will help build a better unit as an end result. He said it did not meet standard "A". Bendon noted the applicant should be given the opportunity to continue the public hearing at this point or the commission should make a motion. Due to some issues in other meetings, the motion should be made in the positive. Garton stated that if the motion was denied; the applicant can not then ask for a continuance. Colombo requested a continuance; he said if any member would vote against because the unit may not be occupied, that was not a valid reason. Colombo asked to continue to the next meeting, next week. Haas stated there was not enough time for the legal department to review and staff to rework a memo; the next meeting was full. Bendon gave the two alternatives again. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 08, 1998 MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the public hearing for the West End Partnership, 234 West Hallam Street, for 2 ADUs to the date certain of January 5, 1999. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 5-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (continued from 10/06/98): 126 PARK AVENUE - CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ADU and RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Sara Garton, chairperson, opened the continued public hearing. Chris Bendon, staff, explained the request was for conditional use for one ADU and variances from the residential design standards. He said owner and applicant, Arja Adair, and representative, David Muckenhirn, were present. Bendon stated the lot was non- conforming with a duplex; replacement after demolition does require an exemption from GMQS. A 600 square foot ADU or two 300 square foot ADUs provides for such an exemption. He said the site was about 4900 square feet. He noted the original application requested 2 ADUs, but because of density concerns in the neighborhood; the applicant redesigned and now requested one 700 square foot ADU. Bendon noted there were variance requests for (i) windows (volume standard); © front facade or 20% of the width to be one story (one story element); ® garage placement in front (garage standard); ® scale and massing one story properties on both sides (inflection standard). He said this has been a moving target because the application has come back with different scales on different drawings. Bendon said the plans were reduced to one ADU because of the parking requirement, however the one ADU has 2 bedrooms which still requires 2 parking spaces. He stated there were still 6 spaces required and that did not fit on the property because of the scale; the parking spaces do fit stacked in front of the garages with the adjusted scale. Bendon noted there was a survey error on the property and a condition of approval for that plat to be re-filed. He stated to the applicant that the plat had to come through community development before engineering. Bendon said there was a ten foot over hang above the garage which satisfied the garage setback requirement. He said the other 3 standards were still needing variances. He said the applicant provided drawings showing how those standards could be met. Bendon stated the review criteria required to grant a variance from the design review standards: a) yie/d greater compliance with the goals' of the Aspen Area Community P/an; b) more effectively address &e issue or problem a given standard or provision responds' to; or c) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints'. He stated that he did not 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 08, 1998 find any of the criteria had been met and staff did not recommend waiving these standards. Bendon commented that he would be more comfortable with the plan that was actually being approved. Ron Erickson said there were plans that met the standards. Bendon concurred. Steve Buettow noted the improvement survey was not done by a licensed surveyor; he asked how the commission would know if the parking spaces would actually fit on the property. Bendon stated the applicant would have to provide the lot line adjustment prior to applying for a building permit. Adair said that when he bought the property 13 years ago the problem existed and they have been trying to resolve this problem with the neighbors. Muckenhim stated they expect the recommendation subject to resolving this problem. Muckenhirn stated they wanted to request an inflection variance. He said he spoke to Chris last May and did not think that two of the standards would be an issue so they thought that they were requesting only two variances, but it turned out to be four according to Chris. Muckenhim explained why the garage couldn't be placed in one the one area and then placed the garage in the area where they did with the over hang. He said they did not think the one story element would be an issue until they read the memo this Friday and now the decks don't count as a one story element. He presented several new drawings including one which complied with the inflection standard, asked for approval on a drawing that did not meet the standard. Muckenhim explained the scale was correct, but on one drawing the wrong numbers were placed so it might have been misleading; he corrected it. Bendon stated the one story element meant a porch on the first floor, an entry porch with a roof; second story decks were on the second story. The second story deck does not meet the inflection standard either. Muckenhim said he didn't know that until now and would like to ask for the inflection variance because all the other houses on the block are two story except the one to the south. He said the building to the north was a one story but because the house was on a hill it presented itself as a high building. Muckenhirn said on the other side, the building owner was planning on adding a second story, so therefore he asked for consideration on the inflection variance. He said if the commission chose not to grant the variance then one of these new drawings met the standard. Garton asked if Bendon reviewed the new glazing design. Bendon responded that it appeared to be what was discussed. Adair stated they had every intent to meet all of the requirements. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 08, 1998 Buettow stated the one story element did not look to be 20%, which would be 15 feet; he said it looked to be 11 feet 6 inches from the scale. Muckenhim replied that it was more than 12 feet; he said they did not want to ask for something they did not want, and described the second floor element that he thought would be the first floor element. Erickson asked why there were no north and south elevations. He said it would have made it much easier to see what the roof looked like. Muckenhim said he made the drawings according to the requirements at 1/8 th scale. Garton asked if the one side of the property was against a bank. Erickson stated the drawings made the property appear flat. Muckenhim explained the adjacent property stepped up and provided a topo map and photos. Erickson noted it was in the applicant's best interest to provide drawings to show the increased elevations from the street. He said there was no way to tell if the ADU, being under the garage, had anyway to get light into it. Muckenhirn said there were light wells, but there were no drawings provided. Mooney said that he was still confused about the one story element and the garage overhang, He noted there were no provisions for snow sloughing, all the snow would go down the stairway to the ADU. Muckenhirn answered the deck caught the snow and in the middle it would be mitigated with heat tape and gutters for an interior drain. Mooney stated that was a critical issue that was not indicated on the drawings. He said the drawings showed 3 roofs shedding into the stairwell. Mitch Haas stated there was too much confusion with presenting new drawings at the meeting. Adair stated the communication for the entire program offered an opportunity for improvement. He said that they desire to meet all the requirements and have relative to the volume, window, one story and now inflection. Adair said there were no variances requested. He said that Bendon's report was a surprise because they had spent time trying to resolve the issues. Adair said they have enjoyed more challenges quite frankly then they wanted. He would be pleased to meet all the requirements and the ADU will be used. He recognized the commissions desires on parking. Adair requested consideration tonight because they wanted to break ground by April 15th. Garton asked the commission if the new drawings provided and the statements made by the applicants would allow for a decision tonight understanding the plat would be resolved as well as parking. Erickson and Tygre questioned the ADU light. Adair said the letter of the code would be followed. Bendon noted UBC requirements ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 08, 1998 applied to lighting. Buettow inquired about the FAR. Muckenhim responded they were 300 feet under including the allowance for the window wells. Garton inquired about a housing memo. Bendon replied Housing did not respond. Haas cautioned basing approvals on intentions. He said one complete package of drawings would demonstrate compliance. Garton stated that she could make a decision on an ADU tonight. Muckenhirn stated that they wanted to present the commission with options. Garton said the one drawing would then be the one accepted. Buettow was concerned about the stacked parking and designated parking for the ADU. Bendon reiterated that he would be more comfortable if the commission had the drawings and plans that they were approving in front of them. Muckenhim objected because he met with Bendon last March on the status of the design standards and he said there was not going to be a one story element. He stated that just last week he found out about 4 variances when they thought that they were asking for 2. Muckenhim said he told Bendon the plan with the solution to the garages and 3 weeks later he said they found out something different. Bendon responded that 6 months ago, prior to submitting the application, council decided not to revamp the design standards at that time; he said that the applicant was aware at the time the first application was submitted. Garton stressed that she was comfortable moving forward but all the commissioners were not. Tygre stated concern for the livability of the ADU and changes going back and forth have left her confused as to what may or may not be the final plan. She said that she was sympathetic to the problems the applicant has had in the past the there had to be a clearer plan for approval. Buettow reiterated that the parking was still problematic for him. He said if there was a one bedroom ADU, then there would be one parking space required. Adair stated this design improved the current parking situation; they attempted to meet the requirements. Erickson agreed with Tygre. Semrau said he could vote tonight. Mooney stated this was a non- conforming use; increased impacts without professional drawings which caused problems for him. Garton summarized the needs stated from the commission: more elevations, how the topography around the building affects the mass and the light for the ADU; there will be no design variances requested. Adair stated that everyone needed to work with the current code. He thanked the commission for their time. No public comments. 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 08, 1998 MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to continue the public hearing for 126 Park Avenue for an ADU to the date certain of January 5, 1999. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 into a work session on Lodge Preservation Program and Minor PUD. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 11 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 08, 1998 COMMISSIONER, STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ................................................................................ 1 MINUTES ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................................................................. 3 CASTLE CREEK CONDOMINIUMS (RED HOUSE) - REZONING .............................................................. 3 WESTEND PARTNERSHIP - 234 HALLAM, CONDITIONAL USE 2 ADUS ................................................ 4 126 PARK AVENUE - CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ADU AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS7 12