Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19991214ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 1999 Bob Blaich opened the special meeting at 4:30 p.m. held in Plaza I with Roger Hunt, Steven Buettow, Tim Mooney and Ron Erickson. Roger Haneman arrived at 4:45. Jasmine Tygre was excused. Staff present: Amy Guthrie, Chris Bendon, Sarah Oates and Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; John Krueger, Parks; Nick Adeh, City Engineer; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None declared. MINUTES MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of 16 November 1999 and 7 December 1999. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 518 WEST FRANCIS, HEWITT - 3 VARIANCES OF THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Bob Blaich opened the public hearing and requested proof of notice; notice was provided. Amy Guthrie stated that this was a 6,000 square foot lot with 2 non- conforming buildings slated for demolition and re-development. She said that there would be 2 new single family houses built. Guthrie stated that the houses were proposed with the secondary mass and met the intent of the guidelines. She said that in the guidelines it was stated that all entryways face the street. Guthrie explained that the secondary unit did not face the principal street. Guthrie said that the request for a variance from the window standard was not needed. She stated that there were 3 variances requested ~) Build-to lines; © Secondary Mass; ® Building Elements. Roger Hunt asked about a walkway from the unit to Francis Street. Stan Mathis, representative for the applicant, Chris Hewitt, said there would be some sort of walkway to the street. Blaich asked if the walkway paralleled the property line to the street. Hewitt responded that was correct. Ron Erickson asked if 3,240 square feet was the total square footage of both units. Mathis replied that it was. Blaich asked if this was a spec house. Hewitt replied that it was but he may keep one of the units for himself. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 1999 Mathis stated that the structure that was currently there took up about 3100 square feet of the property. Blaich said that the garages would be an improvement for the parking problem in that neighborhood. No public comments. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve Resolution #99-42 for the variances from the residential design standards for 2 residences to be located at 518 West Francis: (D Build-to lines; ® Secondary Mass; ® Building Elements but not the windows variance, finding that the criteria have been met with all representations from this hearing. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 6-0. Blaich commented that the current structure housed a lot of people and hoped that they would be given plenty of notice for relocation. Hewitt said the demolition would be the 1st of April and everyone will be noticed. Blaich noted that there were several houses in the neighborhood that were under construction and parking was a problem with 15 - 20 trucks and cars at any one location. He mentioned that the Meadows parking lot was only a few blocks away and maybe some arrangements could be made. PUBLIC HEARING: ALPINE COTTAGES Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. Sarah Oates, staff, introduced Tim Semrau, the applicant and provided the notice. Oates stated that the lot was 5,192 square feet located behind the newly completed Alpine Cottages Affordable Housing. She said that the house was to be 2,653 square feet, which was within the FAR of 3,000. She stated that there was to be a secondary mass comprised of 10% of the above grade square footage. Oates stated that there was a designated building envelope, the memo was in error. Oates said that since the proposed house was a single mass, staff did not feel that the plans met the 3 criteria. Semrau agreed with the theory of the new design guidelines on secondary masses especially in the West End with long thin lots and alleys. He said he did not think that this ordinance was designed for this lot in the East End. He summarized that the building envelope was only 1,800 square feet; when the PUD was done there was a trail easement to get to Snyder Park and a 10 foot utility easement on the other side for the affordable units. He said the free market lots were as small as possible and still allowing it to work. Semrau stated 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 1999 that between the time of getting the project approved and submitting for permit, the new design guidelines came out that required secondary masses. If those guidelines had been in effect when the designs were done, they would have made the house bigger to encompass the secondary mass. Semrau stated his request was on that basis, keeping in mind the goals of the design guidelines was to keep new homes in scale with the historical neighborhood. He said that the house was smaller than most in the neighborhood. Semrau said that this house did keep with the promotion of affordable housing and this house helped create 28 housing bedrooms. He stated the house did preserve the solar access from the site and mass of the house. Semrau stated that the design did fulfill 2 of the 3 criteria. He noted the site- specific constraints, a tiny triangular building envelope platted to help Snyder to make it all work. He said there was no alternate access or alley to the property. Blaich noted that the trail was already in use. He asked if the copper roof was going to be bright and shiny. Semrau responded that a house he recently completed had a pre-patina copper roof, which was a dull brown. Roger Haneman asked why the garage was placed on that side. Semrau replied that the land rises and he wanted to hide the garage because it was also part of the design code to have the garage setback from the street. No public comments. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt Resolution #99-43 approving the residential design standards variance for secondary mass for Alpine Cottages PUD, Lot D, 115 Robinson Road, Aspen, with the modification as noted with a variance. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 6-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (11/02/99): WILLIAMS RANCH SUBSTANTIAL PUD AMENDMENT Bob Blaich opened the continued public hearing. Chris Bendon stated that there was no applicant tonight. A letter from the attorney, Chuck Brandt was distributed. The city's legal staff advised that the public hearing could be continued and that the applicant was not required to be in attendance. Bendon noted that P&Z requested a member of the Parks Department be present and that the applicant would meet with Centennial on the trail prior to this meeting. He said that the trail in question was the horizontal trail along the bottom of the 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 1999 development, to find an easement location and an agreement with the Centennial Homeowners Association. Bendon said that the applicant met with Centennial originally but did not meet again since that last meeting; there were some ill feelings between Centennial and Williams Ranch Joint Venture. The Resolution proposed obligations to construct these trails not be required now, but the easements remain in place giving the city the ability to develop the trails in the future. Ron Erickson asked if the commission followed the staff recommendation of not placing the trails at this time and just holding the easement, what happens in 5 years when the city decides to put the trail in place. Who pays for it? Erickson noted that it was the developer's responsibility to build the trail in the first place; the developer must be held responsible for what was in that agreement. Steven Buettow inquired about the trail going all the way across the property, from the vertical trail through the park parcel. John Krueger, Parks, stated that he was not with the Parks Department when this all took place but it was his understanding that the trails were to connect Mollie Gibson Park, Smuggler area on over to the Lani White to the Hunter Creek area. He said this was part of the missing link for the trail system in town; this link was to built by the developer, all the way across. He said there was every intention to hook-up with Lani White from this trail. Krueger said there was a lot of retaining wall built in the area of the most difficult section of the trail to be constructed. The developer granted the easement through the annexation agreement and should be required to construct the trail. There was some question of encroachment onto the easement with a rock wall on the easterly side from the vertical trail towards Smuggler. Erickson asked for clarification of the property line for Williams Ranch and Centennial with a ditch. Krueger illustrated the property line on a map, noting that there was a catch-type ditch on Centennial property. Bendon noted the easement was platted on the steep section and right below it was where it benched (where people actually walk now) and that was actually Centennial property. Erickson stated that if the developer put the rock retaining walls up when the houses went in, then the developer created the problem when he created the back-fill in the easement. Erickson asked the approximate expense of building a trail through there now with the boulder walls. Krueger replied that an engineer would be needed for the technical solution aspects to that area; pulling out the bottom row of rocks would not be the solution. Roger Hunt stated there was an informal trail between the vertical trail going south along the Centennial Trail, which tied into Mollie Gibson; the important part would 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 1999 be the link to the Lani White Trail. Krueger stated that the developer had placed bits and pieces of that portion of the trail in. Bendon noted that there was a somewhat technical solution by Lots 34/33 for the connection to the parking area of maybe a 5-foot to 8-foot drop, which could have steps. Blaich asked if the trail was strictly foot or also bike. Krueger thought it was more a pedestrian trail but was not sure what the easement read. Blaich asked if there were other gaps in the trail system or if this was the only missing link. Krueger responded that this portion was important because this was for the connection to Mollie Gibson Park or Smuggler Road and Lani White. He noted that the Centennial informal trail was not on an easement. Tim Mooney said that the natural link was the Centennial Parking Lot informal trail for the easiest route to the bus or as a hiking loop. Mooney said that the developer made these representations and allocated the resources in the original plan and that was the essence of the original approval. He said that that the developer should be responsible to allocate those resources to the Homeowners to use for these purposes. Bendon stated that the developer put funds into escrow to ensure the streets and such were built to city standards. He said the resolution has been posed to allow the city the ability to build the trail at another time, retaining the easement. The expenditure of funds was a city council issue and P&Z needed to decide what trails were the most important. The commission posed questions regarding escrow funds to cover the construction costs of the trails; the developer's responsibility; the homeowners association; Erickson stated there were 2 separate items; the promise for the benefit of the community, the trail, and the second was the internal promises to the homeowners for sidewalks, ditch feature and vertical trail. Erickson said that property rights were involved with informal trails, which were a form of trespass. He said that it wasn't fair to Centennial to have to allow people to use their property; they weren't required to grant an easement for a trail but the Williams Ranch developer was required to build the trails. He said there was a legal right. Fred Soyka, Centennial board, stated that there were some inconsistencies in the memo regarding Centennial and the Williams Ranch developer. He said that Centennial asked the developer to pay the $6,000.00 for the damage to the Centennial parking lot and replace the parking space that they destroyed; after that was done, then they would consider it. Soyka said that the developer sent a check for about a third of the damages and said that was all that they would pay. He said 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 1999 that Centennial thought that they had an agreement with Tom Stevens. He noted the Centennial Board was considering using the informal trail area for storage of vehicles. Soyka stated that Mr. Brandt did not contact Centennial since that last meeting with P&Z. He stated that the owner of the last lot, adjacent to the fire access has planted about 20 or more 15-20 foot pine trees at the edge of his property and left access directly over the old ditch. He stated that the Williams Ranch homeowners have taken their own time and money to fix up the open space parcel but there wasn't any water there; he suggested that the developer allocate $30,000.00 to $50,000.00 to replant sage and other native plants. Soyka said there were real issues with both ends of the trails. Krueger stated that they met with the owner of Lot 1 regarding the emergency access and they haven't reached any agreements yet. He said if the trees were on city property, they would have to be moved; the trees roots were still in the burlap bags. The Salvation Ditch Company expressed that there would not be a trail on top of the ditch; the emergency access would be the best trail link. Chet Tomaczak, Williams Ranch, stated that the Williams Ranch Homeowners wanted to protect the emergency access easement and not have it as someone's front yard. He said that they wanted to be good neighbors with Centennial. Erickson stated that there must have been some reason that the original PUD asked for this trail easement. He said that if the trail was not put in place now, the citizens of Aspen would have to pay for it in the future and not the developer who agreed to pay for it in the first place. He said that was a condition of approval and the commission asked the developer to come back with alternative solutions to this and not just talking to Centennial but maybe on some other part of the property. He said the reason that for the review of this case was because of money. He said that it would be expensive to put this trail in because of the way the developer constructed this property and the placement of the houses. Erickson said the funds that were to be allocated for the sidewalks, vertical trail and ditch feature should go to the homeowners. He did not want to include the trail as part of that agreement and stated that the developer was responsible for that trail, the city could put it in and then the developer could pay the city to do it. Hunt agreed with Ron that the internal items should be paid for by the developer or the money given to the homeowners. He said that the developer constructed the site in such a way that it aggravated putting the trail in; he said that the trail was agreed upon and should be held responsible for it. Mooney agreed with Ron and Roger Hunt. Erickson asked if the amount of money in escrow was enough to do the trail. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 1999 Roger Haneman stated that he did not want the developer to just walk away, but was not that concerned about the vertical trail being built because it went through people's backyards. Haneman said that the money could possibly go to a trail someplace else. Erickson said that the money held in escrow by the city from the developer could be used to develop a trail someplace else that worked; he questioned the amount of money being held in escrow as adequate. Blaich stated the issues of public access and the private situation have to be kept separate. He favored maintaining that public access and coming to a resolution on that. Bendon stated that he split the trail segments in the resolution. Mooney said that the conditions should hold the developer responsible for the costs of building the trails, even if it costs more than the escrow amount. Bendon asked if adding ... and additional funds to complete the improvements as described herein.., to condition #6 was what the commission wanted. The commissioners agreed and felt it was important. They wanted the language strong to make the developer responsible for the prior agreement to build the trails; this was in the public interest. Mooney asked that counsel craft language requiring the developer into compliance. Mooney said the homeowners should have the money that the developer would have spent on sidewalks. Bendon stated that the legal staff was a part of the language in this resolution. Bendon asked the commission to look at the planning issues; what trails were necessary from a public standpoint? He stated that he wanted to go to Council with the P&Z recommendations on the trails. The commissioners agreed that all of the trails were important; a contiguous trail was necessary. Bendon said that from the northern end of the open space parcel through the southern end of the subdivision was the description. Erickson said that was the condition that he wanted to see with a completion date of July 1, 2000. Bendon said that conditions 3 & 4 would be combined into one so that the entire horizontal trail is developed. Blaich asked to add a condition that said if the developer did work in the right-of- way, then the developer would be responsible for making it right. Bendon reviewed the other amendments with the commissioners. He said the "ditch feature" was not to be developed because there was no water available. He said the sidewalk requirement on the internal loop should be deleted because the homeowners did not want sidewalks. The soil erosion control on the Smuggler Mine property was an unenforceable requirement because it was not in the city's jurisdiction and also not required because Smuggler was not developing any roads. Bendon stated the emergency access condition would return that access to a 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 1999 working usable condition; the fire department would drive trucks over it to determine the condition of that access. Lisa Markalunas, Lot 34 Williams Ranch, said that she was on the board. She noted that her lot adjoins the proposed trail. She stated that they would be pleased to have those funds to help with some manner of landscaping, open space or trail improvements. The commissioners stressed that no funds would be returned to the developer. Any surplus funds would be directed to the homeowners. Erickson requested that "the conditions be deemed met" be stricken because the conditions were not met, the conditions were waived. The commissioners wanted to review the resolution prior to adopting #99-27. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve a resolution along the lines of APPROVED 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. into a discussion on the final draft of the Aspen Mountain Drainage Master Plan. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 1999 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .......................................................................................... 1 MINUTES ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 518 WEST FRANCIS, HEWITT - 3 VARIANCES OF THE RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS .......... 1 ALPINE COTTAGES .......................................................................................................................................... 2 WILLIAMS RANCH SUBSTANTIAL PUD AMENDMENT ............................................................................ 3 9