Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19981215ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 Sara Garton, Chair, opened the regular Planning & Zoning meeting at 4:35 p.m. Commissioners Steve Buettow, Ron Erickson, Tim Mooney, Tim Semrau, Bob Blaich, Roger Hunt and Sara Garton were present. Jasmine Tygre was excused. City Staff in attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, Mitch Haas and Julie Ann Woods, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS Bob Blaich congratulated Mitch Haas on being appointed the interim deputy director for Community Development. Tim Semrau noted if the commissioners were not happy with the ADU portion of the land use code, why don't they change it. Sara Garton responded that council passed was when the residence received a FAR bonus for an ADU, then the ADU must be occupied. She said per the City Attorney, John Worcester, until the case from Telluride was closed, there would be no changes to the code. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, noted it was advisable to keep things the way that they are; he thought everyone was aware of the concerns and thought the case would be resolved in favor of local jurisdiction. Semrau noted that this could take a while and suggested changing the rules in the interim. Garton asked if P&Z could draft a resolution to council that no more ADUs come through P&Z until the rules have changed. Hoefer suggested a work session to discuss ADUs. Haas suggested the 1/19/99 date for the ADU work session. Erickson noted the AACP did not intend ADUs to be subterranean. Semrau agreed with that; he said let's change it. Erickson said sub-standard living conditions may have nothing to do with the code. Mooney stated the commission moved ahead with the FAR bonus but that back- fired. Hoefer distributed the land use section of the code on ADUs and the check list of criteria for review. Garton requested for a count of ADUs approved. The commission did not understand why John Worcester did not respond to what the commissioners requested from the 12/08/98 meeting minutes. Garton stated this was her last meeting; she said the last eight years have been the most enlightening and gratifying things she has ever done. She noted the next meeting will include an election of a new P&Z chairperson. Hoefer noted on behalf of staff, thank you. Blaich stated the commission owed Sara a debt of gratitude. Blaich stated there will be a party in Sara's honor after the first of the year at his home. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 MINUTES MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt the minutes from April 21, 1998. Ron Erickson second. APPROVED 7-0. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARING: 934 WEST FRANCIS, Lots 1 & 2 HOWER SUBDIVISION, AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR 2 ADUs David Hoefer, assistant city attorney, stated for the record the affidavit provided the jurisdiction requirements to proceed with the public hearing. He said the Parks Department will not accept a tree removal permit resulting in the current design not being able to be built. Hoefer said the applicant may wish to continue the public hearing in order to meet with Parks to discuss the issues. Mitch Haas, acting deputy directory, stated that he spoke to Stephen Ellsperman, city forester, less than an hour ago regarding this issue. Ellsperman told Haas there were two very large aspen trees on the eastern side of the east lot that would not be issued a tree removal permit for either of those trees, therefore the current layout would not work. Haas noted the applicant had not heard any of these new issues until now. Dale Hower, applicant, stated the ADU's will not be changed; the entire house would be moved 10 feet away from the trees drip lines. She wanted to proceed tonight. Haas noted there were the standard tree conditions and would be approved with a different site plan than what was proposed. Garton asked the commissioners if they could approve the review for the 2 ADUs below ground by adding a condition to make it very clear. Hoefer stated there would have to be a condition for a new site plan acceptable to all departments. Haas explained the when the applicant realized that the structures would have to be fire sprinkled, they redesigned the buildings so there would not be any additional FAR. Haas stated the ADUs were previously located above the garages but now were located below the garages. The re-designed buildings took away some of the gross floor area now containing 3,331 square feet on Lot 1 and 3,239 square feet on Lot 2. Haas said the ADUs were now 331 square feet with access off the alley from their parking spaces. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 Haas noted there was not room for light wells around the sides; the light to the ADUs would come in through the windows and doors in the stairwells. There was no FAR request; therefore it was no longer mandatory occupancy but the units would be deed restricted. Garton asked for housing referral comments. Haas replied they did not request any comments from housing because the units were basically the same except below grade and the conditions would remain the same for the ADUs. He said the sound attenuation condition would remain. Roger Hunt questioned where the snow shedding condition would appear. Haas replied under condition #5. Tim Mooney requested the floor plans be reviewed because the door was to the left of the window and was in a different location on the elevations map. He inquired about other egress to the ADUs because 4 feet of snow could shed from the roofs and pile up against the door down in that hole. Rich Pavcek, architect, stated there were snow cleats, snow melt on the entry and stairways and dry wells. He stated if window wells were added the entryway to the ADU; the ADUs would be smaller to compensate for the added square footage needed for the window wells. Haas noted adding a window next to the door would add light into the unit. There was discussion on how to obtain more light into the eastern unit, the trees and their life span, the prior approval regarding square footage and FAR, alternative designs for ADUs concerning light and entrances. Erickson asked if the houses could have kept the prior design with ADUs above the garages and reduce the houses by 300 square feet. Hower replied no; she said her children could live below grade in the ADU. Erickson noted it was one thing living below grade and having the rest of the house to play around in rather than just living below, subterranean, with that being the only space that you have. No public comment. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved recommend to City Council to approve the application for Amendment of the Conditional Use approval in Resolution 98-23 for two (2) ADUs at 934 West Francis (Lots 1 and 2 of the Hower Subdivision Exemption Plat) with the 11 conditions outlined in P&Z Resolution 98-39; 1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall: a. Verify with the Housing Office that the net livable floor area of each Accessory Dwelling Unit will be between 300 and 700 square feet, and the units shall be totally private, having private entrances and no rooms (i.e., mechanical rooms, etc.) that might need to be accessed by people in the principle residences; b. Verify with the Housing Office that each 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; c. Provide the Housing Office with a signed and recorded Deed Restriction, a copy of which must be obtained from the Housing Office, for each of the two ADUs; d. Clearly identify the Accessory Dwelling 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 Units (ADUs) on building permit plans as separate one-bedroom units, separated from the primary residences; e. Provide a minimum of one 8.5' x 20' on-site parking space for each ADU, and indicate these designated parking spaces on the final plans; f. Install any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above ground equipment on an easement provided by the property owner and not within the public rights-of-way; g. Locate any additional proposed construction, including trash facilities, in such a way that it does not encroach into an existing utility easement or public right-of-way; h. Agree to join any future improvement district(s) which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of-way; the agreement shall be executed and recorded concurrently upon approval of this application; i. Submit working drawings to verify all height, setback, site coverage, and floor area calculations, as well as lot size and lot area calculations; j. Complete and record a Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Agreement; k. A tap permit(s) must be completed at the office of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; payment of the total connection charges shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit; 1. If either building is found to contain 5,000 square feet or more of gross area, approval and subsequent installation of an automatic fire suppression system will be required; m. Verify that the proposed plans for the ADUs will comply with all UBC requirements including but not limited to those addressing natural light and ventilation standards, as well as sound attenuation walls both between each ADU and the principal residences and between each ADU and the garages located above them; and, n. Submit building permit drawings which indicate all utility meter locations; utility meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage. The plans must also indicate a five (5) foot wide pedestrian usable space with a five (5) foot wide buffer for snow storage, o. Provide all conditions of approval, as indicated in the approved Resolution, as notes on the building permit application plan sets. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO), the applicant shall: a. Submit as-built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprints, easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering property boundaries and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Systems Department in accordance with City GIS requirements, if and when, any exterior renovation or remodeling of the property occurs that requires a building permit; b. Permit Community Development Department, Engineering, and Housing Office staff to inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval; and c. Provide the Community Development Department with as-built drawings for keeping in the planning case file records. 3. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from: The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way; The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail disturbances; The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and, The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within the public rights-of-way. 4. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a review of any proposed minor changes from the approvals, as set forth herein, shall be made by the Planning and Engineering Departments, or referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 5. The applicant shall provide a roof overhang or other sufficient means of preventing snow from falling on both the stairway leading to the doors and the area in front of the doors to the ADUs; sufficient means of preventing icing of the stairway is also required. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, any needed tree removal permit(s) must be obtained from the Parks Department for any tree(s) that is/are to be removed or relocated (including scrub oaks of three (3) inches or greater); also, no excavation can occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur within this/these dripline(s). The applicant shall also make a good faith effort in working with the Parks Department to preserve the trees numbered as 8, 13, and 14 on the Site ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 Improvement Survey. 7. The site development must meet the runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f), and the building permit application must include a drainage mitigation plan (full size - 24" x 36") and report, both signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. 8. In the driveways that serve as access to the garages of the primary residences, only parallel parking shall be permitted, and standard headdn/out parking in these driveways is prohibited due to inadequate depth. This shall be noted on the Building Permit application plan set, and on the as-built plan sets required before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 9. All fencing located forward of the front setback lines of both lots shall be visually permeable with a height not to exceed four (4) feet from finished grade. 10. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by an entity having authority to do so. 11. Prior to building permit application, the final site plan shall be reviewed for approval by the Community Development Director; if changes to the plan are considered by the Director as being too substantial for an administrative approval, the project shall be referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission; finding the standards for conditional use have been met. Bob Blaich second. Roll call vote: Semrau, yes; Buettow, yes; Mooney, yes; Erickson, no; Blaich, yes; Hunt, yes; Garton, yes. APPROVED 6-1. ACTION ITEM: BURLINGAME SEASONAL HOUSING, CONCEPTUAL PUD Chris Bendon, staff, stated this was not a public hearing; conceptual PUD goes through P&Z and then to Council; the public hearings are at the Final PUD with P&Z and Council. He said Growth Management was part of the final. Sara Garton inquired, from the commissioner comments, who was the applicant. Bendon replied that the city was the owner of the property and have given the authority for the Music Associates and SkiCo to submit an application; Jim Curtis and Tom Baker were the representatives for MAA and SkiCo. The property had not been subdivided or conveyed; it was not a "city project". Ron Erickson asked if the approval process was a contingency of the sale. Curtis affirmed that. Bendon said conceptual was looking at the big picture. The use as proposed was seasonal housing, 203 beds in 69 units with accessory uses for MAA practice rooms. He noted in conceptual certain issues and recommendations could be addressed. Bendon provided maps of the entire 215 acre Burlingame site pointing out the Maroon Creek Club, Highway 82 bisecting the property, Zoline parcel, the joint effort for the Burlingame Village, the airport, flight protection zone and possible free market lots. The transit stops for the future train, the Maroon Creek affordable housing, access, parking and Buttermilk were shown as well. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 Bendon stated that PUD allowed review of the entire project and provided more flexibility. He said the PUD criteria was how it related to adjacent parcels. He noted there were landscape, architecture and subdivision issues to be reviewed. He said there was a gate which responded to the Marolt parking issues but there were psychological issues involved with a gate. Bendon said the lot size and zoning were not decided yet. He said the Maroon Creek Club has an obligation with CDOT to build an underground bicycle and pedestrian way and there was a light planned at Buttermilk along with improvements to Highway 82; there needed to be an interim plan. There also needed to be a safety plan and noise plan as conditions of approval. Bendon stated there were 8 conditions of approval. Ron Erickson asked how the county moratorium affected this project. It would not. Curtis said there was a discussion for the city, MAA and SkiCo to form a partnership and city council gave consent to the MAA for a conceptual subdivision PUD application with the cost and risk on the MAA. Garton noted some time constraints on the discussions tonight. Robert Harth, MAA, explained the need for the project for housing; the MAA was headed for their 50th anniversary. He said they have down-sized their institution to 150 students which allows for a better program. He said the Grand Aspen will be tom down which means the MAA looses 200 beds, by June 2000 those beds needed to be replaced. Curtis explained the 202 beds created at Burlingame were a joint project from the MAA and SkiCo, the summer would be MAA and the winter would be a mix of SkiCo, open to the general public and RFTA. He gave the distribution of employees. Curtis said the Entrance to Aspen and Buttermilk re-development would create changes. He said the MAA looked at the Meadows property for the possibility of housing; he reviewed the SPA documents which did not allow student or seasonal housing on the Meadows Campus. He also reviewed the Marolt property for the possibility of more housing; it did not allow for any additional housing on the open space and physically could not fit. Curtis said the plan changes based upon the information gathered during this conceptual stage. Garton said the amount of work done on this project was admirable but this commission has not seen the plans and needed to debate the issues. Mickey Herron, attorney for Maroon Creek Club, questioned the jurisdiction not being in the city of Aspen prior to annexation. He noted the big picture should be reviewed as a whole. Curtis explained the statute allowing for review of a project 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 prior to formal annexation because the partnership was formed to proceed with the application. Garton addressed staff comments (Exhibit A) and asked the commissioners for their comments. Ron Erickson said the city set this parcel of land aside for housing and if we accept this principal then, the project has a part where it is located. Tim Semrau said this was probably the best that could be done for this project. Roger Hunt said maybe a better place for future housing was the Moore open space. He asked where the residents would eat, shop, etc. with regards to this location (Burlingame) not being near any facilities. Tim Mooney said that Burlingame would be developed but was the epitome of sprawl down the highway. He asked for the entire development plan for the adjacent properties and the rest of the Burlingame property. He stated concern for only dealing with part of the whole instead of looking at the entire picture. Bob Blaich said from the threshold standpoint he did not have a major problem with Burlingame but he did agree with Mooney on looking at the entire Burlingame development before making a decision. He said looking at only this piece of the entire development, brought issues for clarification in order to feel comfortable with the project. Blaich said transportation was a serious issue. Steve Buettow said not looking at the big picture was not desirable. He said the berm added to the tunnel effect of driving down highway 82. Garton said she agreed with her fellow commissioners and this did change the whole feel of Aspen. She said because this was the transportation corridor, the development should happen at this spot. She felt the development belonged at Marolt because it was part of the grid of the city. Garton said the SkiCo needed to come in with their part of the whole picture. She agreed that berms were not the answer. Bendon stated the issues needed to be raised. The commission was concerned with the issues of transportation, berms, entire parcel, development across the highway, the highway, the transportation element and convenient support facilities for this area. Hoefer noted that it did have to meet the AACP. Erickson requested they set up at least another meeting for conceptual review with P&Z for a date tonight. Blaich said there were many people in the room for this meeting tonight and wanted to keep going tonight. Erickson said the density of the project had inconsistencies and the transportation issues were very important. Semrau asked about the automobile over-flow; what will happen to the extra cars? He said the crossing of highway 82 was a huge issue. He requested research on the development of the golf course, even if it was not feasible. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 Blaich said the berms, the sound attenuation from the highway and airport, the interim transit strategy was important, the number of vehicles using Stage Road, the other part of the Burlingame project, estimated bus trips for MAA & other part of Burlingame, access from highway 82, the underpass from Maroon Creek Club is very icy and dangerous now and the public safety issues of the plan needed to be addressed. Hunt reiterated the berms caused a tunnel effect and did not like them, landscape plan was of importance and flip flop the design so the parking lot was at the base of the hill. Garton stated that she was concerned about the support facilities, the entrance to Aspen (a representative to answer questions), berm and landscape plans. Buettow said the transit information and the big picture of all the parcels. Mooney stated the master plan for the whole area, impacts, traffic problems including construction, delivery, regular traffic, transit, pedestrian, bikeways, parking, access to the property, zoning proposals, curb, gutter, sidewalks, highway 82, projections for density and fees paid to the city were very important. Blaich said the safety, interior traffic patterns, on site parking, storage parking, highway crossing and transit were issues of concern. The continuation of this meeting was set for January 12, 1999 at 4:30 p.m. in City Hall. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk COMMISSIONER, STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ................................................................................ 1 MINUTES ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................................................................. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1998 934 WEST FRANCIS, LOTS 1 & 2 HOWER SUBDIVISION, AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR 2 ADUS ................................................................................................................................ 25 BURLINGAME SEASONAL HOUSING, CONCEPTUAL PUD ...................................................................... 5