Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19980721ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1998 Sara Garton, Chairperson, opened the Regular Aspen Planning and Zoning Meeting at 4:30 p.m. Commissioners Bob Blaich, Marta Chaikovska, Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney, Jasmine Tygre and Sara Garton were present. Staff in attendance were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, Chris Bendon, Stan Clauson, Mitch Haas, and Stephen Kanipe, Community Development and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS Bob Blaich informed the commission that city council approved the Snyder project review with some points being reconsidered. He said 2 council members had questions to be addressed before the second reading. Stan Clauson noted second reading was 07/27/98. Jasmine Tygre questioned the incentive for the applicant to make the changes if the approval had already been given. Chris Bendon, staff, replied that it had not been given; city council had first reading on consent with many questions raised. The second reading and public hearing will determine the decision. Story poles have been placed on the property. Blaich recommended the commissioners go up and look at the property; it's a beautiful piece of property. Roger Hunt asked if there would be another site visit; to look at the lower comers from the garages to the back units. Clauson answered that could be arranged and all the buildings were staked out. Blaich replied that the story poles, you can see the comers. Sara Garton inquired as to the August 18, 1998 meeting. Clauson said if it would be a light meeting; the commission could declare a holiday. The commission noted they have made their plans around the regular meetings. Garton asked if the planning staff could direct the public to the proper parties; much time would be saved. Clauson answered they would work on the communication, but did not think commissioners names could be withheld. David Hoefer agreed, but the phone numbers could be withheld. Garton clarified that Stan's point on communication was what she meant. Chris Bendon said if they had received a public notice, the planner's name and phone number was included. Hoefer stated that ethics would be discussed with the committee at a later date; it was important to realize that nothing be discussed with applicants or the public outside of a public meeting, as a general rule. Clauson said there was a search through the code for what had been approved or permitted on the Apex (formerly Westec) signs by Sara Thomas. She did not find ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1998 evidence of approval in the code and sent a notice to Apex informing them that the signs were not permitted. She gave them 30 days to cure the situation. He said it would be to either remove the signs or initiate a land use process to permit signs in some manner. Hunt inquired about the west end inventory list of westec and apex signs that he sent to Julie Ann Woods. Hoefer responded that they looked at signs in the right-of-way for him. The signs were moved from the right-of-way. He said the signs will have to be taken down or begin processing a code amendment. Clauson stated that Julie Ann Woods gave her notice; Community Development will be recruiting for a Deputy Director. Chris Bendon and Mitch Haas passed their American Institute Certified Planners examination. Norma Dolle, public, stated Apex put a sign up on her fence and had no idea why it was there. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST There was no conflicts of interest disclosed. MINUTES MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes from 2 June, 1998. Bob Blaich second. APPROVED 6-0. The order of the agenda was changed due to applicants not present at the time. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT - WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE FACILITIES and EQUIPMENT Mitch Haas, Staff, said copies of the proposed amendment were sent to representatives from the industry and he received comments from them. He incorporated those changes into the proposed amendment. There were more revisions, basically taking out what was regulated elsewhere in the code; placing everything in one section. Haas said if an applicant did not agree with community development decision, then the applicant could appeal to P&Z. If in the downtown core or in a historic structure or district, the decision would not be administrative but would go before HPC and Council. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1998 David Hoefer stated this was a preventive type of legislation, for control by the city. He noted this was a major problem on the front range; the reason behind this ordinance. He said Mitch has done a good job, especially since it was so technical. Haas commented that it was also important for the county to do an amendment like this one. Sara Garton asked if the leases with private parties were reviewed by staff. Haas replied not the lease but the design and set-up. Hoefer said it would apply to zoning in particular. Haas said that each company (provider) has land use planners on staff to deal with local government regulations. Hunt asked if CDOT's weather station at Cemetery Lane would come under this amendment. Haas replied that it would not because it was CDOT and the state right-of-way. Clauson said it was specifically exempt from the code under essential public facilities and worked with them for obtaining a good traffic count. MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to recommend to Council the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Aspen Land Use Code concerning the Wireless Telecommunications Service Facilities and Equipment, as described in the staff memorandum dated July 21, 1998. Roger Hunt second. APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 727 BAY STREET - ELDEN CONDITIONAL USE FOR ADU Chairwoman Sara Garton requested proof of notice from the applicant. David Hoefer stated for the record, the notice was adequate; the board had jurisdiction to proceed. Chris Bendon stated that this was a conditional use review for an ADU in an existing space above a garage. The ADU would be 815 square feet which was a little larger than the prescribed standard for an ADU. The applicant was not requesting a FAR bonus or any other development on the property. He said the plans submitted did not show a kitchen or bathroom; the conditions reflect that request. Parks requested the lights be re-directed away from the river. Hoefer provided an action sheet with the applicable standards for conditional use. Glenn Horn, planner for applicant, stated that there would not be any new exterior construction. Garton asked why the owner came forward at this time. Horn answered that they just purchased the duplex after renting it for many years. They may apply to re-develop the duplex into a single family home in the future. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1998 The conditions were discussed and amended as reflected in the motion. Garton requested staff and engineering get together to discuss some of the conditions which do not apply; Tygre concurred. Mooney inquired about the hours of construction. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to approve the Condition Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit at the Elden Residence, 727 Bay Street, finding the standards have been met with the following conditions: 1. The Commission varies the ADU dimensional requirements to allow this larger unit of approximately 815 square feet. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the building plans shall reflect: A. that the proposed ADU is labeled as such and meets the definition of an Accessory Dwelling Unit. B. that the 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) and a bathroom (having a minimum of a shower, sink, and a toilet). C. that there is a signed and recorded ADU deed restriction on the property, a form for which may be obtained from the Housing Office. The deed restriction shall be noted on the building permit plans. D. that the ADU has the minimum one (1) off-street parking space provided. The ADU space must have clear access and cannot be stacked with a space for the primary residence. E. that the ADU meets all applicable UBC requirements for light and air. 3. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the building permit plans shall identify a 5 ft wide pedestrian space along Bay Street, the applicant shall execute a curb, gutter, and sidewalk agreement, and the applicant shall execute an agreement to join any future improvement districts for the purpose of constructing improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula. 4. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall gain approval from the City Water Department for any additional service improvements required. 5. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Housing Office and/or the Zoning Officer shall inspect the accessory dwelling unit for compliance with all appropriate standards in Section 26.40.090 of the Code and any conditions of approval. 6. Both the ADU and the principal residence shall be able to function as separate living units. Each shall have an entrance and access to individual mechanical equipment for the respective unit. 7. All outside lighting shall be downcast and not used to accentuate architectural or landscape elements of the property. The existing outdoor lights on the river-side of the duplex shall either be removed or re-directed away from the river. The owner shall not plant any non-native vegetation along the stream. 8. A tree removal permit from the City Parks Department shall be required for the removal or relocation of trees as per Section 13.20.020 of the Code. 9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall complete a tap permit and shall pay all connection charges due to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. The applicant shall connect the ADU to the sanitary sewer in a manner acceptable to the ACSD superintendent. 10. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain a permit from the Environmental Health Department for any certified woodstoves or gas log fireplaces (new coal- & woodburning fireplaces are not allowed). 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. 14. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1998 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. 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. Jasmine Tygre second. APPROVED 6-0. The agenda items were adjusted as reflected. PUBLIC HEARING: 123 EAST HYMAN -DUPLEX CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW - 2 ADUs Mitch Haas, staff, provided proof of notice to the Assistant City Attorney, David Hoefer. After review of the notice, Hoefer gave the commission jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing. He distributed the Action sheet for review standards. Haas said the lot was currently vacant and the request was for 2 ADUs; one for each side of the duplex that would be built. The ADUs would provide the GMQS exemption, but there was no FAR bonus requested. The applicant would understand the deed restriction with the housing office and be limited to RO; if left vacant the units would not be filled by the housing office. Haas said the ADUs would each be about 460 square feet with their own kitchen; off street parking would be in the driveways off the alley. There were existing non-conformities; the code allows existing non-conformities to remain with replacement of a tom down building within 12 months. The non-conformities were the open space and setbacks. Neighbors requested the ADUs do not receive guest parking permits for on-street parking; not to add to the parking problems in that neighborhood. Haas stated there were variance requests for the volume standard on all of the front elevations and east elevation of unit "B". The site plan indicated the alley window violated the volume standard. Garton asked Alice Davis, planner for applicant, to explain the variance requests. Davis replied that they met the standards of the conditional use. She said that she understood the neighbors concerns with parking problems but if the units were rented, they should have parking permits. Garton asked if the parking permits would be issued even if the ADUs were not rented. Hoefer commented that as a practical matter, it would be difficult not to issue the permits or be enforceable as a condition. Garton stated it was just another impact on the community. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1998 Ron Kanan, applicant, said the volume variance was really a window height problem. He said this was facing the alley and did not see what would be accomplished by filling in the gable with siding rather than glass. Kanan said the house across the street already had a height restriction on them; which puts the building pretty low. He said this discourages dormers which break up the mass and scale. Davis said the height constraint would make it a site constraint. Bob Blaich said this was an example of where the original intent doesn't work, street facing with giant facades and monster homes. He said there were two sides here, and by approving this, others will want the same approval. Blaich said you have to be very clear on site specific but was in favor of this. Tim Mooney said the southern windows were not bad in relation to where the property was located in town. He said the big triangular windows that are lit up at night are the biggest problems. He asked if the alley went down into the garage. Kanan replied that the drive way went down less than a 12% grade. Mooney said the ADUs are below the garage, that makes them a story and a half below grade. He asked if there was a way to get light to the ADUs. Kanan replied that since they were in the courtyard, there was some light through the doors. Mooney said there was only one outside egress and the ADUs were marginal as livable units. Haas noted UBC standards would be met. Stephen Kanipe, building department, said the floor plan shows the unit as a studio; the egress meets the minimum requirements for a studio. He said the 10% light requirement was calculated by the side light to livable space. Kanan stated that he was anxious to get approval because he couldn't get a building permit until this was complied with. He asked if he could re-design and come back. Garton explained that the commission would rule on the entire project. Jasmine Tygre questioned the FAR and questioned obtaining a GMQS exemption for non- habitable ADUs. Haas replied that only the exposed square footage of the ADUs counted toward the FAR. Tygre questioned anyone ever being able to live in the units and felt these were not what the commission wanted from an ADU. She agreed with reviewing a new design. Marta Chaikovska asked if it was redesigned to allow more light, could the applicant just go back to staff for approval of that design. Haas answered that the ADUs were not optioned by cash-in-lieu; based upon standards of rental. Haas noted that the units would be sold, then the ADUs may not be rented. Garton did not want a condition for a sign off adding 20% light; she wanted to see the re- 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1998 design. She noted the entrance from the house was questionable. Davis said that the doors were being re-worked; the applicant wanted to get approval to begin the building permit process. Kahan said he was just playing by the rules the best he knew how. Garton reminded him that this was a conditional use, if it met the code it would have been a sign-off at staff level. Kahan said he can't control if the ADUs will be rented. Blaich agreed with the light and ventilation concerns. Hoefer stated that the criteria must be met; clearly some of that criteria was not met. Hunt said he was skeptical about the plans, and would like to see a re-design. Norma Dolle, public, said she was affected by this because it was next to the Snow Queen Lodge. She asked how many bedrooms each side of the duplex would have. Davis responded 3 bedrooms each plus 2 studio ADUs. Dolle noted many parking problems with the Mouse House and the new duplexes in the narrow alley. She asked about the beautiful trees. Kanan answered they would be relocated off the property. Dolle inquired about lights to get into the garage and the density of 4 units on that property. Garton said lights would have to fit the residential lighting requirements. Davis stated this was a multi-family zone district; the project could have been larger. The applicant, staff and commission began re-designing the ADUs. Hoefer noted this was not a worksession. Garton stated that the building department and community development needed to review first. Haas noted the dimensions may change the FAR. Chaikovska wanted to go forward. MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to continue the public hearing to August 4, 1998 on 123 East Hyman, duplex conditional use review for 2 ADUs to re-design. Tim Mooney second. APPROVED 5-1. (Chaikovska, no). MOTION: Tim Mooney moved to waive the volume, primary mass and inflection from the Residential Design Standards from the Community Development memo dated July 21, 1998. Bob Blaich second. ALL IN FAVOR. 5-0. (Tygre out of room). PUBLIC HEARING: 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1998 940 EAST HYMAN - SIMPSON CONDITIONAL USE FOR ADU and RESIDENTIAL DESIGN WAVIER Chris Bendon, Staff, provided notice but needed to supply the list noticed. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated the list needed to be received in the City Clerk's Office by 5:00 p.m. Wednesday. (This list was received by the Deputy City Clerk.) Bendon stated the existing house was on a 3,000 s.f. lot. The owner applied for a conditional use for an ADU and design waivers for volume, primary mass and inflection standards. Bendon said the volume standard referred to the window standards; between 9 and 12 feet above the floor for which there was a FAR penalty. The primary mass referred to how much the structure was broken up; different components for which there also was a FAR penalty. The reflection standard dealt with how the structure related to the adjacent 1 story structures. Bendon said the 360 s.f. ADU was located below the garage; accessed offthe alley with no parking space provided. The ADU has it's own entrance. The parking standards require 1 parking space per ADU but allow the applicant to seek a waiver of that space through the conditional use process. Staff did not recommend that the parking or residential design standards be waived. Bendon stated the conditions of approval reflect meeting those design standards and providing the parking requirement. The conditions also reflect providing a sidewalk. Bendon stated many people were concerned about the noise; the construction hours 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. would apply because of the location. The construction site requirements also apply to the contractor for fencing and parking on site. Chairperson Sara Garton asked Bendon to address the Hubbard's letter regarding the easement. Bendon stated the property next door, a small Victorian, with a shared easement with the fence on the property line. There were certain requirements for the fence maintenance, and that the fence not be moved. Bendon said this was a private covenant; the city doesn't have jurisdiction to enforce. He noted there was no physical way the fence could remain in the present condition during construction. Bendon stated the fence coincided with the setback. Jasmine Tygre inquired if the ADU was for mitigation or voluntary. Bendon replied it was for a GMQS exemption which was prompted by the demolition of the existing unit. Tygre stated that with ADUs, it was important for the commission to know if they were voluntary or for mitigation, because it affects the decision making 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1998 process. Garton requested that staff include that information in future ADU review memos. Bendon said there was a condition for the ADU to function separately with it's own mechanical room. Bendon explained the volume standard addressed windows between 9' to 12' which results in an FAR penalty. The applicant does have windows that were above the 9' plate height in all four elevations. The three conditions used to allow the residential design standards are: (3 finding that it was in greater compliance with the AACP © a more effective method of addressing the standard in question ® clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to site specific constraints. These windows were transom windows not addressing any of the standards. Bob Blaich requested the windows in question be marked on the bluelines. Bendon explained the primary mass standard was to encourage breaking up the mass. The new code asked for 10% of the FAR in a separate structure. Bendon stated the intent of the inflection standard encouraged the portion of the property adjacent to a one story structure; the requirement was to "step-down" or be reflected in your development. This was so adjacent properties were not over- shadowed or buried by new development. Bendon said the parking requirement for the ADU was one space unless waived by the P&Z; stacking a parking spot does not meet the standard. Ryan Hoffner, representative for applicant, introduced Sunni Simpson, applicant. He said section 26.32.020 of the code does not have a requirement for stacked parking regarding unobstructed access to the alley. They requested Stan Clauson reply by letter regarding the interpretation for additional ADU parking. He said the existing house has no parking; the proposal included 2 more spaces off street. Hoffner and Bendon discussed the mass with regards to rooflines and windows. Hoffner stated the lot being as narrow at 20' and the windows broke up the wall plane of the mass with high light at 12', therefore more appropriately addressed the standard. He said that the 12' deep front porch element was across the facade addressed the street pedestrian level rather than the side of the existing house. Hoffner said the trees between the lots would cover any one story element; unfairness due to site constraints would apply because the 12' setback of one story element, leaving the space unusable. 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1998 Garton asked about the sidewalk requirement regarding a rolled curb with the trees. Bendon replied the trees were more important than the sidewalk. Hoefer stated that the recommendation should be that he trees be preserved. Public comments: Stephen Kanipe, 1015 East Hyman, spoke as a neighbor of this project. He said that he lived in a deed restricted unit without off-street parking; he felt this was a hardship, especially in the peak seasons. Kanipe noted the impracticality of stacked parking. He said that due to the mass of the building, on site containment was not practical. There would have to be a right-of-way permit processed even for a construction trailer there. Kanipe opposed the window variances on the Hyman Street side (south elevation) and Victorian House side (west elevation). He noted the reconstruction in the last few years has relocated trees of similar size in this neighborhood and he encouraged the requirement of the sidewalk. Mike Hoffman, attorney for the Hubbards, 920 East Hyman, submitted three photographs as exhibits into the record. He said the Hubbards residence was on the historic inventory but not landmark. He said Mr. & Mrs. Hubbards object to the plan and waivers to the guidelines. Hoffman stated the applicants proposal was a monster house for this lot and does not fit into the scale of the neighborhood. It will make the Hubbard home seem to be in a tunnel; reducing the open feel of the property. Hoffman said they opposed the ADU application as submitted for lack of adequate parking and the negative impact on the fence and easement. He said the proposal was within 4 square feet of the maximum FAR allowed without the penalty for the design variance requested. He said the inflection standard was intended to protect homes like the Hubbards from monster homes. Hoffman stated the plans would not leave enough room for emergency personnel; given the window wells and door to the ADU. He agreed with the Aspen East Homeowners Association that the plan was impractical. He noted that in 1995 the Hubbards negotiated the easement with the owners binding all successors to the 5' wide easement with a wooden fence. He said the plans show the proposal was within inches of the easement and snowfall would be directed form the proposed building to the easement. He concluded that the technical terms that just mean the house was too big for the lot and neighborhood. He urged the commission to adopt the staff recommendation. Garton commented the commissioners had two parts for consideration: ~ conditional use for an ADU with the waiver of off-street parking and © design waivers requested. 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1998 Sunni Simpson said after living in that house for a year with two other people; they have never had a problem parking on the street even through busy seasons. Blaich stated the proposed parking was not practical; another solution needed to be addressed without waiving the parking for the ADU. Tygre agreed with Blaich on the parking. Hunt also agreed, and was confused about residences with ADUs considered duplexes. Chaikovska concurred. Mooney also agreed that the plan was not adequate because an emergency extraction for the ADU would not work with the parking proposal. Garton also agreed that the commission would deny the ADU based upon inadequate parking. She said they would not serve the community by parking on the street in a very crowded neighborhood. Blaich said the window was not a problem with the neighborhood. He stated the overall design of the house was massive. He had concerns about snow falling from the roof onto the next door house and viewed that as a safety problem. Tygre agreed the windows were not the main problem; the primary mass and inflection standards were not met by this design. She said the design ignored the size of the lot and felt it was an unattractive design. Garton supported the other commissioners view. She noted there were site constraints therefore that building should have reflected respect for that site. Hunt agreed the windows were not a problem and practical for natural ventilation. He said the basic bulk of the house was too big and the easement should be honored by this proposal. Chaikovska concurred with all of the comments. Mooney agreed and could not support any variances on this project. He said to keep the FAR in scale with the neighborhood. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to deny the conditional use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit at the Simpson Residence, 940 East Hyman, because the applicant cannot demonstrate adequate parking for the use and moved to deny the request to vary the Residential Design Standards for the project because it doesn't meet the standards. Roger Hunt second. MOTION TO DENY APPROVED 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 11 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1998 COMMISSIONER AND STAFF COMMENTS ................................................................................................. 1 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................................................................. 2 MINUTES ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 CODE AMENDMENT - WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 727 BAY STREET - ELDEN CONDITIONAL USE FOR ADU ........................................................................ 3 123 EAST HYMAN -DUPLEX CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW - 2 ADUS ...................................................... 5 940 EAST HYMAN - SIMPSON CONDITIONAL USE FOR ADU & RESIDENTIAL DESIGN WAVIER.. 8 12