Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20001003ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 03, 2000 Tim Mooney, Acting-Chairperson opened the regular Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting at 4:30 p.m. with Ron Erickson, Steven Buettow, Roger Haneman and Eric Cohen present. City staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Nick Lelack, Fred Jarman and Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk and Kathryn Koch, City Clerk. COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS Ron Erickson inquired about a resolution for Roger Hunt's years of service on the City of Aspen's Planning & Zoning Commission. Joyce Ohlson replied that she would draft something for the commissioners' approval. Eric Cohen was chosen by City Council to replace Roger Hunt's vacant commissioner seat. Cohen was introduced to the members and staff. Chris Bendon provided the updated meeting schedule. Bendon stated the remote parking study received 2 proposals and City Council will choose the consultant. The consultant will produce a study by the beginning of the year. Bendon distributed copies of the City Council Lodge Preservation update to the commissioners. He noted current and pending projects listed. Ohlson stated that City Council granted eligibility status to the Burlingame Ranch Project to come under the COWOP Review. She said that Council requested that 2 official designees be from the Planning Commission, Tim Mooney and Steven Buettow volunteered as the P&Z representatives on Budingarne. Ohlson said that the Puppy Smith Project was also under COWAP with Roger Haneman and Jasmine Tygre (if Charlie Vresilovic did not volunteer) as P&Z representatives. She noted that all P&Z members may attend any of the task force meetings. Tim Mooney asked Joyce Ohlson if City Council had made a decision on his reappointment. Ohlson replied that she had not heard anything to date. MINUTES MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to adopt the minuets of May 04, 1999, June 13th, July 14th and September 19th of 2000. Roger Haneman second. APPROVED 4-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 03. 2000 CONTINUED PUBLIC H~ARING 09/05/2000: VARIOUS MINOR LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS Tim Mooney opened the public hearing. Chris Bendon stated that this public hearing was continued from September 5; 2000 at which time the notice was presented. David Hoefer distributed the criteria sheet for the commissioners' review. Bendon noted that there were some substantive issues, which may need more discussion time than what was allowed tonight. Mooney said that there were a number of issues that would take time and require a continued public hearing. Bendon replied that there was one section that dealt with the housing replacement ordinance which was time sensitive. He noted the Telluride Courts decision affected the City of Aspen's ability to control rents on deed restricted units, Section 22 of the code. He said the language removed all reference to rental projects; the option would be "for sale" units in the housing guidelines. Ron Erickson asked if all reference to affordable housing was now in the housing guidelines. Bendon replied that was correct; the replacement housing remained in the code for developers but referred to the housing guidelines for the policy. He said that section would be parmered with Section 24, which stated P&Z's action Would create a pending Ordinance. Gideon Kaufman, public, stated that they have been trying to get the one item (Section 1 - Hotel definition) on the table since July and the hearings have been continued and not gone forward. Bendon stated that Gideon raised issue with the hotel definition because of the condominium hotel unit owner's ability of being able to stay in their unit since the definition read short-term rental only. Bendon suggested new language for condominium owners to have a larger discussion with lodges and hotels. Kaufman stated that realistically lodge or condominium owners would not buy a unit that they would not be able to stay in; this needed to come forward. Kaufman stated the interpretation was in question on a lodge that was under condominization questioned availability of unit owners being able to occupy their units. Kaufman stated that L'Auberge went through a well-received process with Planning & Zoning and HPC for a code amendment to allow a lodge in the office zone as a conditional use. Kaufman noted that one of the issues was condominization because the San District had some problems with the responsibility commitments for the replacement of existing water and sewer lines. He said that one of the conditions of approval was that these issues were dealt with when condominization took place. Kaufman noted that L'Auberge also did not fit the definition of hotel unit because these were single units with kitchens. He said that condominization with the 6-month rental for small lodge should apply to 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 03. 2000 L'Auberge. Kaufman stated that with the uncertainty of the definition of hotel and owner occupancy created a major marketing difficulty. Mooney stated that this discussion needed to be discussed in depth further. David Hoefer suggested continuing the discussion to October 17th. Bendon said that time-share and fractional ownership would also be discussed. Bendon said that Section23 dealt with the Growth Management process to allow residential credits to be converted. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to recommend that the Aspen City Council amend the Land Use Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 24 of the Municipal Code as stated in P&Z Resolution 00-42., Roger Itaneman second. APPROVED 5-0. David Hoefer stated that the hearing for the Code Amendment to Sections 1, 2, 10 and 21 would be continued to October 17th. PUBLIC HEARING: 309 NORTH THIRD STREET - DRAC and BOA VARIANCES David Hoefer stated the criteria sheet was unusual because the Board of Adjustment variance required 4 of the 5 members' approval and the DRAC variance required only 3 out of 5 approving votes for passage. Hoefer stated that for the record the affidavit for proof of notice was provided. Sarah Oates noted the site plan was helpful and 3 variances were requested. Oates said that one was from the Secondary Mass Standard in the Residential Design Review standards and the other 2 were setback variances. Staff recommended approval of ail 3 variances. Oates noted that this was a 3,000 square lot in the West End. Earl Anderson, representative for the applicant Mel and Marilyn Gallant, provided a photo board of the property with adjacent properties. Anderson said that creating the 10% secondary mass on the square lot was not doable and the lot was adjacent to the alley with the parking in the rear. He said that there were many trees on the lot with a proposed FAR of 2100 square feet and allowable at 2400 square feet. Alicia Sirkin, public, stated that she was the neighbor to the west where the 3 cars were going to be placed. She voiced concern for pollution into her bedroom (where she worked) from the parking. Sirkin asked the number of feet that the cars 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 03. 2000 would be from her property line. Oates answered 3 feet; the setback requirement was 5 feet. Hoefer noted there was a 2-foot difference from what was allowed. Steven Buettow asked why the entrance was not on Hallam. Oates explained that the property faced Third Street on that ½ of the lot. Allen Sirkin, public, urged the commission to deny the application because it was an unmitigated disaster for the neighborhood. He said this was "a size 10-foot trying to fit into a size 8 shoe"; it was outrageous.to put 3 cars on a 3,000 square foot lot. Sirkin stated that they would loose all light and their quality of life. He said this was a ½ of a lot with 2 monster houses on one lot and no green space. Ohlson asked what was driving the parking placement. Oates replied that they could without a variance build 10 more feet to the west than what was proposed. Oates stated that 3 parking spaces were required and parking in the setback was allowed by code. Allen Sirkin stated that he observed that there were many West End houses built with underground parking. Oates replied that an ADU was going in the space below the house. Ron Erickson asked the applicant if the neighbors concerns were thought about for mitigation. Anderson stated they had to move the parking to the rear. He said there was a solid wood fence on the property line and 4 Aspen trees as a buffer. Alicia Sirkin stated that the trees did not provide a buffer. MOTION: Ron Eriekson moved to approve the variance from the secondary mass from the Residential Design Standards for 309 Third Street finding that the criteria have been met. Roger Itaneman second. Roll Call vote: Itaneman, yes; Buettow, yes; Eriekson, yes; Cohen, yes; Mooney, yes. APPROVED 5-0. MOTION: Ron Eriekson moved to approve the dimensional requirements from the R-6 Zone District for the residence to be located at 309 North Third Street for a 5-foot rear yard setback variance and a 10-foot combined front and rear yard setback variance finding the review criteria have been met. Roger I-Ianeman second. Roll call vote: Itaneman, yes; Buettow, no; Eriekson, yes; Cohen, no; Mooney, yes. DENIED 3-2. (City BOA required 4 affirmative votes for approval) 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 03, 2000 Discussion: Erickson stated that he voted for this variance because it was a small house and the alternatives were much worse for the neighbors than what was proposed here. Buettow stated that he did not agree because there was a lot line to lot line building which was what was not wanted; there was a required 30 foot combined front and rear yard setback and variations requested more house and less open space. Oates clarified there was 15 feet from the west most wall of the house to the west most property line. Mooney noted this was an unusual lot with an unusual situation. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to adjust the order of the agenda. Roger Haneman second. APPROVED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: PETRICK REZONING. 33 PITKIN MESA DRIVE Tim Mooney, acting chairperson, opened the public hearing for 33 Pitkin Mesa Drive. David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated for the record the affidavit for proof of notice was provided. Nick Lelack, staff, stated that this hearing was for the initial zoning for the Petrick property represented by the planner, Mitch Haas and the owner, Richard Petrick. Lelack said that there were a series of requests with the initial application for 8040 Greenline, Residential Design Standard Exemption, ADUs and initial zoning. He noted the only review processes after the initial zoning would be internal review processes. Lelack stated that City Council accepted the applicant's petition for annexation. Lelack stated that P&Z's decision tonight would proceed to City Council for 1st reading on October l0th and 2nd reading on October 23rd. Lelack noted that there were 4 acres located on the hillside in the county with the Red Butte City Park on one side and surrounding the Cemetery Lane neighborhood. He said the application met the side yard setbacks. Lelack stated that the square footage may or may not conform with R- 15 or RR zoning with a PUD to establish the FAR and density. He noted that the neighbors had concerns that this was a 4-plex. Joyce Ohlson clarified that R-15 allowed I duplex (2 units) with each unit permitted to have an ADu. RR (Rural Residential) allowed 1 single-family dwelling and 1 ADU if annexed into the city. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 03, 2000 Lelack stated that staff recommended as part of the pre-annexation agreement that the city place a conservation easement over the entire parcel excluding the residence, designated parking and access. No development beyond the existing building envelope and access occur with an additional condition that the property never be subdivided in the future. Mitch Haas provided the property history of the 1041 county approval in 1988 with an established building envelope. There was a temporary CO (certificate of occupancy) with substandard work that was never .completed. The residence was also run like boarding house with 16-17 different people living in the house at one time prior to this applicant's purchase of the property. Haas stated that since Rich Petrick purchased the house he has tried to rectify the construction problems. Haas said that the R- 15 zoning would provide Rich Petrick the opportunity to make this into a duplex and provide respectability to this property. He said the intention of the applicant was to deed-restrict the ADUs but he would sell the other ½ of the duplex. Haas said that there were many duplexes in the neighborhood and the height was non-conforming but would fall within the FAR restrictions. Haas asked to place personal feelings aside about this house and concentrate on how to make to the building work best for the new owner and the neighborhood. Rich Petrick stated that he saw this as less of a density issue than more density. He supplied a petition signed in support of the application. Mooney asked if the ADUs would be used for future GMQS exemptions and asked if then wouldn't Housing deed-restrict and sell the ADUs. Lelack said that in the county new houses were not required to mitigate employee housing, they were completely voluntary. Ohlson said that City Council had a grest deal of discretion through the annexation process. Eric Phillips, public, stated that he lived at 0110 Pitkin Mesa Drive, the property immediately adjacent to this property. Phillips asked if the 4 acres were subdivided with current laws and that would anyone be allowed to build anything on the property in the county. Haas responded that the answer was not a yes or no. Lelack explained that this was a 4-acre nonconforming lot in the AFR-10 zone district, which would only allow one house. Phillips reiterated his concern for the possibility of building on the steep slope of this property. Phillips stated that he had a petition signed by neighbors against anything more than a single-family house on this property, which was approved in 1988. The petition was submitted into the record. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 03, 2000 An unidentified woman from the public voiced concern over the parking and the way the house has looked since 1988. She inquired about the safety of parking. Phillips noted that no parking was allowed on the road because it was so narrow; snowplows and fire trucks could not get through. Mooney noted that there was a parking plan. Paula Walbert, public, stated that she lived at 190 Pitkin Mesa. She said the problem was the narrow curvy road with cars parked in the road. Mooney asked how many houses accessed their parking from Pitkin Mesa Road and from Cemetery Lane. Neil Hirst, public, stated that he lived at 1085 Cemetery Lane, directly in front of the northern part of this property. He said their current driveway drove across a comer of his property without an easemem. Hirst stated that it was a straggle to keep cars offofhis property. Hirst asked why annex this at all; it seemed to be for the personal gain of one homeowner and what benefit was this property to the city. He said that there were massive rockslides. Unidentified woman from the public asked about the re-vegetation plan and the elimination of the second driveway after the house was completed. She questioned the benefit of annexation for the neighborhood. Phillips noted that when the driveway was originally excavated it was done illegally. Lelack stated that Lee Robinson called in to comment that he opposed the annexation; the road damage caused by the construction was of major concern and would favor the lowest density zoning for the property. Haas explained the application included a duplex with each having an ADU. There would be 2 parking spaces in the garage for each unit with the ADU parking spaces outside on pads allowing 2 cars on one side with a 100 foot long driveway. Haas said that there was sufficient width for guest parking. Haas noted the construction crew has parked in the driveway with sufficient room. Haas noted the property was already on city water, served by Aspen Consolidated Sanitation and the street was already plowed and maintained by the city. He said what the city gains was the real estate transfer tax, some additional tap fees, an addition ora couple of ADUs and to make it a better property for the neighborhood and community. 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 03, 2000 Haas stated the 1041 review included geological hazards with recommendations that have been folloWed. Haas said Richard hoped to re-vegetate the hillside as · soon aS he was able, even though it won't be easy to do. Petrick said that on the south Side of the building there was vegetation with no slide, but on the north side where the excavation scarred the slope, there was slide. Petrick stated that his intention was to bring it back to the natural vegetated state with pine trees. Petrick stated that there was a retaining wall that blocked rocks from falling onto the Phillips home or cars; that retaining wall could be extended up the north driveway to protect cars that would park in that area. Petrick said that 150 foot north driveway was 3 cars wide with 6 or 7 contractors parking there daily without any impacts on the neighborhood. Petrick stated that over 20 dumpters oftrash were removed and he that new siding, a roof, and structUral support has had to be either added or replaced. Petrick stated the ½ part of the duplex that he planned to reside in had the exterior of the building redone or would be completed as soon as possible. He stated that there will be no impact with the rezoning or reconstruction on the community, but rather an improvement to the building and neighborhood. Lelack stated that the county zoning officer said there was a landscape plan that was never completed from the 1988 plans and the second access was not approved. Lelack stated that the engineering required re-grading the roads to meet city code. Lelack said that City staffrecommended that the ADUs be deed-restricted. He said the neighbors objected to the density and zoning will have to dictate the density. Steven Buettow noted from the survey the second (south) driveway appeared to be in the 20 foot utility easement and not on the road easement. Haas replied that was where the street was used because people's houses were on the road easement. David Hoefer stated that the access issues had nothing to do with rezoning and could be addressed at annexation. David Hoefer reiterated that P&Z recommended to City Council and that City Council had the final vote on the annexation on October 10~ for first reading and on the 23rd for second reading and public hearing. Joyce Ohlson noted the compatibility of this R-15 zone district with the neighborhood and adjoining properties. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to recommend City Council approve the rezoning to R-15 Moderate Density, upon annexation, for the property located at 33 Pitkin Mesa Drive, Pitkin County meeting the criteria set forth. Eric Cohen second. Roll call vote: Cohen, yes; Itaneman, yes; Mooney, yes; Erickson, yes; Bnettow, no. APPROVED 4-1. 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 03. 2000 ~' PUBLIC HEARING: 1105 EAST UTE AVENUE - DRAC VARIANCE and 8040 GREENLINE - - REVIEW Tim Mooney opened the public hearing for a DRAC variance and 8040 Greenline Review on, Hoag Lot#4, 1105 East Ute Avenue. David Hoefer stated that an affidavit of notice had been provided and met the jurisdictional requiremems. Hoefer distributed the criteria sheet for review of the project. Nick Lelack introduced Francis Krizmanich, planner, and Jack Miller, architect, representing the applicant Thomas Coleman, owner of ½ of the duplex. The application was to create an addition to the duplex and a detached garage. The property was within 150 feet of the 8040 elevation. Lelack said there was a driveway cut in the front yard setback. Lelack distributed a revised site plan with a one-car garage with a smaller cut and terrace. The commissioners attended a site visit. This was a steep lot with 7% slopes initially with the garage underground. A photo board was used to illustrate the slopes of 35-40% slopes where the garage and terrace would be built. Staffwas concerned with the hillside cuts on a very densely vegetated site with the removal of 4 trees, which would require mitigation. Staffrecommended denial because of the disturbance to the site on the 8040 Greenline. Lelack stated that having a garage was not considered a hardship and there was currently enough room to park 3 large vehicles (Suburbans) on the site. Lelack said that the trade-offto the disturbance to the hill was greater because of the construction of the garage than necessary and that the criteria from the Residential Design Standards were not met. Lelack said that the 8040 Greenline Review required that no development shall be permitted at or above 150 feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning & Zoning Commission determined the proposed development complied with all the review criteria. Lelack stated that it did not comply with the terrain on the parcel. He said the addition did blend in with the house and that the garage was subgrade, which minimized the impact but not enough. Krizmanich stated that there would be 2 major trees and a couple of small ones removed but the project was small with a 400 square foot garage buried because the parking area was inadequate for the owner. He said that one family owned the entire duplex. The kitchen addition was 650 square feet. The commission discussed the re-design of the garage being side-loaded if it was not located 10 feet from the house. 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 03, 2000 No public comments. Mooney said that he was in favor of the approval because of very little impacts. Roger Haneman stated that the hOuse met the 8040 standards better than the houses on either side of it and the garage was an improvement. MOTION: Ron Eriekson moved to approve P&Z Resolution//46, series 2000, the 8040 Greenline Review with the addition of the garage and Residential Design Standards variance for the duplex located, I-Ioag Lot//4, 1105 East Ute Avenue finding the criteria have been met with a side-loaded garage. APPROVED 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. ~'Jack'~e Lothdi~y Clerk 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 03, 2000 COMMISSIONER, STAFF & PUBLIC COMMENTS .......................................................................................... 1 MINUTES .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................. ~ ................................................................ 1 VARIOUS MINOR LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS ..................................................................................... 2 309 NORTH THIRD STREET - DRAC AND BOA VARIANCES ....................................................................... 3 PETRICK REZONING, 33 PITI/LIN MESA DRIVE .............................................................................................. 5 1105 EAST UTE AVENUE - DRAC VARIANCE AND 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW ...................................... 9 11