Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20021105ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION November 5, 2002 COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS ........................................ 2 MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST .................................................. 2 922 WEST HALLAM - SPECIAL REVIEW - ADU STANDARDS .................... 2 116 SOUTH SECOND STREET- SPECIAL REVIEW - ADU STANDARDS ..... 4 INFILL LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS ........................................................ 5 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION , November 5, 2002 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular Planning and Zoning meeting at 4:35 p.m. in Council Chambers with Dylan Johns, Eric Cohen, Roger Haneman and Ruth Kruger present. Ron £rickson arrived at 4:40 p.m. Jack Johnson and Bert Myrin were excused. Staff in attendance: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; James, Lindt, Sarah Oates, Joyce Ohlson, Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER~ STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS David Hoefer stated that the Infill was a legislative proceeding; therefore commission members could take public input because it doesn't have the same requirements as a judicial proceeding. Hoefer said that there were no criteria other than to comply with the law and be consistent with the rest of the code. Ron Erickson asked about the signed ski trail easement by Four Peaks. MINUTES MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve the minutes from 10/08/02 and 10/15/02; seconded by Roger Itaneman. APPROVED 5-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT O? INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARING: 922 WEST ItALLAM - SPECIAL REVIEW - ADU STANDARDS Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the special review on 922 West Hallam. David Hoefer stated that the proof of notice had been provided. Sarah Oates explained that this was a special review to vary the accessory dwelling unit design standards; it was a small lot less than 3500 square feet. It was created through a historic landmark lot split; next door there was a historic house and on the other side was a new house, which was also part of the historic re-development. Oates said that the applicant requested 3 design standards to variances (1) the unit would be sub-grade, below the garage, the requirement was that the unit be 100% above grade; (2) ADU was attached to the principal residence, the design standard required it be detached by at least 10 feet; and (3) no parking space provided because of the size of the lot, one parking space was required for an ADU on site. Community Development Staff recommended denial of the special review based upon the fact that it was contrary to the requirements; the Housing Board approved the proposal. Bob Witek, applicant, stated that the design for the ADU was under the garage so it would not detract from the design of the main house; the staircase was a "warm 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION November 5, 2002 staircase" inside the garage but separated from the garage. Witek said that the window well would be finished to make the ADU larger and that there were bedrooms of the main house in the basement as well. Witek said that the lot constraints would not allOw the parking on site. Ron Robertson, architect, said that the project was started several years ago; had they finished prior to a year ago they would not have had to ask for the variance because below grade ADUs were allowed: Eric Cohen asked how the FAR changed; if the ADU were denied would they have the same size building. Oates replied that there was no exemption for the ADU, the light well will count against the FAR. Oates said that the size would remain the same with a couple extra square feet. Ron Erickson said that without elevations he was not able to tell how tall it was. Robertson replied that there was a ground floor and one floor aboVe in the main house and a single story garage. Erickson stated that the ADU could be placed on top of the garage. Witek stated that they felt it would change the appearance of the house because HPC did not want the exterior design of the house altered. Dylan Johns asked if there was f foot setback between the property line and the house. Witek replied that there was. Lizzy Talenfeld, public, stated concern for the parking and parking in the alley. Witek responded that there was a garage and one parking space. Erickson stated that he never was in favor subterranean ADUs and wanted more livable ADUs; he said that this proposed project did not meet the ADU design standards. Ruth Kruger agreed with Ron because of the general livability and the parking issues. Roger Haneman stated that the drawings were not very good and were confusing; he agreed with Ruth and Run. Haneman said the area already had a parking problem and this would make it worse. Eric Cohen said that he was perplexed that the Housing Authority gave their stamp of approval. Dylan Johns said that the detachment of the unit would be very difficult and not a component; he said that if the parking was on site by the garage it would be better. Robertson said that the hardship was that the rules changed and they have a tiny lot, which some consideration should be made for that hardship of the size of the lot. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve with conditions Resolution #29, series of 2002, a special review application to waive the ADU design standards 3, 4 and 5 to allOw for an Accessory Dwelling Unit at 922 West Hallam finding the review standards have been met. Ruth Kruger second. Vote: Johns, yes; Kruger, no; Haneman, no; Cohen, no; Erickson, no; Tygre, no. DENIED 5-1. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION N°~ember 5, 2002 PULIC HEARING: 116 SOUTH SECOND STREET- SPECIAL REVIEW _ ADU STANDARDS Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for 116 South SeCond Street. David Hoefer stated that the notice met the jurisdictional requirements to proceed. James Lindt explained that Diana Beuttas, Christopher Smith and Deborah Hatch were represented by John LaSalle and requested approval to vary the ADU design standards at 116 South Second Street. There were currently 3 free-market units on the site; they proposed to deed-restrict the rear alley unit as an ADU; they will add a parking space for the ADU on site. The unit currently does not meet the ADU design standards in that it wasn't in complete conformance with the underlying R-6 zone district. The rear setback was at zero lot line, the current requirements for that zone district were that it be setback from the property line at least 5 feet. The zone district required a 1 O-foot detachment and this unit was only 3 feet detached. This unit was currently non-conforming, by deed restricting the unit as an ADU it was then brought into conformance in terms of use with a duplex and a working residentl Staff supported the special review with the condition set forth in the resolution to waive design standard #6, which required it to be in conformance with the underlying zone district requirements. John LaSalle stated that this unit was built in 1960; the non-conformity was just a small portion of the ADU. Ruth Krueger asked why the 3 units were all crowded onto one lot rather than spread out. Diana Beuttas replied that she purchased the property in 1970 from the Mencemers. Beuttas provided the history of the property with the middle unit being added to the main house (the front portion) and then the back unit was added, which housed the local vet in the 1960's. Beuttas said that the Mencemers had the large yard when she bought the property and wanted to keep it that way at this time. Kruger asked if there was additional FAR that could be built on the empty lot and asked what might been seen in the future; she noted that the house was for sale. John LaSalle responded that was the reason that they were doing the deed-restricted ADU so there would be a future development right to add onto the existing duplex even though there was no current Plan to do that. LaSalle stated that it couldn't be a separate unit but it Could have some additional (approximately 800 square feet) FAR, but the exact calculations were not done at this time. LaSalle stated~ that the front unit was about 1040 square feet and Diana's unit was 1800 square feet. Ron Erickson asked if any additional development on this lot would go to HPC. Lindt replied that it was not in the historic overlay district and would not go 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION November 5, 2002 through a historic lot split; it was not on the inventory either. Erickson asked the size of the deed-restricted ADU. Lindt replied that it was about 405 square feet. Lindt noted that the ADU woUld not be sold separately; it would be sold with one of the duplex units. Eric Cohen asked how this affected re-development of that ADU and asked what if they wanted to demolish and rebuild. Lindt replied that it could be expanded up to 800 square feet but if they wanted to demolish and rebuild then they would have to come into compliance with the zone district for setbacks. No public comments. Erickson noted that this was an example of a good ADU. Cohen said this was an existing structure with an existing use that made this a livable and workable unit. Kruger said that it was great to have a free-market unit basically donated to housing. Haneman and Johns supported it as well as Tygre. Tygre stated that allowing this unit to become an ADU and less non-conforming was desirable. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #30, series of 2002, approving a special review application to waive the ADU design standard #6 to allow for the existing detached free market unit at 116 South Second Street to be deed restricted as an ADU finding that the review standards have been met. Seconded by Eric Cohen. Vote: Itaneman, yes; Cohen, yes; Johns, yes; Erickson, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (09/03/02, 09/17/02, 9/24/02, 10/01/02, 10/08/02, 10/15/02, 10/22/02, 10/29/02): INFILL LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Infill Land Use Code Amendments. Chris Bendon distributed the schedule, which deleted Engineering standards, trash and delivery service standards from the review but they would remain in the final resOlution. Bendon stated that the emergency demolition ordinance was going to council on November 1 lth with the second reading on the 12th. Subdivision was the topic of review. Bendon said that there was an automatic prohibition from the merging of 10ts. Erickson said that the current code had the provision if the same person owned two contiguous lots then they were merged. Bendon said that when growth management was first done in 1976, if any lots that were adjacent to each another and' in the same ownership the lots became one lot. Bendon stated that from the city charter any action that burdens land must be done through an ordinance. Bendon exPlained that with a subdivision anything that ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION November 5~ 2002 affects the land must be done through an ordinance; there could be administrative action through the community development director approval. Minor subdivisions would just be an administrative function through City Council by an ordinance and major subdivision would go through P&Z and City Council with an ordinance. Bendon suggested defining multi-family development as a subdivision because growth management was tied to subdivision as well as impact fees. Minor subdivisions were condominiumizations done through administrative review with no !and burden but he suggested it go back to council for review with an ordinance. Lot line adjustment was currently at an administrative level, which changed land ownership; this would also now go to council. A lot split and historic lot would remain as a minor subdivision with review by council: Major subdivisions create new parcels. There was a reference in the new section with engineering requirements on a plat. The definition of subdivision, exemptions, land leaseholds interests and creating a transferable developmental fight would be an exempt action. A historic lot split would allow the number of lots split to conform to the underlying zone district's allowable square footage. The commission voted 5-1 that there should be a prohibition against merging of lots. Defining multifamily development requiring a subdivision process; an apartment building development would go through growth management; the process could be an administrative action but would be a public hearing with an ordinance; the commission approved all 6-0. There would be a definition for major and minor subdivision, which was approved by the commission 6-0. There would be a standard lot split and the commission 6-0 approved a historic lot split, which would conform to the underlying zone district with the exception of historic lot splits. 3 commissioners denied historic lot splits with more than 2 lots if the property was large enough for more than 2 lots splits, 2 approved and 1 commissioner was undecided on this issue. The commissioners requested finding out the number of lots, historic or standard that could have more than 2 lot splits. The commission discussed the number of lots that could be split before subdivision would kick in; they wanted to encourage multi-family through a subdivision review or PUD process and not lot splits. Kruger asked Eric why he voted for the lot split. Cohen responded that it was a simplification and that he doesn't see the reason why not if the goal was to increase density, it makes it easier. Haneman asked the number of historic lot splits that were possible and how many standard lot splits were possible. Kruger stated that she kept her vote to take it through subdivision so that there would be encouragement for the developmers. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION November 5, 2002 Bendon said there was a question in the R-6 zone district ifa 6,000 square foot lot were created and a 3,000 square foot lot form a 9,000 square foot lot; if more lots could be created then there could be three 3,000 square foot lots. Would the 6,000 and 3,000 be allowed in a standard lot split? Bendon said that currently in a historic lot split a 9,000 square foot lot could be split into 2 evenly split lots. Bendon said that Amy Guthrie felt that it was a benefit to Historic property owners. Ruth and Ron supported Amy Guthrie's position. Janver Derrington, public, stated that there were non-conforming lot sizes in the R- 6 zone district and was concerned that HPC wouldn't give a 500 square foot bonus if it wasn't considered an exceptional project. Derrington asked what the formula was for the new lot to get the density rather than split the density of the whole lot. Bendon clarified that a historic lot split not only split the lot into separate ownerships but the FAR was also split. Bendon said the new parcels not only split the FAR but also had stand alone FAR for whatever was prescribed by that zone district. Bendon stated that in the R-6 zone district for a standard lot split a 12,000 square foot could be split into two 6,000 square foot parcels, if it were historic then only 6,000 to 9,000 square feet would be needed for a historic lot split and the FAR would also be split. Erickson stated that there was a tremendous advantage to a standard lot split because of the stand-alone FAR. Tygre stated that she was not in favor of creating substandard lots in a zone district; if it was in the R-6 zone district then there should be 6,000 square foot lots unless they were historic or a compelling public purpose. Kruger opposed giving substandard lots to the standard lot splits. Johns also stated that he was against creating substandard lots. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing on the Infill Laud Use Code Amendments to November 12, 2002; seconded by Ron Erickson. APPROVED 6-0. The cort~ ~ssiqnfi3djotwned at 7:05 p.m. ~[Cl"e-Lothl'-an°, J~'ep~t~ ~'i~½'~lerk 7