Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20040406ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APRIl, 06, 2004 COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2 MINUTES .................................................................................................................................. 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ....................................................... 2 132 WEST MAIN - CONDITIONAL USE ....................................................................... 2 210 SESAME STREET $040 GREENLINE REVIEW & SPECIAL REVIEW FOR ATTACHED ADU .......................................................................................................... 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APRIIJ 06, 2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of' the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission at 4:30 pm in the Sister Cities Meeting Room. Members Jack Johnson, Steve Skadron, Roger Haneman, John Rowland, Ruth Kruger, Jasmine Tygre and (new member) Brandon Marion were present. Dylan Johns was excused. Staff'present: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; James Lindt, Sarah Oates, Chris Bendon, Community Development; Jacki¢ Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Jasmine Tygre asked if' the elections were fairly soon. David Hoefer replied that he thought that the boards were changed to January. Tygre said that she would remain chair only until the vote. Tygre stated that since Eric resigned there was no vice-chair; she asked if there was an interim acting vice chair. Hoefer explained that Roger Haneman would act as vice chairman until we have the vote. Tygre noted that being the chair gave a different perspective. Hoefer stated that there could be a rotating chair so everybody would.be chair £or 2 years; it was a good idea for everyone to have an opportunity to be the chair. Jackie Lothian said that the municipal code was now on the aspenpitkin.com website under city clerk. Chris Bendon stated the best part was when code amendments were done they would be placed on the web pages immediately instead of' 2 years later, which was how long it took the company that we hired to place it on the web. Ruth Kruger said things that go through work sessions were not really code amendments and were just discussions for the process; she asked what infill items were code amendments. Bendon replied that 4 Ordinances were approved: the TDR's, Amendments to the single-family duplex zone, changes to multi-family housing and demolition definition. MINUTES MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve the minutes from the March 2, 2004 P&Z meeting; Ruth Kruger seconded. APPROVED 6-0. 7 of the GMC members approved the minutes from March 9, 2004 by email. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARING: 132 WEST MAIN - CONDITIONAL USE Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on 132 West Main Street Conditional Use. David Hoefer stated 2 affidavits of notice were provided and that met the jurisdictional requirements indicating the commission may proceed. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APRIL 06, 2004 James Lindt stated the application was by Hardwood House, LLC requesting approval of a conditional use to operate a furniture store/showroom in the office zone district; the building was designated historic and furniture stores are allowed as conditional uses in historic structures in the office zone district. Staff believed that the furniture store would bring some additional vitality to Main Street; parking wasn't much of an issue given that there were 16 on site parking spaces. Trash and deliveries can be accommodated in the alley with bear proof trash receptacles. There are no GMQS exemption or mitigation requirements because this space previously operated as an office; the growth management section oft he code treats office and commercial space in the office zone district similar in terms of employee generation requirements. Staff believes the conditional use requirements are met by the proposal and recommend the commission approve the resolution with conditions; obtaining a sign permit, business license prior to sta~ng operations and provide free bus passes to employees living outside Aspen. Steve Hadju, 'owner and applicant, stated that the memo document and James covered everything. Ruth Kruger asked the number of employees. Hadju replied 1 or 2 employees total. Kroger was pleased that some conditional uses were coming to Main Street to add vitality to that core. Roger Haneman asked if the bus passes only come up on conditional uses or ~does this apply in other situations. Lindt responded that it.also comes up in PUDs and in this situation'the applicant offered it as part of the application so the condition was proposed just to re-enforce it. Jasmine Tygre asked if the deliveries of the pool tables would be in the alley. Hadju replied there were 2 entrances, one on First Street and one on Main Street so it could happen in either direction. Lindt said however the alleyway was where the trucks and vehicles would pull up waiting to unload stuff; there was an accessible entrance off of First Street without changes to the building to make it handicap access. Hoefer noted this building went through HPC review recently and was fairly comprehensive. Jack Johnson asked if the designs and creations were their own. Hadju replied that they were the designers, woodworkers and they also worked with other designers. Hadju said that 1,000 square feet was a showroom and office for meetings; the workshop was located in Carbondale. Johnson said that he was excited about this creative business with original designs. No public comments. ASPEN PLANNING& ZONING COMMISSION Minutes AP ~RIL 06, 2004 MOT[ON: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #1 O, 2004 approving the conditional use to operate a furniture store/showroom at 132 West Main Street, Unit B of the Ajax View Commercial Condominiums with conditiOns.· 1. The Applicant shall offer free bus passes to employees of this establishment that live outside of Aspen as was offered in the application. 2. The Applicant shall apply for and obtain a sign permit from the Community Development Department prior to erecting any cOmmerCial signage. All commercial signage shall meet the City of Aspen sign guidelines pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26. 510, Signs. 3. The A~plicant shall apply for and obtain a City of Aspen Business licenSeprior to commencing commercial operationS. ,,~¢Corlded by Roger Haneman. Roll call vote.: Johnxon, yes; Skadron, yes; Haneman, yes; Rowland, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 210 SESAME STREET 8040 GREENLINE NVIEW &SPECIAL ~EW FOR ATTACHED ADU Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for 8040 Greenline RevieTM and Special Review for an attached ADU. David Hoefer stated the affidavit of PubliC notice, posting and mailing met the jurisdictional requirements. Sarah Oates stated the application was Lot 2 of the Aspen Electric Subdivision owned by Alain Degraeve represented by Bill Pollock of Zone 4 Architecture. Oates said because of it's proximity to the 8040 Greenline this parcel is required to go through the 8040 Greenline Review; some of the standards might not be applicable to this property but health and safety issues, minimizing massing and height do apply to this parcel. The adjacent parcel, Lot 5 of the Sunny Park North Subdivision had an expansion and many of the issues were taken care of at that time with the Fire Department to assure adequate access as well as an upgrade to the water line and sewer. Oates said that the issues were minimizing disturbance outside of the setbacks, the height, the massing and the ADU design standard variance. Oates noted the ADU was detached with no common walls but was attached by a entry stairwell; it was 100% above grade and meets all other design standards, although that will be verified at the time of building permit review. Oates stated that it was currently a vacant lot; the house was demolished last summer with a proper demolition permit. Jack Johnson asked staff where this property fell above or below the 8040 Greenline. Oates replied it fell below the 8040. Bill Pollock utilized a map to show 8140 from the survey and they have been through several 8040 Reviews, one in 1987 approved and the last one was also approved. Johnson asked the purpose of the 8040 Greenline. Oates replied that it was for life safety issues as well as massing and height. Pollock responded that it was also for the impact on the mountainside trying to blend in the home or step it down and using materials to 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APRIIJ 06~ 2004 blend but originally it was for avalanche dangers. Chris Bendon noted that also water service was originally involved. Johnson asked at what elevation above which development cannot occur. Oates responded that was not regulated but floor area and density reductions were mitigated; the county has regulations of not being able to build on "x%" slope but the city does not. Johnson asked the definition of an ADU and a Guest House. Oates replied that the ADU was for employee mitigation and the city did not have a "guest house" definition. John Rowland asked if the ADU was deeded. Oates rePlied that all ADUs were required to submit a deed restriction that if it's rented it has to be rented to some living and working in Pitkin County; there was no income or rental cap. Tygre noted there was no requirement that it be rented but if it was rented then the restrictions apply. Johnson said the memo stated that staff included conditions requiring the city engineer be given information related to mudflow, rockfalls, avalanche dangers and soil toxicity; those reports were not included in the packet and the city engineer doesn't have them either. Oates answered that the applicant was updating what was done for the adjacent property relevant to this parcel; the reports were submitted at building permit on the adjacent lot. Degraeve said that the documents were provided at the original 8040 Greenline Review for this property in 1987. Johnson said that the city engineer requested a drainage report prior to submitting an application for a building permit. Steve Skadron asked if the structure that was demolished was built in the early 1980's; he asked what it was and the square footage. Degraeve replied it was a single-family home built in 1987 with 4,000 square feet. Pollock said the new house was over 9,000 square feet; they were allowed 4200 plus in FAR with over half of the 9,000 buried into a steep slope in the back comer of the site (on the top part of the page). Johnson said the FAR of the old house is about the same as the FAR of the new house with the exception of the parts that are exempt. Pollock replied that he did not know how Barry Seigle's old house was. Tygre said there was a sliding scale on FAR as far as how much is exposed; she asked who would monitor that. Oates replied that she checked the calculations at the time of building permit and this lot has steep slopes so they were subject to slope reduction. Tygre asked the size of the proposed ADU. Pollock replied 355 square feet. Haneman noted that the memo stated net livable at 319 square feet. Oates said the net livable was paint-to-paint on the interior; FAR was exterior wall to exterior wall. Skadron asked What the minimum was. Oates replied 300 square feet was the minimum. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APRIl, 06, 2004 Johnson said to get to this point on the 8040 Greenline review, did they have to demolish and was it the same way on Lot 5. Pollock said not the entire house. Degraeve said it was basically gutted. Skadron asked the long-term development plan of Sesame. Pollock replied that this would pretty much end it because it was a private road and this is the second of the 2 lots that the road serves. Oates replied that the space behind it was Pitkin County open space. Skadron asked if the property was accessible from behind. Degraeve said no. Pollock stated that there was an access easement for the county, which was gated entrance. Public Comments: 1. Heidi Hoffmann, public, board member of Midland Park Homeowners Association, stated concern how the design is articulated. Hoffmann said that Barry Seigle's house was like a lighthouse, which was bothersome to some of the neighborhood. Hoffmann encouraged consideration with window glazing, orientation and shielding of the exterior lights. Hoffmann asked if the ditch company reviewed this. Pollock asked who was responsible for the Salvation Ditch. Oates replied that it was a private company and there was no proposal in the ditch easement. Tygre said the revised lighting ordinance addresses the exterior lighting issues. Hoffmann said it was the glazing and open window areas when the house was occupied, which was very blatant and overwhelming for the neighborhood. 2. Jeff Bestic, public, Midland Park homeowner, recalled dealing with Barry Siegle during the Auster hearings, Barry Seigle was required to sterilize a portion of the Mascotte property in return for the perm/ts it got because there was a bulldozer moving rocks over an area that he didn't think was to be developed. Oates replied that the city annexed the portion from the county and a lot line adjustment now subjects the property to setback requirements. Oates stated that there was a condition from the Parks Department that requiring it be fenced off and have made it clear to the applicant. 3 Cindy Houben, public, stated that she was here on behalf of being an adjacent homeowner. Houben said it was her understanding that the recently annexed county property into the city was exclusively for landscaping purposes. Oates replied that a referral was sent to the county making it clear that it would be under the regular city setback requirements. Houben stated concern for the hours of operation because of the close proximity to their units. Hoefer stated that was already codifi ed but it could be added. Oates stated the county was given a referral explaining it would be rezoned to R-15 PUD; it was changed from a designated building envelope to setbacks. Staff advised the applicant to annex to clear 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APRIL 06, 2004 everything up because half of the property was in the city and half in the county. The rezoning went to P&Z and City Council. 4. Sara Garton, public, Midland Park owner expressed concern over the last house that looked like an oceanliner. Skadron said that he was sensitive to the way a new property fits into the existing neighborhood; how will the new, big, modem shiny house fit into the funky neighborhood. Pollock responded that the house wouldn't be shiny but a metal that rusts to a certain extent and then seals itself deriving somewhat off of the Smuggler Mining buildings. Pollock said the roofs may be zinc, which is flat gray and the siding is clear cedar stained. Tygre asked the lengths of the facades. Pollock said the courtYard.with the ADU and reversed L shape and the deck was approximately 40 feet across. The part on the left-hand side of the staircase was approximately 12 feet. The darker gray stripe area was 24 feet wide. Tygre asked the overall length of the structure and the width of the garage entrance. Pollock replied approximately 80 feet in overall length and the garage was 24 feet wide. Tygre said from the drawings the exterior planes looked extremely long. Pollock added that the 60-foot wall was partially exposed at places at 2 feet and the highest point at the height of 12 feet. Tygre stated there were 2 issues that be taken together or separately. Johnson read from the memo that no development shall be permitted at above or 150feet below the 8040 Greenline unless the Planning & Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all the requirements set fort: Those requirements include mine subsidence, mudflow, rockfalls, avalanche dangers and soil toxicity. Johnson stated that there was no information in the Packet and it was difficult for him to say that it complies with the requirements without the information. The city engineer's requested a drainage report prior to a building permit and if the commission approves this 8040 Greenline prior to obtaining this information, which causes a great deal of concern. Johnson asked why was the commission looking at this now without all the information. Tygre said those were valid points. Hoefer noted the commission had the right to continue the public hearing. Bendon asked the applicant if the city engineer was willing to accept the information on the other property. Pollock replied that he had been through this process once before next door and basically the prOcess was we will approve upon all these conditions and if these conditions were not met, which included drainage plans, soils retainage but we can't supply now because the building is still moving around with changes so some of that information can't be given. The soils 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APRIL 06, 2004 engineer wants to look at the site for a visual. Pollock said that they met with the DRC and expected to be approved with conditions tonight. Bendon explained that typically drainage plans were done at the time of building permit because the drainage was designed according to the building, which was a technical review. Johnson said that.he feels what was being asked was to approve this on everybody's word; he didn't see how he could approve this when he hasn't seen the information. Johnson stated that he liked the design. Tygre stated that many of the 8040 Greenlines have been on the other side of town with heavily wooded background; there has been a lot of concern about the obtrusiveness or unobtrusiveness of the building, which was addreSsed in one of the standards of 8040 Greenline. Tygre said that some sort of detail should be provided as to what the issues might be. Bendon stated that the approval could be conditioned for the things as the soils report and the technical report or the commission could delay the hearing and have the applicant check in with the city engineer to clear up the issues but some of the things won't be seen until the building is designed and that's why certain things are seen at the time of building permit. Johnson stated that he couldn't make a judgment on something that was not included in the information provided. Haneman said this was the first 8040 Greenline Review with a demolish and rebuild. Tygre agreed. Haneman said the property was already developed and the old Greenline information should carry forward but he also agrees with Jack on the lack of current information provided. Haneman said that the only reason for having the applicant go back and redo the soils report were if there were new rules in soils analysis or new methods of checking run-off but if noting new has been developed then he could accept what occurred in the 1980s as far as meeting the requirements. Oates stated the reports were required at DRC to be updated; they can't submit the 1980 plan. Oates said the DRC memo is typically incorporated into the conditions of approval. Johnson asked to have the DRC comments. Tygre noted the referral comments' usually are included in the packets and the commission would like to see them. Tygre said when properties change hands a new survey is ordered or a property boundary survey. Tygre stated that the commission did not have the memo from the other departments' signing-off on those issues. Johnson stated that he was being asked to vote on something that says that he has done his due diligence and he felt that he had not done due diligence at this point. Tygre stated concern for the height and bulk not being minimized. Haneman agreed with Jasmine. Tygre.stated that she had a problem with number 7 and wasn't sure What the answer was. Haneman asked the square footage on the ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APRIL 06, 2004 lot of the house would not be seen from Park Circle because of the trees screening the property. Pollock stated that there would be a lot of trees planted to screen. Degraeve stated that they have planted close to 600 trees. Degraeve stated that the 1986 report included mining shaft testing for both lots; he said that three 8040 Greenline reviews have been done, this is the fourth one. Bendon said the DRC original comments or a follow-up letter from the city engineer would be available at the next meeting. Degraeve said the reports should be in file and he wanted to break ground as soon as possible. Kruger noted that the information was supplied to the commission in advance so they can review the papers. Hoefer said that April 20th appears to be the next available date. Bendon said that if the bulk and mass could be addressed. Degraeve gave his cell phone # so that the commissioners could get through the gate to make site visits. MOTION: Jack Johnson move to continue the 8040 Greenline Review and a variance from the ADU design standards to allow an ADU attached to the primary residence by entryway stairs for the construction of a single-family residence and ADU at 210 Sesame Street to reconsider the motion and obtain more information to April 20, 2004; seconded by Steve Skadron. APPROVED 6-0. Adjourned at 6:30 pm. J~c/l[ie Lothian, ~)~3uty City Clerk 10