Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20040420ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APRIL 20~ 2004 COMMENTS .............................................................................................................................. 2 MINUTES .......................................................................................................... .......................... 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ................... ,. ......... ....::: ................... 2 210 SESAME STREET 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW & SPECIAL REVIEW FOR ATTACHED ADU .......................................................................................................... 2 ANDERMAN - 7i0 SOUTH GALENA 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND DRAC VARIANCES ................................................................................................................ 3 SOUTH AND GIBSON SUBDIVISION AND GMQS EXEMPTIONS .................... 6 MCGARVEY SUBDIVISION 433 WEST BLEEKER STREET ........................... 1 ~ BOARD REPORT .......................................................................................................... , ........ !3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APRIL 20, 2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission at 4:30 pm in the Council Chambers. Members Brandon Marion, John Rowland, Dylan Johns, Jack Johnson, Roger Haneman and Jasmine Tygre were present. Ruth Kruger and Steve Skadron were excused. Staff present: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; James Lindt, Scott Woodford, Joyce Allgaier, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Jack. Johnson reported on the City Council meeting that he attended regarding the Chart House and he stated that Council voted to remand the Chart House Conceptual Public Hearing to the P&Z; Council took care to say theremand does not mean that they found reason to believe there had been abuse of discretion or exceeding of jurisdiction. Johnson noted there would be a re-scoring with the new GMC to follow the conceptual review by P&Z and City Council if it gets to that stage; the applicant agreed that they should have had conceptual before GMQS scoring. Roger Haneman noted that Council followed what P&Z recommended on the Wagar property, 517 Park Circle. MINUTES MOTION: Dylan Johns moved to approve the minutes from the March 16, 2004 meeting with the change on page 3; ~lack~lohnson seconded. APPROVED 5-0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST John Rowland was conflicted on the 710 South Galena. Dylan Johns had a conflict on 210 Sesame Street, 710 South Galena and South and Gibson. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 210 SESAME STREET 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW & SPECIAL REVIEW FOR ATTACHED ADU Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for 8040 Greenline Review and Special Review for an attached ADU; it will be continued to May 4th. MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to continue the public hearing for 8040 Greenline Review and Special Review for an attached ADU at 210 Sesame Street to May 4, 2004; seconded by Brandon Marion. APPROVED 4-0. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APRIL 20, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING: ANDERMAN - 710 SOUTH GALENA - 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND DRAC VARIANCES Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the 8040 Greenline review and DRAC variances request for 710 South Galena. David Hoefer stated that 2 affidavits covered the commission's notice requirements. James Lindt stated the applicant was Aspen Land Fund LLC represented by Sunny Vann and Brooke Peterson. The subject site was Lot 4 of the Tipple Woods Subdivision located off of South Galena Street near the.base of Aspen Mountain. The property has steep slopes and contains a single-family residence, which was about 800 square feet; the applicants were proposing to demolish it and construct a new single- family residence of about 1900 square feet. The site is currently served by a tram that goes down to the Tipple Inn parking lot where there are two parking spaces dedicated for use of this site, which currently was not proposed to change for this development. Staff believes that the proposed structure was properly sited because a different location would possibly provide additional disturbance to the site. Lindt stated the DRAC variances were from the building orientation, build-to-lines and secondary mass standards. Lindt explained the build-to-lines requires that 60% of the front fagade of the building be within 5 feet of the front yard setback; in this situation the front yard setback runs along one side and the applicant doesn't quite meet it at this point but staff believes if the applicant pushed the structure forward to meet that standard it Would require additional disturbance because of the steep slopes of the site. The building orientation standard requires the entryway be on the street facing faCade, in this situation it is a land locked parcel with no road access so staff feels it was not applicable and it was more appropriately sited to face the tram where access is gained to the site. Staff recommends approval for the building orientation and build-to-lines variances. Lindt provided the elevation view from the downtown area looking at the site, which was the north facing faqade; staff believed the secondary mass lends itself to a more compact design because of the steep slopes and it meets the review standards for secondary mass for granting a variance. Lindt stated staff recommended approval of the 8040 Greenline with the conditions in the proposed resolution as well as the Design Review Variances. Lindt said an email from Jerry Monkarsh was received requesting limitations of construction hours on the site from 8am to 6pm; the city code allows construction from 7am to 7pm, which the commission could discuss. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APRIL 20, 2004 Sunny Vann stated that the resolution was acceptable to the applicant and Stated that he wanted to put this project in perspective with the Residences at Little Nell, which has a conceptual approval. The original project site included this site and an additional adjacent property; in obtaining conceptual approval the applicant reduced the size of the site and removed this particular structure from the property. Vann said that they find it necessary to relocate one of the owners of several of the units within the existing Tipple Inn to be demolished and in connection with that relocation to build a new single-family structure on the property. Vann said if in fact the Residences at Little Nell goes ahead then the parking for this particular site would be provided in the subgrade parking garages and access to this particular site would be improved beyond the existing tram, which would include elevator access. Vann said if for some reason the Residences at Little Nell project doesn't go forward there was also an approval for the Tippler Townhomes project on the lower site and old Tipple Lodge site, which also includes an subgrade parking garage and the parking for this particular site would be located in that garage. Vann said if neither of these projects go forward then this home would be built as proposed with the existing tram and parking would remain on the Tippler surface as in this proposal. Vann said that the city changed the construction hours after considerable discussion and they ask to have the same hours as other projects that are located even closer to Mr. Monkarsh. Brooke Peterson said the additional 2 hour reduction in construction schedule over the course of construction of the project was a substantial amount of time lost and they wanted to get in and get this done as quickly as possible. Jack Johnson asked if this particular site would ever be included in the development plan for the Residences at Little Nell or the Tippler Townhomes. Vann replied that it was not included in the site for the Residences at Little Nell, which has been revised since conceptual approval but it does not include this site. It was not included in the Tippler Townhomes proposal either. Kim Weil, architect, said there was a lot that separated the Tipple Townhomes. Vann said that Parcel D was acquired since conceptual in order to facilitate the development of the Residences at the Little Nell. Tygre said that for clarification this proposed single-family parcel won't be part of the PUD for the Residences and was not part of the Tippler Townhomes. Vann stated that was correct and it was designed to comply with the dimensional requirements other than the problems of it being landlocked. Roger Haneman asked if the two parking spaces for this project were on the surface. Vann replied there were two spaces for' this parcel plus the one on parcel D and the 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APRIL 20, 2004 parcel above it would also have two spaces each on the surface of the Tipple Lodge. Vann said all of the spaces in the Residences will go subgrade if built; if the Tipple Townhomes project goes forward two will go subgrade and four will remain on the surface. Haneman noted because of the prOximity of this project to other homes and the steepness of the sight, the noise from construction might to inherently louder. Vann replied that the design of this house was to minimize the site disturbance as much as possible. David Hoefer noted that the noise was not part of this commission's review criteria; it's simply a city requirement and placed in the resolution so the applicant understands that they have to abide by it. Brandon Marion stated there were some contingencies with the Residences. Marion asked the current height of the existing structure. Weil said it was about 5 feet lower than the proposed. Marion noted that he .walked up to the site, which was pretty steep and asked about the re-vegetation. Vann replied that there was a landscape plan; there was not a lot of vegetation on this site. Vann stated that there was a construction management plan. No public comment. Tygre requested adding a condition about the parking that may change but there would still be adequate parking to address the needs of this residence. Two off-street parking spaces shall continue to be provided in the Tipple Lodge parking lot unless alternative parking shall be approved. MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve Resolution #12, series 2004, approving 710 South Galena, the Anderman 8040 Greenline review and residential design standard variances for building orientation, build-to lines and secondary mass to construct a replacement single-family residence on Lot 4 of the Tipple Woods Subdivision with conditions: 0 The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan for approval by the City of Aspen Parks Department at the time of building permit submittal. The landscaping plan shall indicate that the Applicant shall re-vegetate any disturbed areas that are not within the footprint of the proposed residence (footprint includes patio) to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Parks Department prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. 2) The Applicant shall place a vegetation protection fence around the driplines of any trees to be saved and shall have the City Forester or his designee inspect the fencing prior to commencing construction activities. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction equipment, construction backfill, foot or vehicular traffic shall be allowed within the driplines of trees to be saved. 3 ) The building permit application shall include the following: a) A copy of the final P&Z Resolution. b) The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. c) A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. dj A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for mitigation of removed trees, if applicable, e) The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire suppression system approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal will be installed. A fire alarm system meeting the requirements of the Fire Marshal may also need to be installed at the discretion of the Aspen Fire Marshal J') A construction management plan that details the proposed method and means by which the site will be accessed with excavation and grading equipment during construction. This plan shall also detail the ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APRIL 20, 2004 proposed construction parking, which shall demonstrate that except for essential trade trucks, no other personal trucks are to be parked in the area around the site. The City encourages that site workers be shuttled in from the airport parking area. g) A Geotechnical Report and study performed by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer demonstrating how the required excavation of the site may be performed without damaging adjacent structures and/or properttes. This study shall include a detailed description of the slope stabilization and erosion control techniques to be used during construction. If the applicant utilizes soil pins to stabilize excavation cuts, the applicant shall be required to provide a financial assurance in an amount to be determined by the Community Development Engineer. The City Engineering Department strongly prefers that the Applicants use soil hardening techniques rather than soil pins to stabilize the excavation cuts. h) A drainage and'erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. Ifa ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the,£acility. Silt fencing shall be incorporated into the erosion control plan. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. The drainage plan shall demonstrate that there will be no increase in the site's historic runoff as a result of the new residence, i) A letter from the primary contractor to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. 4) The Applicant shall provide a new, individual sanitary sewer service line to serve the proposed residence. The new service line shall meet the standards of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. Sanitary sewer service ts contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules, regulations, and specifications. 5) The Applicant shall install a new water service line to the residence that meets?he requirements of the City of Aspen Water Department and provides sufficient water pressure to serve the residential water needs and the fire sprinkler system that is required by the Fire Marshal. If the water line is to be shared with other residences, the Applicant shall sign a common water service line agreement and the residence shall have an individual water meter. The Applicant shall abandon the existing water service line at the main prior to making a new connection. 6) Prior to issuance of a building permit, all tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fees periaining to this property is finalized as part of the Residences at Little Nell Final PUD project, those fees shall be payable according to such agreement. 7) The Applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m, Monday through Saturday. 8) All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. 9) All exterior lighting shall meet the City of Aspen Lighting Code requirements set forth in Land Use Code Section 26. 5 75.150, as may be amended from time to time. 1 O) Two (2) off-street parking spaces designated for use by the residence on Lot 4 of the Tipple Woods Subdivision shall be maintained on the adjacent Tipple Woods Lodge property or a City approved parking alternative shall be enacted in conjunction with the construction of the Residences at Little Nell or the Tippler Townhomes that~will provide two (2) off-street parking spaces within the City that are to be designated for use by the single-family residence on Lot 4, of the Tipple Woods Subdivision. Seconded by Brandon Marion. Roll call vote: Johnson, yes; Marion, yes; Haneman, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 4-0. PUBLIC HEARING: SOUTH AND GIBSON SUBDIVISION AND GMQS EXEMPTIONS Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for subdivision and GMQS Exemptions for South and Gibson. David Hoefer said the notice, publication and posting were provided. Scott Woodford presented the information on the project for a subdivision and GMQS Exemption dividing one 21,938 square foot lot into 2 lots; one at 6,859 square feet the other at 15,079 square feet. The first lot would have a single-family residence and the second lot would support two single-family residences or a duplex. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APRIL 20, 2004 Mitch Haas, planner for the applicant, stated there was a strip of land that runs along South Avenue that was deeded to the city for a sidewalk right-of-way; the area still counts for development rights on this property even through it can't be built on. Haas said at this point it was just a proposed lot line subdivision so the entrances from the streets were not yet determined. Haas noted there were utility lines on the property, which would need to be .moved to an easement and there was pavement from Gibson Avenue on this property and not in the right-of-way; there was a condition for an easement to cover all of these nuances. Haas said that he and John Niewoehner, city engineer and Libby from Holy Cross Electric have been working together on these easements. Woodford stated the city engineer wanted the driveways either on South or Gibson but as far as poSsible from the intersection; a hammerhead turnaround was requested for the larger lot nearer to Smuggler Park so there wouldn't be cars backing out into the street. Woodford said there'was a proposed sidewalk along Gibson Avenue and the city was requesting a sidewalk on South as well, which was controversial with the applicant and city. Woodford said there were 2 GMQS exemptions were for the reconstruction credits for two units. The development rights for the property after subdivision would be a single- family with an ADU or cash-in-lieu on lot 1 and a duplex or 2 single family residences on lot 2 with an ADU or cash-in-lieu. Hoefer stated that the proposal was legal under the code in that zone district. Allgaier stated that "exempt" didn't mean that you were exempt from mitigating. This was a way to eliminate the step of actually having to build the duplex and tear it down in order to gain the unit of density that was allowed. Haas said that the applicant actually had a building permit for a duplex for the square footage and then he would have tom it down. Hoefer explained that P&Z had to legally approve the subdivision and was basically signing off on the GMQS exemption. Woodford stated that the applicant has the option to consolidate; the GMQS requires only P&Z or the community development director approval and the subdivision requires P&Z and Council approval. Tygre said that she was confused about the difference be~.tw., een lot split and subdivision; she asked if there were different development rights with lot splits and subdivisions. Woodford replied that there were no changes in the development rights between a lot split or a subdivision. Haas responded the growth management for lot splits were only available in the original town site; they were not eligible for a lot split. Haas said the subdivision carries exactions that a lot split doesn't. Tygre stated that usually roads and access were included in the subdivision review and asked why it wasn't part of this application. Woodford replied the engineering department had site lines for the intersection and the minimum distance from the intersections. Allgaier added that it was a two-lot subdivision bordered by roads on two sides w/th good access for fire, all the health, safety and welfare requirements; there were conditions as to where the access 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APRIL 20, 2004 points could be limited and during the building permit process they will go through the same kind of review process with engineering. Tygre asked if the applicant or council decided if ADUs were built or was cash-in-lieu provided~ Woodford replied in order to qualify for the single-family exemption the applicant shall have the option of providing a deed restricted RO ADU or fee-in-lieU~ Allgaier responded that at the time of building permit they would decide if there was an ADU or fee-in-lieu. Haas stated that in residential development the applicant had the choice of exemption; if there were mitigation requirements it was then up to the Growth Management, P&Z and or Council but this was not a mitigation. Johnson asked if this subdivision were approved and it moves onto City Council for -approval then no one else but Sarah Oates would see where on the lots the houses would be placed. Allgaier replied the Zoning Officer and every other referral agency would review; if they walk in and meet the regulations, do the mitigation, pay the impact fees then they obtain a building permit. Haas noted that they rely on the zoning to tell the applicant where and how big buildings can or can't be and residential design standards. Public Comments: 1. Doug Allen, public, said after hearing Jasmine he thinks that there is a problem in the system; this gets divided into a subdivision without hearing all the issues and the next thing that happens is the access becomes a placement problem. 2. David Oaks, public, manager of Smuggler Park SubdiviSion, asked if this remained a single lot what can legally be built. Woodford responded two single-family residences or a duplex. Oaks said that the subdivision grants the right to build a third home in that area. Woodford said that was correct but not to increase the buildable square footage. Oaks stated concern for the water and electric to this subdivision because currently that lot operates on a well and to connect to the city water system would require them to trench across South Street and up to Race Street or trench into the new Smuggler Park Water system. Oaks said it was the same with electric; there was one transformer box that was retrenched last year and goes through his yard. Oaks also had a height concem because Smuggler Park has placed height limits of 15 feet. Woodford said the height limit'in the area was 25 feet. David Oaks stated the sidewalk wasn't needed on South Street. 3. Robert Zupancis, public, stated that he lived diagonal from this property. Zupancis asked what the requirement was for off-street parking for the scenario of a single family and a duplex. Haas replied assume that they will be more than one bedroom units so there would be two parking spaces on site per unit. Zupancis stated the traffic was a problem and there was no parking on either side South Street or Race Street and one side of Gibson and Walnut. Zupancis asked if some of the city land could 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APRIL 20~ 2004 be used for snow storage rather than the sidewalk being placed; he wasn't sure the sidewalk was needed. Marion asked if a more comprehensive plan was needed because of the questions from the. public raised about the water, electric and sidewalks. Woodford replied there was a Development Review Committee (DRC), which consists of the city engineer, water, electric, housing, parks and all the interested partieS to give their technical review and the city water and electric issues were brought up at that DRC meeting. Haas responded to the electric question and explained the location of an existing a Holy Cross Electric vault with a stubbed line onto the property. Haas said that the Water Department didn't see a problem making the water connection to city water and the well would be abandoned and those water rights would go to the City. Haas said that if the lot wasn't subdivided a duplex or 2 single-family homes could be built without any review from P&Z because the setback and dimensional'requirements were set in place; the access questions would be brought up at building permit. Tygre asked for clarification on the side yards and front yards and what the setbacks were for these lots. Haas replied that there were combined side yard setbacks and a minimum side yard would be a minimum of 15 feet with a total of 30 feet combined. Johnson said that he had a hard time understanding the application and now knows Why becauSe he hasn't seen anything like this review before; he requested tabling so that he could do his due diligence on the review process. Tygre asked if there was more information needed from staff or the applicant. Johnson replied that he couldn't formulate all the questions that he had because he didn't understand it sufficiently. Haneman stated that he would draw a distinction between acceptance and understanding; he said that he could understand what was happening but he was having difficulty accepting it. Marion stated in the interest of clarification he provided an example of his lot split, which gave different options but the first step was to split the lot and fit it into the existing codes. Marion said when he sold the lot he couldn't say if the buyer would do their due diligence in terms of setbacks and historic significance. Marion said in this subdivision case the commission was just approving the cutting the lot into one-third and two-thirds portion and the applicant would have to deal with the parking, ingress and egress issues, which makes this proposal simpler to deal with. Marion stated whatever the applicant does with the property will end up in the existing code requirements and the commission was just granting the right to use the big piece of property to have another piece of density. Marion said when he walked the property he focuSed on the density of the area and he concluded that one more piece of density would not be adverse with Smuggler Park and surrounding duplexes. Hoefer stated that you end up 9 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APRIL 20, 2004 with two legally conforming lots. Johnson said that he understood they have to conform to the zoning but that wasn't his issue; he didn't understand the need for the interpretation when the community development directors could have signed off on it. Allgaier explained that there was no mystery to the exemption and it was common for community development to package reviews for the planning commission to see the whole picture. Johnson said that was his issue that he did not understand this and he didn't think that anything said tonight would help his issues tonight; he said he wanted to review the information and the code. Haneman said they had to go from single-family to duplex and then demolish and have the right for two development rights; does it make any difference in light of this subdivision whether there was a house on this property at all, if it was a vacant 21,938 square foot lot would this still go forward with the rights for a single family on one and a duplex on the other. Woodford said that they would have the right to build a duplex. Haas replied that the code interpretation was if they had to build the duplex and tear it down to get the right to build the two-single family homes or duplex on one lot. Johnson cOmmented that the code language that you must build it to tear it down was odd; he asked if this wasn't an issue prior to this review. Tygre said that many of the surrounding properties were R- 15, which wouldn't be a problem but this one was zoned R-6. Tygre stated that the code is what it is and the commission has tO go by the findings of the criteria although the criteria do not address this.application; although Tygre said she had problems with the application Tygre stated that it fulfilled the requirements of R-6. Allgaier stated that this was a simple parceling of land and the commission was used to seeing complicated PUD land use reviews. The commission agreed to add a condition that no further subdivision occur on LOt 2 but itcould be cOndominiumized. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve Resolution #13, series of 2OO4 for subdivision and GMQS Exemption for South & Gibson Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit for either new lot: a.) Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. bO Cash in lieu of school land dedicatiort shall be paid. c.) A nyproposed new dwelling shall demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. d) An approved tree permit is required from the City Forester. An approved tree permit requires a proposed landscape plan identifying trees for removal and means of mitigation, e.) An outdoor lighting plan for each residence shall be submitted, f.) All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. g.) The private well for the existing house must be abandoned and a new municipal water service installed. 2. Prior to commencement of construction on either lot, a vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. There shall be no excavation, no storage of construction materials, backfill, equipment, tools or construction traffic inside of the protective fence. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence. 3. The existing house need not be demolished to accommodate the newly created lot boundaries and the encroachments into the side yard setbacks may continue to exist for the life of the original structure only. Upon redevelopment, all structures on these two (2) lots shall comply with the R-6 Zone District provisions with respect to the newly created lot boundaries and setbacks. The subdivision plat shah grant an easement to allow for the existing residence to be maintained across the new lot line and shall function for the life of the existing 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APRIL 20, 2004 structure only. The existing house floor area shall be noted on the subdivision plat. 4. The driveway for Lot 1 (the corner loO shall be placed as far as possible from the South/Gibson Avenue intersection. A hammerhead driveway on Lot 1 shall be constructed to allow cars to turnaround on~fq aEd avoid backing onto the street. 5. The applicant shall construct sidewalks, in compliance with City standards for the portion of the property fronting Gibson Avenue and South Avenue. 6. The subdivision plat shall show an easement for utilities, roadway and future sidewalks. Instead of multiple easements, a single 'non-exclusive common easement' may be platted with appropriate plat notes. No structures or trees shall be placed in the easement witho~ut the permission of the ' City Engineer and applicable utilities. 7. Prior to the recordation of the subdivision plat, a design of the sidewalk and curb/gutter needs to be submitted to the City Engineer. (A sidewalk, curb and gutter design will allow the accurate depiction of the easement on the plat.) The curb location along Gibson Street will be dictated by the need for a 24-foot minimum street width. The design needs to include a site plan with adequate contours and spot elevations to demonstrate that gutter will have a O. 75% slope (minimum) towards a storm drain and show the extent of re-grading Gibson St. The sidewalk, curb and gutter along both lots shall be installed as part of the next building permit for either lot 1 or lot 2. No Certificate of Occupancy will be given until the sidewalk, curb and gutter is installed. 8. No proposed structure or landscaping over 30 inches tall shall be installed in a sight triangle located 30feet within the Gibson/South St intersection. 9. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the PiPkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. 10. All uses and construction shall comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards, with Title 25, and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities. There shall be no further subdivision of Lot 2, the 15,079 square foot lot. This restriction shall not apply to condominiumizing two single-family dwelling units or a duplex constructed on the lot. Seconded by Roger Haneman. Roll call: dohnson, no; Haneman, yes; Marion, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 3-1. PUBLIC HEARING: MCGARVEY SUBDIVISION - 433 WEST BLEEKER STREET Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the McGarvey Subdivision at 433 West Bleeker. David Hoefer stated that an affidavit was'provided with proof of notice and posting. Scott Woodford stated that the applicant requested a subdivision and GMQS exemption to subdivide the existing lot into two single-family lots. Lot sizes are 6,000 square feet and 7500 square feet; the only option was to build single-family residences. Woodford utilized blueprints and drawings to show the existing lot line and proposed lot line, which goes through the existing house. The existing access to the house is off of Fourth Street. Woodford said there were two development rights; to satisfy the exemptions they will have to provide ADUs or pay the cash-in-lieu. There will be some credits for the existing house; the timetable for reconstruction is 5 years from demolition unless an extension is granted by city council (memo page 5 #2.d.). Mitch Haas, representative for the applicant JNM Bleeker Street, stated this was like a lot split but wasn't because there was a provision in the lot split standards that if the property has ever been subdivided before then it could not be a lot split but had to be a subdivision. The first subdivision was done in 1981 or 1982. The subdivision does not add any density to the lots; i.t will take the Fourth Street access away and the alley will 11 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APRIL 20, 2004 be used as it was meant to be. Haas stated the applicant plans to build himself a new home on the comer lot (the 7500 square foot) and sell the other one. Roger Haneman asked if these were back,~t0 the original lots lines from 30 years ago. Haas replied that prior to 1982 it was a 19,500 square foot lot. Doug Allen stated that those 4½ lots and the lots next door were all under one ownership before it was subdivided. Tygre said that each created lot would have to provide an ADU or cash-in- lieu but if an ADU was created it would still have to be included in the allowable FAR. Jack Johnson inquired that just because this was in the original township does it not mean that there was a historic TDR with either of theses lots for receivership or transference; he asked if it was only the structure that had the TDR transfer ability. Haas stated that this was not a historic property and it could only be transferred from a historic building. Brandon Marion asked if there were any restrictions whether the front of the house would be on Bleeker or Fourth. Haas responded that this situation would require the front to be on Bleeker because the block length was longer. Public Comments: Doug Allen, public, represents Sistie Fischer, said that they were happy to see this was being developed in a sensitive manner. Allen requested adding two conditions: that neither lot shall be further subdivided and neither lot have a duplex on it. Haas responded that an ADU would not be considered a duplex. Three commissioners thought the additional conditions were a good idea and two commissioners didn't have an opinion on the addition. MOTION: Brandon Marion moved to approve Resolution #14, series of 2OO4 for a Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for the McGarvey Subdivision at 433 West Bleeker Street subject to the following conditions: 1) Prior to issuance ora building permit: a) Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. b) Cash in lieu of school land dedication shall be paid. c) Both of the new single-family residences shall demonstrate their compliance with thee Residential Design Standards. d).An outdoor lighting plan for each residence shall be submitted, e) All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 29 Plans shall be submitted showing adequate area for snow storage completely on-site and not in the public alley, gd An approved tree permit is required from the City Forester. An approved tree permit requires a proposed landscape plan identifying trees for removal and means of mitigation, h) Based on the mitigation for tree removal, an approved landscape plan will need to be submitted to the Parks Department. The building permit landscaping plan should include landscaping of the Fourth Street right-of-way adjacent to the property. 2) The existing house need not be demolished to accommodate the newly created lot boundaries and the encroachments into the side yard 12 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes APRIL 20, 2004 setbacks may continue to exist for the life of the original structure only. Upon redevelopment, all structures on these two (2) lots shall comply with the R-6 Zone District provisions with respect to the newly created lot boundaries and setbacks. The subdivision plat shall grant an easement to allow for the existing residence to be maintained across the new lot line and shall function for the life of the existing structure only. The documentation of the existing house floor area must be submitted as part of the building permit. 3) Prior to Certificate of Occupancy for a structure on either lot, any pedestals in the alley adjacent to the lots should be moved out of the alley RO~7 and onto the property of adjacent lot. 4) A new curb is to be installed in place of the abandoned driveway prior to Certificate of Occupancy for a structure on either lot. 5) Prior to commencement of construction on either lot, a vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. There shall be no excavation, no storage of construction materials, backfill, equipment, tools or construction traffic inside of the protective fence. This fence must'be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee before any construction activities are to commence. 6) A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. 7) The existing sewer service may be able to serve one of the two lots. A shared sewer service will not be allowed. Each lot shall require its own service. 8) Sewer service is contingent upon compliance with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. 9) The existing water tap must be abandoned. Abandonment of the tap shall occur when the existing building is demolished. 1 O) All uses and construction shall comply with the City of Aspen l/Vater System Standards, with Title 25, and applicable portions of Title 8 (~Vater Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal Code as they pertain to utilities, lO 11. There shall be no further re-subdivision of either lot created by this approval and no duplex shall be constructed on either new lot. The option to construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit on either lot shall be permitted and shall not be construed as a duplex or a subdivision. Seconded by Roger Haneman. Roll call vote: Johns, yes; Johnson, no; Haneman, yes; Marion, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 4-1. BOARD REPORT Jack Johnson reported on the COWOP Visitor Center. The commission discussed the COWOP process with some reservations and support. Concerns were abuse of the process by the city not being held to the same standards that private projects were held to and to follow the process; the land use opinions were not addressed in the COWOP process; the public perception of the city having made the decision on the Visitor Center location prior to any public input; asset management developing a plan and taking it to council without full P&Z review process; the COWOP process was very frustrating for some of the members. Adjoumed at 7:20 pm. Lothian, Deputy City Clerk fackie ' ~ 13