Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19960402 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 2, 1996 • Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. with members Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Timothy Mooney, Robert Blaich and Steve Buettow present. Absent was Marta Chaikovska. STAFF COMMENTS Michaelson stated that the site visit for Aspen Mountain PUD will be at 4:00 p.m. before the P&Z meeting on April 9, 1996. Michaelson asked that item B, the Silverman Stream Margin Review be switched to the last public hearing, in addition, Staff has found that an ADU is not allowed in the R30 zone district by zoning and the only alternative would be cash-in-lieu, the Conditional Use for ADU will not be heard tonight. Michaelson said that Staff is not sure how many ADU's went up in the area, one did go through because the Staff report showed the wrong zoning R15, when it should have been R30. There were no public comments on items not on the agenda. Rocky Mountain Pie Company, Conditional Use 333 E. Durant, Mountain Chalet • Garton opened the public hearing, proof of notification was provided however, it needed to be corrected. Hunt asked if the The Taco and Burrito Company that is currently operating at this location, is tied into this application. Michaelson responded that The Taco and Burrito Company will be a separate application. STAFF COMMENTS Suzanne Wolff, Staff said this is a Conditional Use to approve a restaurant in the L/TR zone district, the applicant is operating out of a commercial kitchen in the Mountain Chalet and is providing retail and wholesale baked goods to lodge guests as well as to the general public. In 1994, a GMQS Exemption changed the restaurant use into guest rooms, this application is to re-establish restaurant use in the lodge. Wolff said that Staff recommends approval with conditions. • 1 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 2, 1996 • COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Hunt stated that the Commission would be approving a Conditional Use for a restaurant in this facility, but asked if"The Taco and Burrito Company" falls within that. Michaelson responded that they would be processed as two separate Conditional Use permits because they will run with whomever's name is on the business license and these have two separate business licenses. Michaelson said if the applications were brought in together, there would still be two separate motions and two separate resolutions. Tygre said she has similar concerns and said that Staff should be more specific in the recommendation of exactly what is being approved. Garton said the Commission is being asked to approve the Pie Company that serves desert with some retail use, but that isn't what is going on in this space. Blaich stated that he would like to see the legality of both companies cleared up, • he said that if the Commission approved one and the other came forward for their approval and was not approved for some reason the Commission would be in bind. Mooney asked at what time, if the applications are made separately will the Commission see the impact of the businesses as they operate simultaneously. Michaelson responded that Staff would clearly represent in both applications that there are two different operations in the kitchen. Michaelson stated that for permitting, mitigation and business license purposes they are two separate operations. Michaelson said that this applicant has no obligation to mitigate the employee impact of another business operating under another business license just because they share a kitchen. Blaich responded that the Commission has a responsibility to balance it out and he said they would like to see two applications back to back. Blaich asked what the status of these businesses would be in the interim. Michaelson responded that they could continue business. He stated that when • Staff finds out a business is operating illegally they notify the owner and as long 2 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 2, 1996 • as they are in good faith working their way through the process they will not be red tagged. MOTION: Tygre moved to continue the Conditional Use review for Rocky Mountain Pie Company to May 7, 1996. Seconded by Hunt. All in favor, motion carries. Neisser Conditional Use Review 425 W. Francis Garton opened the public hearing, proof of notification was provided and Steve Buettow stepped down from this hearing. STAFF COMMENTS Wolff stated that this application is for a studio ADU within a proposed new residence and has a private entrance and parking is provided from the alley. Wolff said the ADU is above grade and will be deed restricted as an RO unit. Staff is • recommending approval with conditions. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Hunt stated that he would rather not see the ADU contributing to the bulk of this house. Blaich asked if the access to the ADU is through the garage or enters directly through the mudroom, which is attached to the kitchen. Blaich said that in either case the ADU enters through a private part of the house. Garton stated that one requirement that the Commission tries to establish with ADU's is that they are a separate living quarters and separate from the house. Garton said it is preferred, that if the ADU is occupied by a caretaker that they go outside and then into the house. Blaich asked about the trees that are in the building envelope. • Buettow responded that two trees will be removed and they will attempt to save them, otherwise they will be replaced. 3 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 2, 1996 • PUBLIC COMMENTS Bob Chamberlain, public stated that previously, in this neighborhood, a property owner wanted to build a duplex and now this ADU is being approved. Mr. Chamberlain said he did not agree with apartments in homes on the West end. He said that aestically if it were up to him, it would be a totally separate building. Blaich stated that there was an existing building in the rear part of the lot, and the ADU could be built there. Tygre said she felt Blaich had a good point, in reading the criteria it states; "the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed Conditional Use minimize adverse effects, including visual impacts". Tygre said that Blaichs suggestion of having the ADU in a separate location would fulfill the criteria that in her opinion the current design does not. Garton asked if the house was under ordinance 30 and what, if any, were the character guidelines. Michaelson responded that it was under ord. 30 and the only issue Staff had was window placement and an issue arose concerning what appeared to be a bedroom that has been converted into a living room. .Michaelson said the character guidelines were in ord. 35 which was repealed with the passage of ord. 30, there is no criteria in ord. 30 that talks about the context of a house within the neighborhood. Michaelson said that the design of this house sparked a great deal of debate among Staff on how well ord. 30 functions within neighborhood context as opposed to a structure and its dimensional layout. MOTION: Blaich moved to approve the Conditional Use for an ADU at 425 W. Francis St. with the following conditions: 1) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with the following: A) The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restriction to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon approval of the deed restriction • by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the 4 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 2, 1996 • deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer; B) Kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs; and C) A tree removal and mitigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parks Department. Tree removal permits shall be required for the removal or relocation of any tree greater that 6" caliper. All remaining trees must be protected during construction with no encroachment of the driplines during excavation. • 2) The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. 35 sound attenuation requirements. 3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning Department shall inspect the unit to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 4) All new surface utility needs and pedestals must be installed on-site. 5) The applicant shall abandon the existing water line on the property if the new residence will not be constructed within 6 months after the existing residence is demolished. 6) The applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application and during the public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission and shall • consider these representations to be conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 5 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 2, 1996 • 7) The entrance to the ADU shall have direct access without having to enter the house. Hunt stated that he could not support the motion on the basis that he thinks the "location, size and design of the proposed Conditional Use does not minimize adverse affects including visual impacts". Tygre agreed. Seconded by Mooney. Motion carries 3-2, with Garton, Mooney and Blaich voting Yes, Hunt and Tygre voted No. Phillips/Gordon Lot Split, Conditional Use Review for three ADU's, 918 E.Cooper STAFF COMMENTS Michaelson stated that this is a continued public hearing from March 19, 1996, at that hearing the Commission asked Staff to clarify available parking and discuss • with the applicant several design components for all three ADU's. Michaelson said there is now a parking plan for 13 spaces, floor plan and elevation for the ADU on Lot O, a revised floor plan showing a window placement modification on Lot M, and a floor plan that shows the elimination of internal access between the free market unit and the ADU proposed for Lot P. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Garton asked how sideways parking passed Staff. Michaelson responded that it is no different than driveway apron parking and has similar constraints. Garton opened the public hearing. Don Crawford, public, represents the Villager Townhouses requested that the maximum onsite parking be required. Garton responded that the applicant has added the required amount of onsite parking. • 6 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 2, 1996 • MOTION: Hunt moved to approve the Conditional Use for three ADU's at 918 E. Cooper, Lots M, N, O and P with the following conditions: 1) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall comply with the following: A) The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restrictions to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval fro all three ADUs. Upon approval of the deed restrictions by the Housing Office, the applicant shall record the deed restrictions with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorders Office with proof of recordation to the Planning Department. The deed restrictions shall state that the accessory units meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be rented for periods of six months or longer; and B) Kitchen plans shall be'verified by the Housing Office to ensure compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs. 2) The ADUs shall be clearly identified as separate dwelling units on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. 35 sound attenuation requirements. 3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning and Housing Department shall inspect all three \ - units to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. 4) All new surface utility needs and pedestals must be installed on-site. 5) The applicant shall consult the City Engineer for design considerations of development within public rights-of-way, and the Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall • obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from the City Streets Department. 7 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 2, 1996 • 6) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a tree removal and mitigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parks Department. Tree removal permits shall be required for the removal or relocation of any tree greater than 6" in caliper. 7) All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. S) The Housing Office shall review unit on Lot O for compliance with applicable standards. Any conditions that the Housing Office recommends are considered conditions of approval. If the applicant does not wish to comply with these conditions, the ADU for Lot O shall require and additional hearing before the Planning Commission to review the unit. • Seconded by Mooney. Motion carries 5-1 with Tygre voting No. Hunt excused himself from the meeting due to his health and Tygre left for a family emergency. Silverman Stream Margin Review 1470 Red Butte Drive Stan Mathis, public, representing the applicant asked that the Conditional Use be continued. Garton responded that the Conditional Use would not be tabled nor continued because our code does not allow a Conditional Use in the R30 zone. Proof of notification provided. • 8 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 2, 1996 • STAFF COMMENTS Wolff, Staff said this property is located in Red Butte Subdivision, currently there is an existing home that will be torn down. The applicant is planning to build a new residence on the lot. Wolff stated that both the existing and the proposed residence are located within 100ft. of the high water line of the Roaring Fork River. Wolff said the proposed building envelope shown on the site plan is a requirement of Stream Margin Review, the building envelope is located outside of the one hundred year flood plane line, development will not increase the base flood elevation. Wolff said that Staff recommends that the envelope be amended to exclude some of the trees that are currently within the envelope. Wolff said the envelope is avoiding any wetland or riparian areas. Staff recommends approval with conditions. Note: Conditions 1-5 relate to the ADU and are not included at this time. Garton asked Stan Mathis if he agreed to the condition amending the envelope to protect the trees. Mathis responded that in the last applications all the physical work being done to • the site had to be described. Mathis said there has to be enough of an area outside of the envelope for over dig, ect... Garton stated that her understanding is that there shouldn't be any digging outside of the building envelope that will jeopardize the trees. Michaelson responded that Mathis is saying he needs that room for excavation. Michaelson said the recommendation from the Parks Department should be a condition added to approval by P&Z. Mooney asked if it is Staffs opinion that by tearing down the 2400 sq.ft. and replace it with 5200 sq.ft. it will not have an impact in disturbing the water level. Michaelson responded that the applicant is clearly outside of the one hundred year flood boundary. Michaelson said that any encroachment 100 ft. from the flood plane requires Stream Margin. The entire house is within the one hundred year set back, but is outside of the one hundred year flood plane. Michaelson said if it was with in the 100 year flood plane, he would agree 100%. • 9 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 2, 1996 • Buettow asked what type of buildings will be across the river. Staff responded that is the Rio Grande trail. Garton asked for public comments. Margot Pendleton, public asked if the building envelope is being moved. Michaelson responded that the house is getting larger so the envelope changes, but the encroachment of the corner of the house is the same distance from the stream. Garton closed the public hearing. MOTION: Blaich moved to approve the Silverman Stream Margin Review for 1470 Red Butte Drive with the following conditions: 1) (6) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parks Department. Tree removal permits • shall be required for the removal or relocation of any tree greater than 6" caliper. 2) (7) The building envelope shall be amended to exclude the existing trees. No vegetation shall be manipulated outside the envelope, and the envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any building permits. 3) (8) Silt fencing shall be used during construction to prevent runoff from disturbed soils from entering the river. Revegetation is required for any disturbed soil on the site. 4) (9) If dedicating a fishing easement along the river, the applicant shall contact the Parks Department to determine the appropriate location. 5) (10) The applicant shall abandon the existing water line on the property if the new residence will not be constructed • within 6 months after the existing residence is demolished. 10 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 2, 1996 • 6) (11) All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 7) (12) from Parks memo dated 3/29/96. Trees over code must be protected during demolition and new construction. The furthest western tree shall be protected during construction by placing snow fencing or other such barrier around the dripline of the tree and no digging to occur within this area and a fisherman's easement to follow the 100 year flood boundary across the property, east to west, and continue down to the property boundary in the river. Seconded by Mooney. All in favor, motion carries. Meeting adjourned at 7:40pm, Worksession following was recorded. • Amy G. S mid, Deputy Clerk • 11