Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19920421 rfV ""~;",,~, , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS '- PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 21. 1992 Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney. David Brown, Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Roger Hunt and Jasmine Tygre. Bruce Kerr was excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS Diane: Brought members up to date regarding the Berger annexation/ rezoning. Ice Rink and Wagner Park: There will be a new presentation at the May 11th Council meeting. Roger: One of my concerns about the use of the Wagner site is that was phase #3 for a location for an underground garage. PUBLIC COMMENTS . There were none. MINUTES MARCH 31. 1992 APRIL 7. 1992 Roger made a motion to adopt minutes of March 31, 1992. Richard seconded the motion with all in favor. Roger made a motion to table minutes of April 7, 1992 in order to get blanks filled in by Leslie. David seconded the motion with all in favor. KRAUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING TEXT AMENDMENT Jasmine opened the public hearing. MOTION Roger made a motion to table this hearing to date certain of May 5, 1992 and to continue the public hearing to that date. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. o. "..-.-".",-- PZM4.21.92 - BURTON/ALLEN CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ADU Kim presented affidavit of mailing. (attached in record) She then made presentation as attached in record. David: I would like to make a recommendation for a Condition #6 that on the plans as submitted to the Planning Dept when the final plan comes through that the entire area be noted on the plans as an Accessory Dwelling unit so that it is very clear that it is accessory dwelling unit--in the building plans itself and therefore the sound continuation provisions in the UBC would be applied and conformed with. I think it is extremely important to have this done on this and all accessory dwelling units. Condition #6 should read "The employee dwelling unit shall be designated as an Accessory Dwelling unit and clearly marked on the plans as such as submitted to the Building Department in order to insure compliance with the UBC Chapter 35 sound continuation requirements". Roger: Should we then include this as a standard thing for all accessory dwelling units then? There was general agreement for this. Jasmine asked the applicants if they had any problems with the conditions of approval. Doug Allen: No problems. We intended to do that anyway. Jasmine asked for public comments. There were none. MOTION Roger: I move to approve the conditional use for a 380sqft attached Accessory Dwelling Unit within the proposed Burton/Allan duplex at 777 Castle Creek Drive with conditions #1 through #5 as stated on Planning Office memo dated April 21, 1992 (attached in record) with the addition of condition #6 as follows: The employee dwelling unit shall be designated as an Accessory Dwelling Unit and clearly marked on the plans as such as submitted to the Building Department in order to insure compliance with the UBC Chapter 35 sound continuation requirements. 2 < PZM4. 21. 92 - This is going to be a standard condition dealing with sound continuation between units. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. Jasmine closed the public hearing. PATRICK CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Jasmine opened the public hearing. Susan Furr, architect for applicant presented affidavit of public notice. (attached in record) Kim made presentation as attached in record. For the record I received 2 communications from neighbors. One is very strongly against the particular proposal. The reasons offered by this particular neighbor is that the Accessory Dwelling unit would increase traffic and impact on the neighborhood by at least 25%. He sites pollution dealing with changes in character of the neighborhood, bureaucratic way to bring back bandit units legally when just a short time ago they were considered a blight on the community. and he feels that in general these low cost accessory units are ineffective. This is from Mr. Frederick and attached in record. I also received a call today from Larry Yaw who is calling on behalf of the Warranville Subdivision Homeowner's Association. The discussion he has had with those people is that they do approve of this particular request. After brief discussion-- Jasmine asked for public comment. There was no public comment. Susan Furr: I have a problem with condition #3. The conditions in Ord. #1 state that no additional parking space is required for a I-bedroom or an efficiency unit. And I don't think the exception to be made is proper in this particular case mostly because of the intimate cul-de-sac and the small lot. To have a car just parked- -we just wouldn't do it. Mr. Patrick has said that if he has to add an extra parking space he just won't put the accessory dwelling unit in because of the fact that it would be a disturbance to both his lot and to the neighbor's to have this extra spot. We already have to comply to code to have 4 off-street parking places which we have and whoever rented the unit would be a "- 3 " PZM4.21.92 "- caretaker or somebody that he knew and he would make parking arrangements with them if they needed it in this driveway or sharing his garage. and so we don't feel like this special parking space is called for in this particular application especially since the law doesn't require it. There is a bus stop right off MCSkimming Road. So as far as public transportation it couldn't be more accessible to this house. Actually I think that I could even provide the extra parking space right here but it is pretty pointless unless it is at night and no one is going to be using the rest of the driveway. This little area right here is directly in front of the 3 houses that are on the cul-de-sac and it is all natural Aspens which we have no intention of disturbing. If you stood on that cul-de-sac it would be real clear to you that it would be a really rude thing to do to the neighbors to stick a car right there. Jasmine: It looks to me that since we have an Ordinance #1 situation here we have the opportunity of either getting an accessory dwelling unit which mayor may not be occupied with or without a parking space or if, as Susan says, Mr. Patrick would rather pay cash-in-lieu than put in a parking space. I think it is up the commission to decide what would be more acceptable in terms of compliance with Ord #1. Kim: He is required to mitigate in some fashion. The most common avenues are the Accessory Dwelling Unit or the case-in-lieu. Richard: The owner has represented before us that they can handle it on site as is. So I am willing to accept that unless it proves to be otherwise. Sara: I agree. I think that if council in drafting the Ord #1 felt that parking obviously was going to be a hardship in developing residences and I would hate to see Aspen trees torn down just to provide one more space. I would hate to build a church for Easter. I doubt there will always be 4 cars. I would rather save the Aspen trees than provide another space and Council obviously long ago felt that way too. Tim: I feel the same way. I think 4 spaces are enough. I am curious about Mr. Patrick's intent to only have somebody he knows being in this space and I am wondering how that occupant will be qualified. will he have to go through a regular Housing Authority process? 1'''-''' Kim: Whoever Mr. Patrick would want to accept as a tenant there would have to be forwarded to the Housing Authority. "--" 4 PZM4 . 21. 92 Diane: There is a deed restriction condition in here that they have to go through the Housing Authority qualifying as a resident of pitkin County and all of that. Tim: I think it is compatible with me to think that this might be someone who could act as a caretaker, might use his vehicles, might be part of that household and might not need another car. So that is another idea for me to say that I don't think another space is necessary and I will forego #3. David: I feel unconvinced. I think it is very easy to accommodate another parking space on this particular site. I am not convinced that there are 4 convenient spaces. There are 2 spaces in the garage with 2 double stacked spaces in front. It meets the rule of 4 spaces but in essence it is very difficult to use 4 spaces simultaneously. I can see that for parties and visitation season it will get heavily used. I think it is important to minimize the impact on the neighborhood that an accessory dwelling unit have parking space provided for it. I think to add 8 and 1/2ft to the side of the driveway as it is currently located on the 45 is not a difficult thing to do so I would encourage you to reconsider re-designating it to accommodate another parking dedicated specifically to the accessory dwelling unit. Jasmine: My problem with accessory dwelling units is that although they are deed restricted, they do not necessarily have to be occupied. And we don't really know whether there ever would be a need for an additional car because we don't really know when this unit ever would be occupied. It is not a requirement of Ord #1 that the accessory dwelling unit be occupied. The only requirement is that if it is occupied it is occupied by somebody who qualifies under the Housing Authority guidelines. To a great extent I think this issue is rather mute. I would rather see the applicant pay cash-in-lieu because then we at least get something out of it rather than an accessory dwelling unit which mayor may not be occupied. If we say that they must put in the parking space and the applicant says they will not then they have to pay cash-in-lieu, that is their choice. Sara: I disagree with that argument. I think the community is better served when employees are spread out into some of these homes and the homes are occupied. Jasmine: That has been my big beef about the accessory dwelling '- 5 PZM4. 21. 92 units. There is no indication they will actually be occupied. That is where my problem occurs with this. Roger: I would be really hot after the additional parking space if the main unit were just a 1 or 2 bedroom unit. But a 4 bedroom unit to me indicates that it is going to be occupied by a family and chances are that family will not have 4 cars. But if it is a community house, then we have a real problem. If it is a residential family housing I am willing to give up that space for the accessory dwelling unit. MOTION David: I move to approve the conditional use for 482sqft basement level accessory dwelling unit within the proposed Patrick residence at 1365 Mayflower Court with the four conditions recommended in the Planning Office memo dated 4/21/92 plus the 5th condition that will read "The accessory dwelling unit will be noted as an accessory dwelling unit and clearly marked on the plans as submitted to the Building Dept for purposes to call attention to Chapter 35 of the UBC and conformance thereto. Motion died for lack of a second. MOTION Richard: I move to approve conditional use for a 482sqft basement level accessory dwelling unit within the proposed Patrick residence at 1365 Mayflower Court with the four conditions recommended in the Planning Office memo dated 4/21/02 (attached in record) with conditions 1 and 2 as in Planning Office memo dated 4/21/92 and condition #3 to be changed to "No additional parking space is required unless the 4 on-site prove insufficient and it becomes a problem for the neighbors". One parking space shall be added for the accessory dwelling unit if parking proves to be a problem. Condition #4 as is. Condition #5 will be the "David condition". I would also add a condition #6 that the jacuzzi be moved south so that it is not in front of the doorway to the accessory dwelling unit. That would require them to move it 6 to 8ft out into the deck of the family house. Tim seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Tim, yes, David, no, Sara, no, Richard, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, - 6 PZM4 . 21. 92 no. Motion failed. MOTION Roger: I move to approve Conditional Use for a 482sqft basement level accessory dwelling unit within the proposed Patrick residence at 1365 Mayflower Court with conditions #1, 2 and 4 being the same as on planning Office memo dated April 21, 1992. (attached in record) Condition #3 is deleted. Condition #5 which is the standard sound continuing condition and also the addition of Condition #6 the jacuzzi being moved south away from the entrance of the ADU. Tim seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Tim, yes, David, no, Sara, yes, Richard, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, no. Motion carried. Jasmine closed the public hearing. LONGORIA CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR ADU Affidavit of mailing was presented. (attached in record) Kim made presentation as attached in record. After discussion with Bruce Sutherland the architect Jasmine asked for public comment. ?: We have the property right across the street. Our problem with there being an accessory unit is what has happened already is that this winter there has been as many as 8 adults and 4 large dogs living the unit as it is. So we have a problem with this adding another unit because the way we see the situation is that it is just going to encourage more people to be in there impacting the neighborhood. There is 5 to 6 cars that have been there. They go against the traffic on the one-way street regularly so we have an objection to the whole idea of adding facilities for additional people here. Sutherland: The owner rented the house to young folks who just came in with a lot of people. When they build this house it is going to be one family and the accessory unit is not going to be anywhere near the intensity of what it is today. I believe I counted at one time there were 10 people there. And like you say, cars and dogs and the rest. 7 PZM4. 21. 92 When this house gets done that will not be the case. And this is going to be a part time residence. The gentleman who is building this house already has residence in Mexico, San Antonio etc. So he will probably spend 2 or 3 months of the year here. And then the accessory dwelling unit would have somebody there all the time. So I believe it will be pretty low key. Jasmine asked if there was any further public comment. There was none and she closed the public portion of the hearing. MOTION David: I make a motion to approve the Conditional Use for the 691sqft basement level accessory dwelling unit within the proposed Longoria residence at 936 Kin Street with the seven conditions recommended in the Planning Office memo dated 4/21/92 and another condition #8 to callout this as clearly on the plans submitted to the Planning and Building Departments as an accessory dwelling unit with the intent therefore to insure compliance with provisions as Chapter 35 of the UBC. And to amend Condition #4 to say "And provide additional landscape screening between the entry into the accessory dwelling unit and the hot tub area". Roger seconded the motion. _.., Sara: Do you realize that on Condition #3 we want him to provide a completely different to--Mr Sutherland and I are saying that this probably isn't going to be a bedroom. David: I amend my motion to delete #3. Roger: I somewhat agree with the Planning Office on this. Given he fact that-- Tim: Are you proposing that the sleeping area becomes the living area and the closet becomes the kitchen and the kitchen becomes the closet? Sara: I understood that it has to be described as a bedroom because the bedroom needs a window but it is all really one room. So how they arrange the furniture is up to them and I don't see where else we can enter that unit because of that crawl space all the way around and the way it is bermed. Kim: I was going to ask Bruce what he had envisioned as far as relocating the room because if that flip flops to the other side of the unit then that will open up a whole lot of other dimensional opportunities to put the kitchen next to the-- ......' 8 r" PZM4. 21. 92 '- There was then discussion over plans with Sutherland. Roger: This improves it a lot. Sutherland: I think this is a better plan. having that pointed out. So we appreciate Jasmine: This is a revised plan now. David: I think the motion actually accommodates this provision because it has a condition-- Roger: And it also says all material representations on this revised plan dated 4/21/92 to me is a material representation which significantly improves the plan. So I will amend my second to the motion--to remove condition #3 entirely. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. WEINBERG CONDITIONAL USE FOR AND ATTACHED ADU Jasmine opened the public hearing. '>'._~ Kim made presentation as attached in record. certificate of sign posting and of mailing were presented and attached in record. Sutherland, architect for applicant: I feel very strongly that we already have 5 cars and now we have the 6th. Again we can find a place on the lot to put the car. We have got a 25ft access easement. We have got 4 cars on the surface and when you get down to it just seems to me that landscaping and greenery is a lot more important than just providing car space. It seems like when you have a 5 bedroom house and 5 cars and I think that is enough for this project. However we are not going to take a big stand against that. Jasmine asked for public comment. John Kelly: I am privately representing my family-owned property to the north of this. My initial concern with this house is 5 which I realize you aren't dealing with other than the fact I was concerned that perhaps there had been some break given on the FAR as a result of this unit. Were that to be the case we would be opposed. It was represented to me by the Planning Office that that is not the case. We have no problem with an accessory dwelling 9 I"'"~ PZM4. 21. 92 - unit as such. But we do have a problem with the size of the house and as long as it hasn't gotten larger in terms of FAR because of the fact that there is a unit in there I guess we are not opposed to the unit itself. On the parking issue I don't think we have a big problem although I might suggest that if there is 5 parking spaces already and that is adequate for the site, why not designate one of the 5 specifically for the unit and make that part of the approval, part of the covenant that goes of record so the individual who moves in there always has a parking space and does not have to park out on the street. I think that the way the road is going to be changed with the bike path, etc. that is going to serve the Meadows area I think that we definitely want to avoid any keep parking on the street at a minimum. Harriet Kelly: My husband and I have been tax payers here since 1950 so we certainly know Aspen pretty well. I have been told by my Son that this was not the place to say this and I don't mean to be insulting to the architect. '- I think it is the most outrageous thing. Frankly all of our neighbors thought nobody would ever buy that because it was so ridiculous the size of the house on the property. And it is changing the entire look of Meadows Road which I think is tragic. Here is the City spending all of this money on a bike pate to go in front and this huge house standing right there. It started with Don Erdman's down on the corner then Curt Barr was given a bread by dividing that lot which should never have been allowed which I am sure is not your fault. I drove all the way up from Denver because I didn't really every believe anybody would ever build that house. And I am so horrified by it. It looks like a duplex. I am not criticizing the architecture but it is the most tremendous thing. I just hope that in the future that you will look at every street in town and whoever is or whatever influence you have--it is too late now for this one. So what will happen, we will end up selling our house eventually before they designate it a historical skiing cabin and somebody will come in a ruin it and build a great big thing there. And there goes Meadows Road. It is gone. Jasmine: A lot of the members of this commission share your sentiments. David: During the last couple of years there has been a very active Community Planning process and during that process a lot of members of the community especially the west end have suggested '''--- 10 PZM4. 21. 92 --- that the community look very closely at revising the FAR ordinances. Harriet: I have been very involved in that.. I have been to many of those meetings. And no involving this house particularly so I am pretty familiar with it. Roger: I would add that the problem is not necessarily FAR but bulk. I live in the west end myself and have been seeing what is going on and it is bulk, bulk, bulk--not FAR. Sutherland: I would comment to the designating use of the parking spot. We would have no problem with doing that. We would like to keep 5 spots and put one of them right on that deed restriction that that one would be for the apartment. Jasmine: That might be something we might want to consider in other situations where the applicant has claimed that the parking can be handled within the particular family or the people who would be living there and that sort of put the onus right back on the applicant which I think is appropriate. So that might be something that would apply to other applications as well and I would like to thank Mr. Kelly for bringing that up as a possible solution. Kim: We could change one word in Condition #1 stating that one parking space shall be designated on site for the accessory unit. Jasmine: I think that is a very good idea. David: My only hesitation is that this is a 5 bedroom house and houses of the 80s generation of Aspen development it is very reasonable to expect that the household using this would have 5 or 6 cars at one time more than just once during the year. I can see this happening through the winter season. Kim: with the new Meadows Road configuration and in front there will not be on-street parking. signed "No Parking". the bike path out The road will be MOTION Roger: I move to approve the Conditional Use for a 625sqft basement level accessory dwelling unit within the proposed Weinberg residence at 715 Meadows Road with the following conditions based on Planning Office memo dated 4/21/92. (attached in record) Condition #1 shall read "One parking space shall be designated on site for the accessory dwelling unit". Condition #2 as is in the memo. -_.,- 11 PZM4. 21. 92 - Condition #3 will be deleted as is and replaced with a standard sound continuation condition. Conditions #4 through #6 as is on the memo. David seconded the motion. Kim: I want to clarify for when the zoning staff gets this condition #l--that designated space will be one of the 5 provided on site already. Roger: That was the intent. David: That is right. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Jasmine closed the public hearing. The regular portion of the meeting as adjourned at this time. Time was 6:15pm. #" Members of the Commission than continued with a work session on william Ranch AH Zone Project. ',- y Clerk 12