Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19840605 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 5. 1984 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5: 01 p.m. with commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson, Lee Pardee, and Roger hunt present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Pardee asked what action Council has taken on the Top of Mill and 700 South Galena. Alan Richman, planning office, replied that Council has met twice but there has been few results. Hunt has been contacted by two citizens who are concerned about a proposed ordinance to disallow duplexing somewhere in the city . This has upset someone ' s sale of a duplex size lot . Where is this in the system? How soon can this get through the system? Richman answered it will be in front of the Commission July 3rd. Harvey asked if this was put forward to Council by a west end group. Richman answered yes . Harvey asked what was Council ' s action. Richman understood that Council discussed sponsoring it and decided to send it to the Commission. Paul Taddune, city attorney, stated that it is the feeling of the majority of the Council that the west end should be single family rather than duplex configuration. The Council is responding to a group of citizens who feel strongly about maintaining the single family configuration. Harvey noted Turley received permission to do a lot split on Lake Avenue, for single family units . Taddune noted that the Turley lot split is what precipitated this citizen action. There was also a threat to start an initiative if the Council did not respond. There is a general resistance to large duplexes in the west end. Hunt said this is upsetting a substantial portion of the community. Richman commented that he is receiving calls every day . Dunaway said he is hesitant to say it is the consensus of the Council. Richman said Council does not even know the issue. Taddune said the Council voted three to two to send it to the Commission . Dunaway reported this action is not sponsored by the West End Association, but by some private citizens in the west end. OLD BUSINESS ANDREWS CONDITIONAL USE FOLLOW-UP Taddune said the memo dated May 31 is self-explanatory. It attempts in as brief of a format as possible to report the frus- tration encountered by all involved over the Andrews residential conditional use permit. Mrs. Andrews is present to offer her version of the problem. Essentially, the Andrews are no longer 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Plannina and Zoning Commission June 5. 1984 interested in a residential use of the condominium. The reason is that the cost of the three-hour fire wall makes the residential use economically prohibitive. There are other considerations addressed briefly in his memo that are addressed in the letter form Kathryn Bach, Bob Andrews' daughter. Prior to the conversation with Bob Andrews, the Andrews sought clarification and were interested in the residential use permit . The Andrews are no longer interested in the residential use. Mrs . Andrews, applicant, wished to go on record that it is not that the Andrews are not interested in proceeding. There have been tremendous economic setbacks because of the fire wall . (Jasmine Tygre arrives in the chambers. ) Ms. Bach did the legal research. She reported that Bach concluded there was not a meeting of the minds because a three-hour fire wall (which Hunt imposed upon the Andrews and the Commission agreed on last fall) is very different from the three-hour fire separation. Jim Wilson did not speak at that meeting. Everything, ceilings and floors, needs to be encased with the fire separation. There was originally a $12, 000 estimate for a fire wall . The Andrews agreed to that. Later Chic Collins and Jim Wilson estimated the increase to be between $40, 000 and $80, 000 for a separation which would meet the municipal code. The Andrews are defeated . The Andrews give up. They are walking away. They are not attempting to live there anymore. They want to go on record that there has been discrimination against them. She cited 570 Bleeker Street. There are four apartments with one over a welding shop, one over a woodworking shop, and one over a paint shop. Clone of the apartments have a three- hour fire separation as required by the municipal code. She cited Section 1447-1448 , and Tables 5-A and 5-B. Her site is zoned R-3 occupancy as a lodge and dwelling mixed with Table 5-B, a three-hour fire resistance separation which means ceilings, floors, walls . The four apartments on Bleeker are zoned SCI . If one person is treated one way, and one another, there is discrimination. Harvey asked for clarification between fire wall and fire separa- tion. Taddune understood that a residential use would occupy part of the building. In order to take full advantage of SCI uses a three-hour fire wall separation has to be installed to protect the residential uses from the high end of the spectrum commercial uses, for example, welding . The problem here is 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 1984 that if a residential use is allowed accessory to the commercial use, the SCI use would be diminished unless the Andrews encased the commercial use. Encasing would be done so that welding or the high end of the spectrum commercial uses would not jeopardize anyone living adjacent to that other space. He recalled from reading the minutes of the Commission, that the Commission was concerned about limiting SCI uses. The Commission did not want the residential component to restrict the commercial component. This created problems for the Andrews and for the people who wanted to occupy the commercial space. There have been some references made to other areas of the city. He informed the Commission and the public that these cases are being investigated to see if the units are in compliance. Also the Commission and the applicant should be advised that conditional use applications are discretionary, they are based on the facts of the particular situation. Therefore, the situation that exists in one part of the city does not necessarily mean that same situation ought to exist with respect to the application in front of the Commission. The Commission does has discretion in conditional use situations. Hunt added that the building use site is a pre-existing condition. How does the building relate to the code of its time? That is what it will be judged on, not that it happens to comply with the present regulations which will be determined by the building department if in fact they are investigating this. Bill Drueding, building department, said the building department is investigating Bleeker and noted there is a problem. Taddune sympathized with the layman' s viewpoint about the unequal treatment and with the argument that something is being done in another part of the city, therefore, why cannot someone else do it. The staff ' s response is that may be improper. Two wrongs are not going to be allowed. It is a difficult situation. The Andrews purchased and condominiumized the property with the idea of using it differently than is allowed. Mrs . Andrews added that the property is empty now. Across the street lower rents are offered. Her building has an old fashion furnace system, the cost of utilities is high. The building is unoccupied. Sales have fallen through also because of the SCI zoning. If she could have applied for neighborhood-commercial and SCI combined she could have sold or leased the space. She 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 5. 1984 does not have the money to apply for rezoning. Drueding said there is a residential unit there which is supposedly accessory to a business . There has never been an operating business there yet. Taddune commented this proceeding is only setting the record straight that certain conditions were imposed and those conditions could not be met . The Andrews may be interested in meeting those conditions but they do not have the economic wherewithal to persist in residential use of the space. There is the residual problem of the Sarah Pletts condominium, but this is not the subject of the update . Mrs . Andrews asked for the park dedication fee back. Taddune said the Andrews are entitled to a reimbursement of the park dedication fee since they are not pursuing the residential use. Harvey asked for an explanation of the discrepancy in estimates, $12,000 to $40 ,000-$80, 000 . Drueding said he was part of the meetings and privy to a number of meetings with Gary Esary. There is a difference between a three-hour fire wall and a three- hour fire separation . A three-hour fire wall simply means a wall. A three-hour fire separation means encasing the entire space . A three-hour fire separation is much more expensive than a three-hour fire wall. Jim Wilson was aware the entire time that a three-hour fire separation was required. It was never clear to the Commission what was required. There was a lack of communication. Hunt said the root of the problem is there were nontechnical people using technical terms. When he used the term fire wall he envisioned the units being separable by a vertical wall from the rest of commercial activity. That is a three-hour fire wall . Is there something different in the design between a wall and a separation. Drueding clarified that a three-h-our fire separation includes floor, ceiling and walls. Mrs. Andrews said the Andrews and Pletts units are located on the top floor, the commercial space was below which means encasing the ceilings. Anderson reviewed the letter from Bach and the Uniform Building Code. He tried to relate each item in the permitted uses, Section 24-3 .2 . The "B" occupancy is gas and service stations, wholesale and retail stores, office buildings, factories and workshops using materials not highly flammable or combustible. . . The 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 5. 1984 "H" occupancy requires a three-hour fire wall . The "B" occupancy requires a one-hour fire wall or no separation at all . The permitted use section reads "provided no permitted use creates unusual traffic hazard, dust, noise, fumes, odor, smoke, vapor, vibration, glare, or industrial waste disposal problems . " It should have been interpreted in the first place that it was a separation not a wall . The only real occupancy allowed in this zone district is "B" . Mrs . Andrews said when Jim Rose tried to buy the space it was discovered that an auto mechanic shop (with welding) was not an allowed use in the zone. Taddune remarked the mechanic needed the use of welding in order to repair_ cars ; the mechanic was not allowed to weld in this particular space because the building code required a three-hour fire separation as opposed to a three- hour fire wall . Any SCI use that involves a welding operation or hazardous or flammable material requires a separation. Anderson argued that hazardous or flammable materials are allowed in the SCI zone, including welding shops, according to the chart. Drueding commented that Jim Wilson, the chief building official, patrolled the area there and determined there were three uses he considered not permissable uses in that building. Anderson said there is no reference to welding as a conditional use . Drueding said Gilson determined three definite uses that would be hazardous uses in that area that were permitted by the municipal code . Flow unusual noise or dust defined is a judgement call that is hard to enforce. Wilson was quite confident that he had some uses based on the building code that there were hazardous uses that were being permitted in that building. Taddune said they are also health and safety concerns . The clarification needed from the Commission was whether or not the Commission was fundamentally concerned about diminishing the SCI uses. If the Commission is concerned about diminishing uses, then the accessory residential use should not be permitted unless there is a three-hour fire separation as opposed to a three-hour fire wall . If the Commission is not concerned about diminishing the SCI uses then the problem goes away. Drueding explained the Andrews are on the second floor . Downstairs is a commercial space not owned by the Andrews . The Andrews ' unit is a separate residence. A box could be built around the unit. 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June S. 1984 Penne explained the Andrews were going to operate an equipment rental business out of their unit . The commercial space was going to be part of the residential space . Mrs . Andrews said that was the original idea, but the design changed, the business would be in the contiguous space downstairs. But this does not include the front space where the shop used to be which was up for sale or lease. The Commission was concerned that in the future some use might come in requiring a fire wall . Hunt said that is adjacent space he conceived as one commercial-resi- dential unit. One commercial-residential unit requires a three- hour fire wall separating it from the rest of the activities that could be SCI . Drueding said if the Andrews occupied the space upstairs and downstairs then they could, but this is not the situation. Pardee spoke . The issue is does the Commission want to insure the continued use and availability of SCI uses in the SCI zone. The SCI uses need to be protected. The SCI uses should not be diminished by residential accessory uses. Roger Hunt moved to determine whether the Commission wants to maintain the integrity of the SCI zone by requiring three-hour fire separation in compliance with code; seconded by Lee Pardee. Discussion . Anderson said the Commission needs to vote for this but the code has not been interpreted correctly. Harvey discouraged code interpretation. Taddune said staff spent much time trying to make this work. Different scenarios were tried. It could not be worked out . He had to defer to the building department to make in the field type determinations as to what was hazardous and what was not . Every possible alternative was explored. Harvey interpreted the motion as a vote supporting maintaining SCI at the inconvenience of residential use . All in favor ; motion carried. Harvey commented accessory residential use can in certain circum- stances be of great benefit. There is a lot of SCI space in this town that is sitting empty. Taddune answered that certain configurations can accomplish that. This is a situation which does not work . Hunt reported for white that there is a definite need for places for artists to have a place of residence with a shop or studio. what 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 5. 1984 area does this type of zoning belong? Taddune said the home occupation zone accommodates that. Bil Dunaway, publisher for the Aspen Times, asked if the residential and commercial space was on the same floor would the three-hour fire wall be adequate . Drueding replied if there was a one story building then three-hour fire walls would be adequate . But with a second story, fire can burn vertically, therefore the unit would have to be encased with a fire separation. Dunaway asked if there was a SCI use on the second floor would the separation still be required. Drueding explained the fire separation is required between the business and residential unit. The building in the past has never been used for residential use. A SCI use does not require a separation. The code is trying to protect the safety of the residential use. Anderson noted that between a less hazardous SCI use and a more hazardous SCI use a separation is required also. What has happened here is that 900 of the SCI uses have been eliminated by mandating the worse possible scenario. Mrs. Andrews would have signed a conditional if and when the space was sold to a use requiring a fire separation to build the separation. But could the Andrews be allowed the conditional use prior to that? But the Andrews were told they had to pre-construct the fire separation before they would be allowed their conditional use . The Andrews could not agree to that. Harvey said the concern was that the Commission was not protecting the potential for a wide number of SCI uses. Taddune said there is no need for a motion on the park dedication fee, the refund will be handled administratively. OLD BUSINESS ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE EMPLOYEE HOUSING RESOLUTION Hunt addressed Section 1 . Identify the year of the dollars ($250 and $200 , respectively) in paragraph three and five. Sunny Vann, planning office, said this is only a conceptual approval . A PUD agreement will be detailed. A deed restriction which will have to pass by the housing authority and the city attorney will be detailed also. Harvey said it is easy to get fixed at $250 . The inflation factor has to be dealt with . May be the $250 should be adjusted in accordance with the housing guide- lines. Vann said the condition represents an initial start. The guidelines will need to be discussed. The conditions of the housing authority applicable have to be discussed. It is inappropriate at conceptual 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 5. 1984 to deal with this; the applicants ' application did not address this . It will be dealt with prior to final approval . If the Commission is going to deal with this now, then call in the housing authority to hammer out the specifics of how rent will increase over time. An escalation clause will probably be needed. Hunt addressed a second point on paragraph three. Is the Alpina Haus to remain in the rental market? Vann said the language "deed restriction . . . to a maximum rental price guidelines. . . " means rental only. There is no language about sales. Hunt said there is no specific language that Alpina Haus will stay in the rental market, spell this out as early as possible. Vann argued this change is not appropriate for conceptual but for final approval . Harvey suggested language "deed restriction to rental only of the forty-three. . . " Curtis said that is consistent with the general submission. Hunt requested the same language in paragraph five. Pardee suggested replace the $250 figure with "an annual inflation factor . " Dunaway suggested language "deed restriction to a rental price guideline in effect at the time. " The rents escalate and are adopted each year . The intent is to establish a low income. Doremus said there were no adopted guidelines for dorms at the time the application was written. Curtis noted the figure is below the low income guidelines of the housing authority. Dunaway suggested say 20% below the low income guide- lines. Vann reiterated this is not the final language. Harvey did not think an applicant can be asked categorically to be "x" percentage below the income guidelines. If the Commission feels the guidelines are not adequate or are too high, then the Commission can change the guidelines . The 250 or $250 is a representation. Vann said this is the GMP representation to the housing authority on which the housing authority based its recommendation of support. It is arbitrary to change it lower than the guidelines. Hunt agreed. It should be indicated that this is the applicants ' representation. What is the year of the dollar the applicants are talking about? Vann said it is nonspecific. Hunt said it can be assumed then that it will become specific upon the development of the housing. Harvey argued according to this condition it is an absolute, it is fixed to a year. Hunt said that he is worried about this for the applicants. Dunaway said the Commission should consider the best interest of the employees. 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 5. 1984 Hunt cited rental control housing in New York, it is not particularly in some cases to the advantage of the employee when the building is burning and needs to be evacuated. Vann reiterated the applicants have made a conceptual representation, based on that conceptual representation the Commission is recom- mending approval . The specifics will come forth in subsequent approvals. If there is some question about an aspect of a conceptual representation, then it is appropriate to make corrections . The Commission does not need to embellish the approval with additional details. Harvey said this has to be worked out with the housing authority. Fallin commented that a lot of responsibility is being relinquished to the housing authority . Vann said it was relinquished when the housing authority was established. Curtis said the affordability target is %25 of employee wages. That is below the income guidelines of the housing authority. The consistent policy on any deed restriction is the price is indexed to the time when the deed restriction takes place. The deed restriction per this document takes place prior to the issuance of the CO for the lodge. There will be an eighteen month gap prior to the commencement of a deed restriction . Everything will be indexed until the deed restriction is placed on the building prior to the issuance of a CO for the lodge. There will be ample legal language describing that. Harvey asked if there will be a rental price guideline for dormi- tories, $300 per month, used at the time the CO is issued. Curtis said the commitment is for now. That commitment for specific PUD agreement language will have a rate of indexing based on the wage increase of the employee or a preset index with the housing authority. As of today the housing authority guideline is rents cannot exceed 5% per year. There will be an indexing. Vann said in the event there is new guideline effective at time of final approval or preliminary the applicant may well say this has been supplemented by the following. The applicant will be asked if this is all right. The housing authority will evaluate it. Hunt said the interesting difference in this application is that the applicants have offered a ceiling price on the units . He is concerned about the ceiling price . If % 25 happens to exceed the $250 , will the $250 stay $250 . Curtis clarified 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 5. 1984 that the $257 will also be indexed by the housing authority. The housing authority is developing an Aspen wage index: that will tie everything. Hunt addressed items seven and eight of Section 1 . He wants to put the applicants on notice that the Commission intends to review and modify and improve via a possible necessary index. Is that assumed everywhere in this document? Vann said of course. Something is submitted for review . The applicants defer to the original submission but there may or not be certain building improvements required for the conversion of the units. It is premature at this point to identify them. They will be identified at preliminary PUD. The building department may require, for example, wiring upgrade. Pardee commented that the Commission wants to see submission of an acceptable detailed explanation. Vann agreed to rephrase item seven. The question is not whether the explanation is detailed or not, but the question is whether the improvements are acceptable. Hunt addressed number eight . He reported White was concerned about parking. Is there any employee parking included in the lodge or 700 South Galena? Vann answered there are ten spaces designated at the lodge . There is a provision for additional parking during off season periods. Eight spaces may result in the submission of the changes in the parking scenario to solve the problem with the Copper Horse. Doremus said two extra spaces have resulted from code changes with Ute City Place which is two blocks away from the Alpina Haus. Given some time the parking will be worked out. Hunt addressed number nine, the last sentence: "rent shall include all utilities. " Will the sale price also include all utilities? Vann said the item states "rentals" will include utilities, it does not say sale price determination shall include utilities . The applicants have proposed including utilities in the rental price, that is the extent of the proposal . Whether the sale price will be negotiated to include the common utilities remains to be seen. Curtis clarified that the base sale price for the housing authority guidelines today do not include the utilities. Rents do include all common utilities and common fee assessments. Individually metered utilities are not included in the rental guidelines. Sale prices do not include adjustment for the utili- ties . Vann said the applicants raised the question of common. Vann did not include it at the time, he was going to check the 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 5. 1984 original representation. It is also a specific issue which should be resolved by the time of the execution of the deed restriction. Hunt said the concern is that the developer absorbs an expense, rent that includes utilities. Does this encourage selling the units? Vann said the developer will be able to sell the rental units as the housing authority deems is appropriate within the market place. The developer does not have carte blanche. Doremus said the tax write-offs are much more important than the question of who pays the utilities. Hunt addressed number eleven. Hunt and White want to include " . . . shuttle service to augment (to the service that exists at Water Plant Housing) non-to-low operating times. . . " Harvey asked if Hunt wants the service operating from non-to-low, if Hunt wants the lodge to have the responsibility of providing service, or if Hunt wants to set a standard. Hunt responded that the basic standard is that the transit service is the same level that is provided for the Water Plant Housing or Cemetery Lane; basically the ADC service should be a 30 minute interval service. Include now that the applicants are expected to augment the present transportation system to that at Plater Plant and Cemetery Lang^ . Otherwise, the applicants should try to justify a lower service. Vann noted that last week the majority position resolved that the solution to the transportation as proposed was acceptable. Pardee suggested avoiding this discussion now. He suggested the language "an acceptable schedule for shuttle. " The Commission will have to review this again at preliminary. Vann said this will not be seen at preliminary. The Commission is only endorsing the employee housing solution . Only Ute City Place will be reviewed later by the Commission. Harvey interjected item one, item two, item seven, and item eight all make reference to preli- minary. Vann corrected himself . The Commission could defer at this item. Hunt agreed to yield this discussion to preli- minary. Hunt addressed paragraph seven in Section 3 . Harvey asked if this paragraph covers the entire resolution. Vann answered no . The reason this paragraph is not in Section 1 is because he specifically excerpted from their proposal all the relevant issues . There is nothing else in the proposal about employee 11 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 5. 1984 housing that is not specifically referred to here. Hunt raised the same issue as in Section 1 , paragraph nine, in Section 2, paragraph one : "rent shall include utilities. . . " Harvey understood if the developer constructed the building and metered the units separately, which could be a city requirement now, then the rent will include no utilities except may be the electricity and water used for the maintenance of the grounds . The statement that "rent shall include all utilities" is misleading. For the benefit of Council, this should be clarified. Vann suggested the language that "rent shall include all utilities or otherwise provided for by the housing authority. . . " The Commission will not have the final say. Harvey asked if the building department will require separate metering for electricity and water . Dunaway said individual metering is not an actual requirement. It is more economical to have separate meters. It is not possible to get water meters for each apartment building. Harvey said this is true for condominiums . Pardee asked why put the language in the condition at all . Vann put it in because the applicants represented it . Pardee argued if the housing office requires this, then it is a moot point . Harvey said the housing office requires all common utilities be included in the rent . This document states that rent shall include all utilities. Curtis interjected just include "in compliance with housing authority guidelines. " Harvey commented that metering each room would not be economical for the Copper Horse or the Alpina Haus; Ute City Place is different, it is new construction. Vann suggested delete "all" and state "rent shall include utilities as provided for by the housing authority guidelines. " Harvey agreed. Bunt ' s final comments refer to Section 3, paragraph five. Indicate that the Commission has endorsed the height variance for Ute City Place. He assumes a resolution of endorsement will be drafted to the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment resolution should accompany this current resolution. Council will review this and ask why allow building above the height restriction. Locate in this resolution the reason the Commission is endorsing the height variance. Add an endorsement clause by the Commission. Roger Hunt moved to adopt Resolution 7#84-6 as amended and which is to be signed by the chairman who is to check the amendments; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 5. 1984 Discussion. Vann outlines the changes. 1 . There are no changes in the "whereas ' s. " 2. Section 1 , clarify on item three "rental only" and "utilities be in compliance with the housing authority guidelines . " Item five will also receive the rental and utility clarification. 3 . Section 1 , item seven, rewrite to say "acceptable set of improvements. " 4 . Clarify "rent and utility " any place it shows up : Section 1, item nine; Section 2, item one; etc. 5 . Section 3, item five, further clarify the Commission ' s endorsement. All in favor; motion carried. Pat Fallin opposed. Harvey adjourned the meeting at 6 : 05 p.m. P';f I J x � 1> Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk 13