Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20200121Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 21, 2020 Chairperson McKnight called the meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Spencer McKnight, Teraissa McGovern, Don Love, Brittanie Rockhill, Rally Dupps Absent: Ruth Carver, Ryan Walterscheid, Scott Marcoux, Jimmy Marcus Staff present: Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director Garrett Larimer, Planner STAFF COMMENTS None. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. McGovern voted to approve the minutes from December 18th, 2019. Ms. Rockhill seconded. All in favor, motion carried. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Mr. Dupps stated that he interviewed for this job originally with the former property manager who is no longer there. It didn’t work out. He did not take any money. He is not recusing himself. He spoke with Ms. Bryan and they agreed they are okay. He feels he can be objective in his opinion. PUBLIC HEARING 900 E Hopkins Ave – Mountain River Manor Condominiums – Special Review, Stream Margin Review Mr. Larimer introduced himself as a Planner with the City of Aspen. He stated that the application was submitted by the Mountain River Manor Condominium Association, represented by Dave Rybak of Rybak Architecture and Development for improvements at 900 E Hopkins Ave, which are the Mountain River Manor Condominiums. The application requests stream margin review and special review for a stream margin review standard variance. Mr. Larimer stated that 900 E Hopkins is in the residential multi-family zone district. It’s an approximately 12,000 square foot lot with an existing 16 unit multi-family residential building. It’s adjacent to the Roaring Fork River and between West End and Cleveland streets on Hopkins Avenue. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final decision making authority on the reviews requested. Mr. Larimer stated that the existing structure was built in the early 1970’s, which was prior to the current stream margin review standards. Once those standards were adopted, there was a 15-foot top- of-slope that was established and there was a 45-degree progressive height limit from that top-of-slope. Certain portions of the existing building fell within the areas of restricted development. The building was built prior to those but is currently nonconforming in terms of the stream margin review criteria and standards. Mr. Larimer stated that the applicant is proposing to update and replace some of the decking, guardrail, and stairs onsite. He showed a rendering of the existing structure as viewed from the southwest. The existing guardrails don’t meet code requirement, they are too short, so the guardrails will be replaced to meet building code requirements. The deck boards on all deck areas will be replaced. The existing joists are cantilevered from the building and will remain. Structural repairs will be made as necessary but it will not be replaced or rebuilt. The applicant is proposing to reconfigure some of the stairs and a single stair on the east side of the structure. The existing top stair terminates adjacent to the window. The application is proposing to relocate that stair so that it terminates adjacent to a wall, which allows for code-compliant handrails to be more easily installed. Mr. Larimer stated that the application proposes to increase the width of the stairs and walkway on the westside of the structure. The existing encroachment is about four feet, four inches. Proposed stairs and walkway measure about five feet. They increase the encroachment into the top-of-slope setback, the progressive height limit. The deck on the north side of the structure will remain the same width. It’s just the section along the west side that is proposed to increase. Mr. Larimer stated that the existing stairs are attached to the exterior of the wall. Which, when people are going up and down the stairs, transmits noise into the unit. The applicant is proposing to detach the stairs from the structure so that they are independent, in order to reduce noise. This increases the width a little bit. The second aspect is that the clear width of the stairs is proposed to increase. The existing wall to inside of the guardrail measurement is about four feet. The proposed width, measured from the face of the wall to the inside of the guardrail is about four foot nine inches. That’s not inclusive of the handrails. Those alterations are what result in the nine inch increase in width of that section of the walkway and stairs. Mr. Larimer stated that all of the stairs, decks, and guardrails are proposed to be replaced on the structure. The entire structure is subject to stream margin review. The 45-degree progressive height limit and the top-of-slope setback are the only areas that are within the areas of restricted development. Mr. Larimer stated that the Stream Margin code section has stream margin review standards and a special review stream margin section that allows for the applicant to pursue variances to the stream margin review standard. The first criteria is for an alternative top-of-slope determination, which the applicant is not pursuing. The second review criteria gets at variations that are requested and the language of the standard says that the proposed development meets the stream margin review standards upon which the Community Development Director had based the finding of denial. The two stream margin review standards the applicant is seeking a variance from are: no development within the top-of-slope 15-foot setback except for native vegetation, planting. And stream margin review standard 9: all development outside the 15-foot top of slope does not exceed the 45-degree progressive height limit. Since the application proposes to increase the amount of development and increase the encroachment into the areas of restricted development and the widened stairway and walkway are requested as a matter of convenience, staff has found that the application does not meet the review criteria for stream margin special review. Staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for the widened walkway within the areas of restricted development and approve the 42 inch guardrail set within the progressive height limit in order to meet building code compliance. Mr. McKnight asked if the widened end is the main entrance for those units. Mr. Larimer stated that that is correct. Mr. McKnight asked if the widening is for code compliance. Mr. Larimer stated that code compliant exterior walkway is 36 inches clear width. So, no. Mr. Love how the applicants will install the railing and not widen the walkway. Mr. Larimer stated that they will maintain the existing encroachment into the top-of-slope setback and progressive height limit, with the exception of the guardrail. Mr. Love asked if they will still rebuild the stairway and keep it off the building, but make it 36 inches wide. Mr. Larimer stated that that is correct. Mr. Love asked why they want to make it wider. Mr. Larimer stated that Mr. Rybak can speak to that. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Mr. Rybak introduced himself as the representative of Mountain River Manor. He introduced River Morgan, who is the vice president of the River Manor HOA. He stated that building code is based on the occupancy exiting the building. The building code does not address function. The function of the stair is to access a residence. What they’re trying to do is maintain the existing functional width. Their existing stair is roughly four feet from the face of the building. They also have the projection of a handrail on the building’s side. The guardrail is functioning as a handrail to the open side. With roughly four foot clear, they would like to maintain that with their new assembly. That assembly would require two handrails. Building code allows those handrails to project into a clear width of 36 inches, but it’s not going to help residents get furniture up and down the stairs. It comes down to basic function. They do want to disconnect the structure from the building. He has requested a nine inch variance because it’s construction and he wants to come in inside of that request. The actual physical dimensions of the request are slightly less than nine inches. There are two reasons behind the request. While it does increase the encroachment into the setback, it’s minimal and can’t be viewed from many areas. Even when it can be viewed, it would be nearly impossible for people to discern the difference. Ms. Morgan stated that she has been involved with the building for a while. There is almost no notable change. The HOA has a strict rule that no short-term rentals are allowed. It’s housing long-time locals. The rentals there are affordable. They’re long-term rentals. She is in support of strict requirements for buildings and updates. This is a completely utilitarian update for the safety of the residents. She has moved a lot of furniture and appliances up and down the stairs. Even at the existing width, it’s been almost impossible. They are updating it for safety and the aesthetic of the building is barely changing. Where it’s going out is not down into the river or into the natural habitat, it’s going onto a lawn that the building has or into a parking lot. If they cannot make it wider, the building would have to put in an extra steel beam. It’s far out of the scope of their budget. Mr. Dupps stated that staff’s issue is that the applicants are increasing a nonconformity by adding nine inches. He asked if the applicants are still wider than code compliance with this design. Mr. Rybak stated that they are wider in the actual stairway width by what is required. The clear width of 36 is required, not counting handrails. The resulting clear width with the handrails, which can encroach, is only 33 inches. Instead of being 33 inches, they want to be another nine inches wider. Ms. Morgan stated that the side they’re talking about it the entrance for every resident and person who delivers boxes and furniture and everything. It already feels tight. Mr. Rybak stated that, if they did go to the steel structure, he has reviewed that with a structural engineer and they could use a c channel, but they’re picking up two inches. It’s not an incredible difference but it is a large cost increase to the HOA. There is an east stair, but it only serves the southern side of the building. It also encroaches into the ten foot setback for fire exits to an adjacent property. They don’t have one on the north side for that same reason. That is their only ability to truly work with that access. Mr. McKnight asked if the width is increased on the other side of the building as well. Mr. Rybak stated that it is. On the stairs that run to the south along the same side, it will increase to match. That’s out of the setback stream margin. The east will be only four feet wide, but it’s detached from the building because of the window and handrail issues. PUBLIC COMMENT None. COMMISSIONER DELIBERATION Ms. McGovern stated that she agrees with the staff recommendation. It’s hard to determine what’s a matter of function versus a matter of convenience. It’s a semantics definition. Ms. Rockhill stated that she is familiar with the building. It does need updates. It’s unfortunate that the whole backside can’t get upstairs without that stairwell. She is not sure she agrees with staff because she sees the rationale behind it. When the building was built, this didn’t exist and this is potentially a necessary improvement for safety. Mr. Love and Mr. Dupps stated that they agreed with Ms. Rockhill. Mr. McKnight stated that he also agrees. It’s not the building that’s being increased, it’s the width of the deck. He thinks they deserve to have a normal-sized entry to their units. Mr. Love stated that it’s an aesthetic improvement, too. Ms. Phelan stated that the commissioners can make a determination on a case-by-case basis. There are two criteria that effect this review. Mr. McKnight asked if those are numbers eight and nine. Mr. Larimer stated that the special review criteria allows for P&Z to grant a variance. Mr. Dupps motioned to approve the 42 inch handrail and the wider stair as presented. Mr. Love seconded. Ms. Phelan called a voice vote: Mr. Love, yes; Mr. Dupps, yes; Ms. McGovern, no; Mr. McKnight, yes; Ms. Rockhill, yes. Resolution passed four to one. OTHER BUSINESS Election of Chair and Vice Chair Ms. McGovern moved to nominate Mr. McKnight as chair. Mr. Dupps seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Mr. McKnight motioned to nominate Ms. McGovern as vice chair. Mr. Dupps seconded. All in favor, motion carried. ADJOURN Ms. McGovern motioned to adjourn the meeting at 5:02 PM. Mr. Dupps seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Jeannine Stickle Records Manager