HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20030506ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes May 06, 2003
COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS ........................................ 2
MINUTES ................................................................................................................. 2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS ............................................... 2
SOUTH ASPEN STREET FINAL PUD, REZONING, SPECIAL REVIEW and
GMQS EXEMPTIONS ............................................................................................. 2
CENTENNIAL PUD AMENDMENT ...................................................................... 2
SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL/FINAL
PUD REZONING ...................................................................................................... 3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes May 06, 2003
Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of' the Aspen Planning & Zoning
Commission at 4:40 pm in the Sister Cities meeting room. Eric Cohen, Ruth
Kruger, Dylan Johns, and Jasmine Tygre were present. Jack Johnson and Roger
Haneman were excused. City of'Aspen staff'in attendance: David Hoofer,
Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Allgaier, James Lindt, Scott Wood£ord, Community
Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMISSIONER~ STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS
Joyce Allgaier provided the comrmssion with a report on the Quadrant Book site.
MINUTES
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve the minutes from April 8, 2003;
seconded by Dylan Johns. APPROVED 4-0.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
Eric Cohen stated that he had a conflict on the Centennial PUD Amendment.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
SOUTH ASPEN STREET FINAL PUD~ REZONING~ SPECIAL REVIEW
and GMQS EXEMPTIONS
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing.
MOTION: I)ylan Johns moved to continue the public hearing on South
Aspen Street Final PUD, Rezoning, Special Review and GMQS Exemptions to
May 20th; seconded by Ruth Kruger. APPROVED 4-0.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
CENTENNIAL PUD AMENDMENT
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for Centennial. David Hoefer
stated that the notice was provided at the last meeting. Hoefer stated that since
there were only 3 members present that could vote on the project all 3 votes must
be affirmative. The applicant had the option to continue until there were more
members present or to proceed tonight with 3 members. The applicants requested
continuance of the hearing.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing on the
Centennial PUD Amendment to May 20, 2003; seconded by Dylan Johns.
APPROVED 3-0.
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes May 06, 2003
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
SAGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS CONSOLIDATED
CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PUD REZONING
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Sagewood Condominiums, David
Hoefer stated that the notice was provided.
Scott Woodford distributed a site plan and two different elevations of the proposed
roof over the east entrance: One had a flat roof and the other a pitched roof.
Woodford explained that the application was for a PUD overlay to establish the
non-conforming dimensional standards for the structure as conforming. The non-
conforming standards were FAR, height, off-street parking and minimum lot area
per dwelling unit. The PUD would also include the expansion of allowed floor
area to enclose the balconies for living space; to approve the 6 that have already
been built but also approve 6 additional enclosures, when and if the owners wanted
to enclose those balconies. Another part of the PUD was to allow a setback
encroachment for the roof structure on the east side, represented on the drawings.
The third aspect was to rezone the property from R-6 to RMF to bring the non-
conforming multi-family building into conformity.
Woodford stated the condominium complex was originally built in 1970 and in
compliance at.the time, but in 1975 there was a new code that rezoned the property
to R-6, which made it a non-conforming structure and use because of different
dimensional standards and because multi-family is not an allowed use in the R-6.
Since the property is non-conforming only maintenance can be done without any
significant rehabilitation to the building [up to 10% of the value of the building).
The homeowners association would like to do some exterior improvements but the
non-conforming status is holding up that process. Woodford said by the PUD the
applicant hoped to establish the non-conforming structures to conforming and the
rezone to establish the use as conforming, which would eliminate the non-
conformity status. Woodford said that somewhere down the line 6 balconies were
enclosed and since the additional FAR was not approved by the city and there were
no building permits obtained, the City would not allow the homeowners to obtain a
building permit for the exterior changes until the illegal balcony enclosures were
approved. The applicant also wants the option to enclose the additional 6
balconies, which were each about 55 square feet each (a total of 600 square feet to
the entire building). There would be a standard design for any future balcony
enclosures that owners would have to comply with. Staff supported the proposal.
Woodford stated that local employees occupied the units even though the units
were not deed-restricted. The units are about 600 square feel: or so. The building
stood 30 feet as the code measured it and the RMF zone district allowed 25-foot
3
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes May 06~ 2003
height; he wasn't sure how the building was originally built above the height limit.
Woodford noted the off-street parking was another non-confon~aing issue; the code
required 2 spaces per dwelling unit (11 units would require 22 spaces) and there
were only 9 spaces. Originally there were 11 spaces but the state required 2 of the
spaces along the highway to be removed and there was not room behind the
building to accommodate any additional spaces. Since it was unlikely that the
applicant would ever be able to find room for two additional spaces and meet the
code requirement of 22 spaces, staff supports making it conforming.
Woodford stated that the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement was
determined by the number of bedrooms in the structure and, in this case, the site
has less than ½ of the square footage necessary to accommodate the building
because the site is only 8,344 square feet which makes it non-conforming from this
perspective. Woodford stated that if the building was not made into conformity
status that they would not be able to make any aesthetic improvements to the
property.
Woodford stated that the final aspect to the application was the rezoning from R-6
to RMF. Staff finds that the proposed rezone complies with 'the review criteria
because it is m compliance with applicable sections of the AACP, compatible with
surrounding land uses (there were other multi-family structures in the vicinity), and
it will not create any spot zoning because there was RMF across the streel
Scott Gallagher, applicant, stated that they have taken out a loan for $120,000.00
for new siding to give the building a face lift but the city would not allow these
improvements because of the improper zoning and the enclosed balconies; he said
that they wanted to clean up the building. Jasmine Tygre stated that she was
confused about the loan that was already taken out and how the city won't allow
the improvements until the building is brought into conformity. Gallagher
responded that they would be putting new siding on the illegally enclosed
balconies for one was his understanding. Woodford stated that no new building
permits were allowed until the illegal enclosures have been rectified. Joyce
Allgaier responded that typical repairs or replacements could be done but no
spaces could be enclosed therefore a permit cannot be issued to add any additional
floor area. Tygre stated that the issue of the non-conformity had to do with the
balconies not the maintenance. Hoefer noted that if there were any violation on the
property then the building department would hold all building permits up because
of the way that the building department enforced violations so that everything was
brought into compliance.
NO public comments.
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes May 0C 2003
Dylan Johns said that in the Resolution there was no mention o£the entry canopy
and asked if this was the first step in adding features. Woodford replied that the
enclosure should have been mentioned as part of the PUD request; the enclosure
structurally encroached to the east property line.
Tygre stated that balconies were not included in the FAR of buildings and they
were meant to add interest to the outsides of buildings rather than just square
boxes, but a few times a year people do come in for variances to enclose balconies.
Gallagher stated that it would be very expensive to take out the enclosures that
were already done and would be a significant hardship on those owners; he asked
if those could be allowed to remain. Tygre stated that created an inequitable
situation rewarding the people who built without permits and punishing those who
did not expand their units buy not allowing them to expand. Hoefer stated that if
this was not approved the non-conforming enclosed balconies would have to be
removed.
Ruth Kruger stated that she would vote for the proposal to get this building into
conformity as much as possible. Allgaier said that the commission should ask
themselves if this zomng was appropriate, should the applicant be allowed the
extra 660 square feet of floor area for the building taking in the c~rcumstances of
the neighborhood and the building. Allgaier stated that the PUD set the
dimensional standards for the project. Tygre stated that the enclosures would not
affect the building in any way but she stated concern for the enclosed balconies.
Eric Cohen agreed and asked what were the extenuating circumstances and asked
what were the positive benefits. Cohen answered that the building housed a lot of
employees and was located in a highly visible place at the entrance to town.
Cohen said the negatives were the building was already above the FAR. Hoefer
noted that the commission decision should be based on the criteria, not what was
best for an individual. Tygre noted the use was made non-conforming by the
change in city codes.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #11, 2003, for a
Planned Unit Development and Amendment to the Official Zone District Map
for the Sagewood Condominiums, 910 West Itallam Street, Aspen, Colorado
with the addition of a condition for the east side entrance cover; seconded by
Dylan Johns. Roll call vote: Cohen, yes; Johns, yes; Kruger, yes; Tygre, yes.
APPROVED 4.0.
Me, eti,n.g a,clj¢utned, 5:45 p.m.
~kie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
5