Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19930622 ~f1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~......"-~ PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 22. 1993 vice Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were David Brown, Sara Garton, Richard Compton, Roger Hunt and Bruce Kerr. Jasmine Tygre and Tim Mooney were excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Richard Compton: This formally is my last meeting as a Planning & Zoning Commissioner. I would say it was a pleasure. It was often boring and frustrating but has been worthwhile. I appreciate working with all of you and have learned a lot and hope I have given a little something to the future of Aspen. Everyone thanked Richard and wished him well. David: I am curious as to getting some sort of work session that might help us talk not about annexation but rezoning various parcels in town that are not in conformance with their AACP. Part of that might even include annexation of EI Jebel and various potential commercial areas so that when we have an intercept lot that is within the City limits and people are commuting from down valley to Aspen are already in City limits. I am extremely serious about a work session just with staff. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie: There will be no meeting on July 6. But anticipate an extra meeting in August and September for special meetings and work session. There was no finalization on these dates. The picnic Point and the Betty Grindlay Bridges were set this week. The Castle Creek Bridge we have Stream Margin approval for but we have to go through a wild life management plan before we can do that. And the Army Corp are not interested in seeing a bridge crossing Castle Creek until there is a connection. I have been working with ute Place people and their representative. We are working out an agreement that hopefully will go to Council this coming Monday. That was the PUD amendment in the rezoning to Rural Residential and they are providing us a trail easement. That will go to Council on the 28th. PZM6.22.93 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES MAY 18 , JUNE 8. 1993 Roger made a motion to approve minutes of May 18 and June 8, 1993. David seconded the motion with all in favor. ALCIATORE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Leslie: Made presentation as attached in record and presented certificate of mailing. Bruce opened the public hearing. Mrs. Alciatore: We wanted to comment regarding the windows that are in question. After discussion on the windows-- David: Condition #3--there is a concern for pedestrian access. And that stair under window T is directly under the west facing shed roof. And regardless of the fact that there is a gutter and regardless of some snowmelt and regardless of 6 8-inch snow stops there 'will be significant avalanching of snow onto that stair. You may want to consider redesigning that to either providing snowmelt on that landing and staircase or reconfigure that deck and the access to the accessory dwelling unit altogether. I think the way it is configured right now between the window and snowshed onto the stair it doesn't quite provide a safe-- ?: Even with the snowmelt and the snow breaks? And it is not a metal roof. It is asphalt roof. David: break. in any It would be great for snow up to But for the foot and a half to two given time it won't be effective. the height of the snow feet of snow that occur You could relocate the stair in such a way that it will not be covered by snow shedding off of that roof that faces west. And if that is a problem you may want to consider access to that accessory dwelling unit from another point. Richard: This is the first accessory dwelling unit where the question of privacy immediately came to mind concerning that window off the deck and just in general the forced intimacy between the 2 PZM6.22.93 2 parts of the building that includes the stair access to the roof deck for the ADU which passes under the dressing room window of the master suite. There is a connecting door. I don't know if that is required. I don't think it is. And the absolute minimal size of it. If the issue of the snow shed and the windows was taken care of I could approve it. otherwise I couldn't vote for it. Roger: Concerning window s--if they would entertain the idea of something like glass brick in that kind of window so you can get light through it but don't see anything but distortion as far as privacy aspect is concerned and if that would be a good solution for that window. I do have problems with that window. I am also concerned about the snow shedding onto the exterior access to the ADU. I would like to see some other solution to that or conditioning it. Leslie: It is really not an enforceable condition of approval. There was much discussion regarding the privacy aspect between the ADU and the main house. "","" Bruce: I am sensitive to the questions that have been raised by my fellow commissioners. But I guess I come at it from a little bit different perspective. There is no requirement in our code that it be occupied and I feel a little bit uncomfortable in trying to socially engineer something that the code really hasn't spoken to. If our code said that it must be occupied and must be occupied by a qualified resident, then I wouldn't have a problem with us making sure that it truly is liveable. But it seems to me that this applicant and other applicants are sort of caught in a "catch 22" when they are required to build this space and then are not required to have it do anything but sit there vacant. "- David: Maybe I am confused. Isn't an ADU an option? So it is not a requirement to create an ADU. It is an option open to a home builder if they want to pre-empt cash-in-lieu payments. Leslie: Just as an aside. If it is built 100% above grade the applicant is awarded FAR bonus. Kim told me that the applicant is not seeking FAR bonus but it doesn't mean that when they get within the building permit stage and if they need an FAR bonus they receive FAR bonus. Bruce: I would come at it more from the standpoint of saying I think the thing is too small. That is my biggest concern. I am concerned about the privacy and the snow shedding. But I am more concerned about 300 square feet being really a liveable unit. I understand it fits the minimum requirement of the code and they have complied with the minimum. 3 PZM6.22.93 I am uncomfortable with what appears to me to be picking at this applicant when many other ADUs have come in front of us and they have had similar situations and sometimes we tend to breeze those through. David: It is really neat that the applicant has gone so far as to have a private roof deck outside the ADU. That is great. But the useability in the separation but the next owner could easily say "I don't want to see you sitting on that deck. I don't even want to see you going in and out that door". Sara: I have no problem with those windows at all. The thing I am concerned about is the stairwell and the stair access and the shedding of snow and ice. There being no further comment Bruce closed the public hearing. MOTION "..."" David: I move to approve the conditional use for a 302 square foot accessory dwelling unit for the Alciatore residence at 730 West smuggler with the conditions recommended in Planning Office memo dated June 22, 1993 with the following modifications: Condition #5 to delete reference to the 2 window sets in the main stairwell. In it's place state that the window from the roof deck shall be translucent but not clear glass to provide visual privacy. Condition #8 that the stairs from the deck of the ADU be snowmelted. Roger seconded the motion. But I need a clarification of "not clear glass". I can envision double glazing of wavy clear glass which would distort the image but not comply with "not clear glass". David: How about "frosted glass or functional equivalent with staff review" so they don't have to come back to this board. Leslie: Incorporate "specific glass treatment that is translucent to provide visual privacy". And then you had changed #5 a little bit also. Sara: The reference to the 2 windows MPT Bruce: You still want to leave the condition in that they are at least 7 feet above the finished floor level. Leave that part in. 4 ,."0 PZM6.22.93 Leslie: But just take out "Remove from the plan" and just say "shall be changed so that they are at least 7 feet above the finished floor level of the ADU" and "the window of the roof deck shall incorporate specific glass treatment that is translucent to provide visual privacy". David: I amend my motion to include what Leslie just said. Roger: I accept that for my second. Roll call vote: RiChard, no, Roger, yes, David, yes, Sara, yes, Bruce, yes. PIONEER PARK HISTORIC DESIGNATION Bruce opened the public hearing. Amy Amidon, City Historic Dept: Made presentation as attached in record. Bruce asked for public comment. There was no public comment and he closed the public portion of the hearing. Roger: I have to commend the Strombergs on doing a beautiful job on the additions and improvements to the existing structure. My question--they have put up some pillars for some sort of fence and I assume those pillars go to the-- Amy: They travel east from the corner of the house to the lot line and the City property where they will connect with an iron fence that will run north and south. Between those pillars they have a wooden fence. The existing iron historic iron rail will stay. That will be one of the ways that you will visually recognize that this was one parcel. But for safety and privacy we need a new iron rail running between the public park and the Strombergs land. David: Did the fence get HPC review? Amy: Yes. After further clarification as to wooden and iron fence and where the fence would be placed-- MOTION Sara: I recommend landmark designation for all of Pioneer Park, 442 West Bleeker Street, Block 36, Lots K, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, Rand 5 PZM6.22.93 S and portions of Lots A, Band C, Block 36 finding that designation standards A, B, C and E have been met. David seconded the motion. Roger: I have a problem with designation of portions of Lots A, Band C. That is across the alley. It is not a historic structure on the remainder of Lots A, Band C. There is only a garage and parking in that area. Why designate that historic. Amy: Because if it is not designated historic, we have no protection for what could come there in the future. It certainly has an impact on this property and the neighboring properties are not landmarked. So if that garage were to be torn down if they weren't landmarked HPC would have no comment. This is part of what is considered the estate now. Bruce: Before we take a vote on this I want to commend staff for this being one of the more entertaining memos I have read in a while. I think on the historic designation kinds of things it would be great if you have that kind of information to include it in the memo. It was really interesting. Roll call vote: Richard, yes, Roger, yes, David, yes, Sara, yes, Bruce, yes. Members then held election of officers with the outcome as follows: Chairman is Bruce Kerr By acclamation Jasmine was declared Vice Chairlady. Meeting was then adjourned. 6