Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19940322 f ~ \.. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 22. 1994 Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were David Brown, Sara Garton, Jasmine and Bruce Kerr. Tim Mooney arrived shortly after roll call. Hunt was excused and Robert Blaich was absent. Tygre Roger COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie: Because of the Superblock John Bennett has suggested that we hold 2 day-long work sessions. The first one on April 9 from 9:00 A.M. to 2: P.M. The second one on April 15 from 8:30 A.M to 2:00 P.M. Attending the meeting will be 4 members from Council. We need 4 members for P&Z, 4 members of the Development Team, HPC member, CCLC member, Clean Air Board, ACRA, BOCC, a member of the Transportation Committee, Neighborhood Advisory Group, Aspen Ski \...". Co., Environmental Group and citizens At Large. The meeting will be at the Gibbons Institute. Food and beverage will be furnished. The O'Block conditional use on this agenda is being moved to April 19th. They messed up on their public notice. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES MARCH 1. 1994 Jasmine made a motion to approve minutes of March 1, 1994. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. TENTH MOUNTAIN DIVISION CONTINUED HEARING Mary Lackner, Planning made presentation as attached in record. sunny Vann, representative for applicant: When we first came in and condominiumized the Benedict Office Building. The Benedicts made a charitable donation of a substantial portion of the building to the MAA. They also gave several Condominium units to the 10th ~ Mountain Division which was already occupying the building. And basically wanted the remainder of the spaces to the existing tenants. "',.,,",....~ PZM3.22.94 \..-~ This is a non-conforming use with the underlying zone district in order to make the club a legal use. outdoor Recreation Area is permitted and the RR zone district they zoned the whole property RR. This lot was subsequently created, the Benedict Building was already there. It became a non-conforming use. We got concerned about conveying the condominium units to the individual recipients because it was a non-conforming use. We came back in and submitted an application for SPA approval. All that did was make the existing office uses a conforming use in the zone district which meant once these units were conveyed to the individual owners they could finance them. At the time of that SPA application there was a house called the Ball Residence that was historically significant that Fritz had designed which he wanted to locate to this portion of the property as an affordable housing unit for the 10th Mountain Association. There is an avalanche hazard area on the opposite side of the road. We had Art Mears look at it because it was an old log structure. He did not think that it could be sufficiently engineered in this location to allow it to be safely located there. So we withdrew that part of the proposal from the application. But we designated this space on the SPA plan and on the condominium documents for future affordable housing. We retained Mr. Mears to look at the avalanche potential in that area and to also provide some guidance to Sutherland, Fallin in terms of design of the structure that could be built there from scratch. It also gave us the opportunity to do what amounts to a duplex 2 bedroom unit, 2 bath on the bottom and a studio unit on the top. You will note that it is basically invisible from ute Avenue. The roof has been designed to shed snow in the event avalanche were to reach that far across the street. The entire site as well as the rear of the Aspen Club are all located in the blue avalanche zone. There has not been an avalanche in that location but Mr. Mears felt that it was prudent that the structure be designed to address the problem in the event one should ever occur. The site plan shows the location of the building. parking will be provided at 1 per bedroom. It is provided in an existing off- street parking area. We will not need to make additional curb cuts on the avenue to service these 2 units. r Since the density in the RR zone district is 1 unit per 2 acres, we are proposing, technically, a duplex. We need a variance under the SPA regulations to put 2 units to be located on the site. We also are asking a modest variance in the side yard setback of 5 \..... 2 PZM3.22.94 feet which would eliminate the need for removing existing parking on site. We are also aSking for a 5 foot variance on the front yard setback. There is a substantial setback from ute Avenue based on the improvement district that was done in 1991. The thing we are really doing here is amending the previously approved SPA plan to locate this structure on the property and to vary the 2 setbacks from the minimum lot area requirement for the duplex affordable housing units. These are deed restricted on the Housing Office guidelines. David: Will the people living in this unit be commuting to the Benedict building? Vann: It is employees of the 10th Mountain Association. We are deed restricting the 2 bedroom unit category 3 such that they can use a roommate situation. It also includes a small area of storage adjacent to the garage which will enable them to put their snowmobiles and their maintenance truck out of the elements. They are currently parked at the parking lot. So this will free up a couple of parking spaces. David: I assume these employees are currently finding housing-- .... ? : At least 2 of the 3 spaces will be taken by 10th Mountain employees full time who are now commuting. So they won't commute other than across the parking lot. MOTION Jasmine: I move to approve the SPA amendment to permit the setback and lot area variances for the two affordable dwelling units. I further move to recommend approval to Council for the GMQS Exemption with the conditions recommended in the Planning office memo dated March 22, 1994. David seconded the motion. Vann: Condition #5 I am not sure exactly what you want here. Chuck Roth, Engineer: plan". Maybe that should say "Building permit Jasmine: I will amend my motion to change the phrasing to include "Building Permit Plan" instead of "Final development plan". David accepted this for his second to the motion. \._- Bruce: So we are amending this SPA to allow this, duplex on what would be single family type lot. in effect, We are not 3 PZM3.22.94 changing zone districts. We are not increasing density throughout the city? I want to make sure we all understand that that is what we are doing. We are only amending this SPA. Vann: It stays RR. This plan merely approves what is there and also this building that you are currently approving. Anything else on the site will be subject to your further review approval. Bruce asked for public comment. There was no public comment and he closed the public portion of the hearing. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. HERRON PARK PLACE Leslie presented proof of public notice. (attached in record) She read into the record a letter from Ken and Jane owen, 115 Neal Ave. stating their support of the affordable dwelling unit to the project. (attached in record) Leslie then made presentation as attached in record. " I would like to add one condition of approval. On page 16--this is the beginning of my condition for the approval. I say "Prior to the issuance of any building permit--and then I list A, Band C and I will add D--"The zoning Officer shall inspect the erosion control measures to ensure they are in place". Jasmine: What is the total size of the proposed structure? Jeffrey Shoaf, applicant: You mean both duplexes? Jasmine: Yes, when the whole building is completed with the ADU- -the total square footage. Shoaf: Living area? I didn't bring my charts. Approximately-- well I have got 2,600 square feet for FAR that I am using plus this 250 square feet of FAR bonus. So I have got above grade square footage of those 2 figures combined. And then I am doing a whole basement underneath it. Jasmine: I am curious as to the size of this structure as compared to the size of the previous structure on this. Leslie: You say on the application 8,500 square foot total living area. But that is not floor area. \. Bruce: We are going from a 2,400 square foot duplex to what? 4 PZM3.22.94 Shoaf: This is the ADU unit--this upper floor right here. The ADU unit with this little bridge type being the access to it that will come in this way. Leslie: The allowable FAR of this property is 5,280. And then you add your floor area bonus of 250. Shoaf: The figure I gave you was half of that with half of the FAR being in this unit, half in this other unit. Jasmine: So that is approximately 6,000 square feet of structure. Leslie: 5,630 with the floor area bonus. Jasmine: So you have a 2,4000 square foot building. And now you have a 5,600 of site coverage. Shoaf: Some of that FAR is decks and things. It has a fairly low profile from Neal Street. That is a function of the terrain falling away with most of it being below grade. Bruce asked the applicant if they had any problems with any of the conditions of approval the staff had outlined. Shoaf: So far, no, not really. They are fairly reasonable I believe. I haven't found any major problems. Bruce then asked for comments from the public. sunny Vann: I represent the final application. for a total structure of feet? Billings. I have not had a chance to see But 5,600 square feet plus the basement between 8,500 square feet to 9,000 square '. Shoaf: Yes, that is approximately it. Vann: If I am not mistaken you were involved in the letter- writing campaign with the Billings project and objected stringently to the bulk of the Billings property for 4,000 square foot. I am just curious--and the argument here was what we were going to do to the neighborhood and how it was going to destroy the character of the neighborhood. I never got to hear an explanation of how you could reconcile 9,000 square foot structure here to the Billings 4,000 square foot structure. And I am just curious with this coming up to council what the concern was about the neighborhood and why does it apply to this particular site located at the end of the street. I am asking why this is not incompatible with the neighborhood and you are arguing that 2 doors down the street 4,000 square feet is. 5 '",,,,..,.-' PZM3.22.94 Shoaf: Well, I think this is compatible to the neighborhood and I didn't think initially what was. But we did sign off on that as far as basically approving it. So it is no longer an issue. There were no further comments and Bruce closed the public portion of the hearing. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS David: Would the applicant be adverse to modifying the roof design to prevent snow dumping onto the entry to the ADU? Shoaf: Actually, yes, the roof does slant onto the bridge. But the entrance is recessed. David: But there is nothing to prevent snow avalanching, dumping and piling in front of that entry preventing access or egress. Shoaf: It is not that sharp of a roof. being a problem. David: So you wouldn't be willing to re-design the roof? I don't envision that Shoaf: I like this roof. Rappaport: The roof has a very shallow pitch and there will be a diverter over the entry. David: I would be against approving this as it is currently designed. I would only be willing to approve this if we included a condition of approval such that there be a dormer placed over that entry. Shoaf: What's the difference between a diverter and a dormer? David: Substantial. A diverter is only adequate for warm climate to divert water and moisture. But when it snows substantially and have avalanches, you can get 2 feet of snow in a night, so very often the snow will tend to shed off the roof regardless of how shallow it is. Under the provisions in the code for circulation, I feel that what you have there right now basically is unacceptable. MOTION , Jasmine: I am disturbed by the size of the structure. But I think the ADU is the least part of it. That structure is going to be that size or 500 feet less without the accessory dwelling unit and so therefore most of my objection is to the structure. \..- 6 '-.'/ PZM3.22.94 I move to approve the conditional use review for the attached accessory dwelling unit and the stream Margin Review for 113 Neale Avenue with the conditions as outlined in Planning Office memo dated March 22, 1994 with an additional condition that the applicant will consider re-designing the roof to take into account David's comments about snow shedding. '. David: I will second if you will change the word "consider" or just eliminate the word "consider". Jasmine: I think that--I don't know enough about the architectural differences to specify what they should do. I think that if they will come up with a design that will prevent snow shedding, I am not the one who wants to say what form it will take. I know what your concerns are and I share them. I just don't want to dictate a particular style of problem solving to them. Sara: When they get their CO, Lesl ie, wouldn't someone take a hard look at--even at the building permit--wouldn't Bill take a hard look at how that entrance is designed? Chuck Roth, city Engineer: I wish they would. But they don't. We have got the most unbelievable pile of ice at that back door to the Youth Center. How can that be an exit with that pile of ice there? David: It is the same thing at the Elementary School. And it has a similar slope and basically a serious life/safety concern in a public building which the codes do not address. Leslie: What we are looking at here is that we want this unit to function and stand on it's own. So if this is the only entrance that somebody has into their unit it has to work. Most of our ADU's have a separate entrance into the rest of the home and then they have a separate entrance. And I think we are looking at making sure that this separate entrance is always accessible and useable by a tenant. Sara: Aren't we also looking at a possible code addition because it seems that the Planning & Zoning Commission has been designing all the entrances to the ADU's lately. From what Chuck is saying we need to have some code about entrances. Leslie: In my pre-application conferences with everybody I say "These are the issues. You must address these issues". Tim: I can't really see where the duplex is attached. driveway comes down and that is the entrance? The \... 7 PZM3.22.94 Shoaf: It comes in here and this will be parking under here and the entrance to the one unit is over here. Tim: Do they have a common wall? Shoaf: Yes. In the garages. Sara: Well, I think David has a real concern. And I wish that the applicant seemed to be more responsive to that. Tim: I agree. Shoaf: I think we are going to be mitigating at certainly more than that roof I am looking at across the street. That is at a steeper pitch and sheds right on the public sidewalk. That would be more of a concern to me than a considerably less sloped roof. David: We are not talking about the building across the street. Rappaport: We are trying to address the life safety issue as best as we can and we don't want our tenants to have an unsafe situation. I do have a problem with the suggestion that we solve it in a particular architectural way. I think that if the committee was to advocate that we really do address that issue and be concerned about as we develop our project, I will be more than happy to do that. There are number of ways to address that. And I would hate to tell another architect how to solve his problems. David: I agree. Roth: How about this for language. "The applicant shall provide for the prevention of snow shedding into the ADU entryway". David: Before I would vote for this I would want to see exactly what was being proposed. I would be willing to table this and see how the applicant was to deal with this problem and have them come back to us. Jasmine: I withdraw my motion for the time being until I figure out what language I want to use for this condition. MOTION Sara: I move to accept with Chuck's additional language and condition #7 (e) "The applicant shall provide prevention of snow shedding into the entrance of the ADU to be reviewed by Leslie and Chuck Roth". Jasmine seconded the motion. 8 ""- ~' """,~."",~ PZM3.22.94 David: My concern about that is many architects in this community try to use snow clips to prevent sheds and my observation of buildings around town is that is not a good way to prevent snow shed. It will prevent it up to a certain height. But snow at different conditions tends to shear and still dump and shed above that 2 to 3 inch height. Sara: I don't like the diverter. They don't work either. Bruce: The reason we are getting this ADU--so that everybody understands--is because of Ord #l--the demolition of the duplex, they have 2 or 3 different options of what they can do. They can deed restrict 1/2 of the duplex and just in effect rebuild the duplex. Or they can rebuild the duplex and add the ADU in order to apply for it. That is the reason we are looking at the ADU. Sara: Or pay cash in lieu. Bruce: The concern I have is that on most of these ADU applications we don't get detailed plans but we usually get some kind of floor plan so that we can see how the ADU interconnects with the house so that we are not just getting a bigger house with an extra bedroom. I am sure that you have got other plans but what we got in our packet doesn't really give us an indication of how all that interconnects. We are trying to see that these ADU's get built and occupied and not just become another bedroom to the big main house. That is one of the reasons that we like to look at those interconnections. So I am concerned about that and basically I just have a void of information. Leslie: You have everything I received. Bruce: I am saying it is hard for us to make a decision when we don't have the plans to show how it all interconnects to the rest of the house. And as Jasmine pointed out we are going from 2,400 square feet to something between 6,000 and 8,000. Tim: What is your intent for the ADU? Shoaf: I don't really know. This unit could be retained by me. It could be sold. Basically it is for the intent of the code. What ADUs are supposed to be used for. Tim: So this is going to be your residence? And the ADU is going to be attached to your residence? Shoaf: That is just one possibility. There are no specific plans right now. That is just flat out where I stand. '-._ Tim: I am not trying to be critical but I would like to have an 9 '.........,...,.-, PZM3.22.94 idea of who, what, when and where is going to live in that and how effective it is going to be to help us with housing. Shoaf: Anybody that does live there will be signing a 6 month lease and they will be an employee of the valley for 9 months of the year. That is per the code. That is what it says you have to do and that is what we are going to do. Bruce: Are you condominiumizing the project? Shoaf: Yes. As far as the 2 sides are concerned. Yes. The ADU cannot be condominiumized. There is only 2 units that can be sold. Either this side is sold with the ADU unit or this side sold with the ADU unit. There being no further comments-- Everyone voted in favor of the motion. HAMRICK CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR ADU Bruce opened the public hearing. ""' Mary Lackner made presentation as attached in record. Bruce asked if the applicant had a presentation. Dusty Hamrick: The packet contains all the information. I will be glad to answer any questions you may have. Sara: This is going to be a 500 square some of the space from the old house? feet more? foot unit. So it is taking You are just building 280 Hamrick: Right. Jasmine: This is a completely different type of accessory dwelling unit from the one we just saw. This is what we hope that accessory dwelling units would be like. I wish we would see more like this application. Bruce asked for public comments. Tony Welgos: If I understand it right she can rent out her main house unrestricted--year round? Leslie: Anybody can right now. 10 --">",.,,",,,, PZM3.22.94 Tony: That was my concern. Right across the street Helly is renting his upstairs and his downstairs. It is turning into a rental. It is a motel. That is the thing I am seeing. I live right next to Dusty. I am bringing this up because what is happening in the neighborhood is a lot of rental. And I can't say we don't do that. We do it 14 days at Christmas. That is as far as we can go with that. I am just concerned that our street is becoming a motel district. There is a lot of renting going on. I was hoping that the 6 month restriction was going to be on the main house. I didn't realize wi th that you can go anywhere you want. And she has to stay in the accessory dwelling unit. I am concerned because the street is turning into more rental all the time. And I don't like all that happening. Dusty does a great job of controlling her rentals. We don't have any problem with that. But if this keeps going we are going to have traffic in and out and taxis pulling up every weekend like they are doing now. And it is not a residential neighborhood. It is turning into a strip of short-term rentals. I don't know what we can do legally to stop all that. I just don't want to see the quality of that street deteriorate. I would like to have a little control with what is going on there. Kathy Welgos: We live right next door to Dusty, 1295 Riverside Drive. We have lived there for 5 years with our 4 kids. And we have a great street. It is a real nice local neighborhood. And it is made us feel really happy living in a residential area where all the people live in their houses actually live and work in Aspen. And that is the kind of quality that I want to see stay on that street. My main concern is to preserve our neighborhood. Dusty, is your accessory dwelling unit--is your main intent to live in it and rent out the main house? Hamrick: You already know the answer to that question. But I will gladly tell everyone else. Kathy has already talked to me regarding the notice everyone has received. And my answer to her at that time was and is still the same answer. No matter what I do in approval or non-approval with this request, I will continue to rent my house out. And probably do it as frequently and reasonably possible for the next couple of years. As my statement to this application was made that you have I am requesting this approval to prepare for my golden years in having an accessory dwelling unit to enable me to have an income. I, yes, will be living in that accessory dwelling unit off and on but 11 '......~ PZM3.22.94 knowingly not for long periods of time. And this request for this application is for someone to rent that unit in the number of years down the road. In getting ready for this I have to start now. And as to when-- it may be as much as 3 years. If I get rich, it may not be at all. But I started the process last November and this is where I am today. I would like to also input some information as to a few things that have come up. Kathy's statement was that all the people who live on our street are residents and are employees of Aspen. Five houses on our street are non-owners that are never there and they rent all the time. I have owned my house for 15 years in May. And three of those houses have not changed. Of the 300 foot radius that I had to notify that includes 19 houses. Eleven of them rent short term and have since I have in the last 5 years and I have not come on the scene to be the last person to rent short-term on my street. with that continuation of that radius outside of the notices I had to notify there are a total of 24 homes and of those 24 I know of 4 employee units. I also know there is parking on the street. Of the 19 houses in the 300 foot radius 2 of them are employee houses and I question the permits on those. And 1 of those is a duplex. with this information I would question why, at this time, is there such concern about me coming on line for renting? All of the 15 years there have been no inquiries to my knowledge of anyone who has made extra money by renting and no inquiries, to my knowledge, of anybody pursuing an owner who was building on an accessory dwelling with or without a permit. My point is the neighborhood has been that direction for so many, many years now. Helen Klanderud: I live on Riverside Drive and have since 1971. I am here not because I object to this application. I have to agree with Dusty. She is probably one of the few who has come forward straightforwardly and chosen to go through the process and therefore submit herself to what can happen here. I very much have the same concern, though. We are inundated on the east by these monster houses of the Aspen Club. Now there is a new employee housing project going in. And it used to be a very quiet neighborhood street. I agree with Welgos's it has been a place where most of the people there have been--they are owner-occupied houses. I don't know about your statistics as to how accurate those are. There are covenants. It is a subdivision with covenants. There \. , is supposed to be a homeowner's association. If anyone has ever 12 '- PZM3.22.94 looked at the covenants first of all, all of those there are supposed to be natural wood. They are family dwellings. There is to be none of this. residences up to be single Those covenants have never been enforced. There has never been an active homeowner's association. I think as time has gone on there probably never will be because there are these sort of vendings. And things are happening in the neighborhood and nobody wants to stand up against their neighbors. I have no disagreement with the concept of additional dwelling units. But over time if there is just--to promote one cause and eroding of some other things. Bruce: The matter of covenants is a matter of private contract between the residents of the neighborhood. So any enforcement of covenants or breach of covenants has to come from the homeowners. That is not in the purview of the P&Z or city Councilor anybody else within the city. So if there are covenant violations they have to be dealt with in a different way. Klanderud: It is our fault if we don't enforce our own covenants. Sara: My response to the neighbors is if you felt this way you should form a homeowner's association. It sounds like there has been a lot things that have been sort of blinked out and grand- fathered along the way. It sounds like you had things in place and you have all been very negligent. David: The rental issue was something that was discussed extensively during the community Plan. Several hundred members of the community participated in that. Several different committees discussed whether or not--not just your neighborhood but other neighborhood such as the west end--whether the character of the community had radically changed both due to short-terming and long- terming of houses and dwelling units. A lot of people shared that concern. A lot of people felt that their quality of life was increased due to revenues received from renting of units. So I think at this point short of someone putting together something for a ballot the status quo will remain. There is significant majority of the community who wants to make some kind of change. Leslie: We also discussed when we were eliminating the condo- miniumization regulations which is one place that we were imposing 6 month lease restrictions. To my knowledge the Planning Dept has never enforced those because we have never gotten a call or complaint. Hunter Creek, they try to enforce them because it is their homeowner's association in their covenants. .... 13 ""'h'"",-, PZM3.22.94 David: Because we are not addressing the use of the main part of the house, I do find that use of this portion of the house for accessory dwelling unit is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and the Community Plan. MOTION David: I move to approve the conditional use for a 500 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit for the Hamrich residence at 1315 Riverside Drive with the conditions amended in the Planning Office memo dated March 22, 1994. (attached in record) Sara seconded the motion. Everyone voted in favor of the motion. Bruce closed the public hearing. ALCIATORE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AMENDMENT Mary Lackner made presentation as attached in record. ~.......,. Applicant representative: unit. Using model explained plans for ADU Bruce: So the entry into the unit itself is below grade? Rep: It is below grade. below grade. It will start above grade and go down David: In recent applications that have come before us for below grade units one of the serious concerns is living in a hobbit hole. It wasn't providing an adequate quality of life. If somehow you were to flip things around and make that a walk-out courtyard, you could almost have a window wall. That would be a concern of mine to get as much natural light and if possible to make that lower level a walkout courtyard for them to have a private outdoor sitting space. The other concern I would have is that perhaps a dormer--some other device other than snow clips to keep snow from shedding into that stairway. Sara: I agree with David. It is a very tiny unit and I know 300 is acceptable. But it would certainly expand their living quarters even in the winter with sunshine. 14 /~ '- ~..--- I, PZM3.22.94 MOTION Bruce: All we are doing is recommending to staff to go ahead and make that amendment subject to those conditions #5 and #7 and in their place go to a condition about natural light and air and condition about snow shedding. Sara: I so move. David: I second the motion. Everyone then voted in favor of the motion. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 6:10 P.M. Janice 15