Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19941004 ~t RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION OCTOBER 4. 1994 Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were Steven Buettow, Marta Chaikovska, Robert Blaich, Tim Mooney, Sara Garton, Jasmine Tygre and Bruce Kerr. Roger Hunt was excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were none. STAFF COMMENTS There were none. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. SNOW QUEEN LODGE Kim Johnson, Planning: We would bring up a very small issue with Snow Queen. Norma approached me a few days ago and asked that their expansion which included a manager's unit of BOOsf also be allowed to fill in where there is an overhead deck and then below that down to the grade level. It is a total of B4sf of new floor area. Instead of bringing them back to you as a full revision of their Special Review for floor area on this project I wanted to know if you felt that that was insubstantial enough situation where we could just amend the building permit to allow that to occur rather than have them come back to the Planning Commission as a separate application item. After discussion-- Kim: Leslie and I talked about it. We would feel comfortable approving it at staff level but we wanted to bring it to your attention to see if there would be any reason that you would feel it should not be approved at staff level. Everyone agreed this could be dealt with at staff level. 709 WEST MAIN STREET HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION Bruce opened the public portion of the hearing. Amy made presentation as attached in record. Certificate of mailing was never turned in by Rob Wein. Bruce asked for public comment. PZM10.4.94 Rhonda Basil: property. We designation when I represent my neighbor to the east of this feel it lS improper to go ahead and provid there is litigation pending concerning a lot line. Amy: I was only notified of this a half an hour ago. I did speak to David Bellack, the City Attorney, regarding this and he felt that this doesn't have an affect on the designation before you. You are being asked to designate Lot G, Block 19 which in fact is owned by Robert Wein and you are not being asked to affect the Anson property in any way. Marta: Did you say that one of the sheds is on that lot line that you are disputing. Rhonda: property. Yes. One of the sheds is actually on the neighbor's The neighbor that I represent. Amy: It does encroach by one foot and just so you know, both the property you are looking at now and the Anson property next door already are identified as' historic and are in the Main Street Historic District. So HPC right now has total review over whether that barn moves, gets torn down regardless of this dispute. Bruce: Our decision is purely based on the standards that are set forth in Aspen Land Use Code in regard to historical designation. And it is totally outside of our purview to make any kind of finding at all regarding any legal dispute regarding the property line and/or the location of the shed. So our designation is based purely on these 6 standards and the requirement is that we only find that at least one of those is met. In this case there is a recommendation from staff that 3 of those 6 have been met. Roll call vote: Steven, yes, Marta, yes, Robert, yes, Tim, yes, Sara, yes, Jasmine, yes, Bruce, yes. Bruce then closed the public hearing. MOTION Sara: I move to approve landmark designation for 709 W. Main Street, Lot G, Block 19, City and Townsite of Aspen. Bob seconded the motion with all in favor. 2 PZM10.4.94 NO PROBLEM JOE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Bruce opened the public hearing. Mary Lackner, Planning: Made presentation as attached in record. Staff is recommending number of conditions of type application. approval of the ADU. However we have a approval which are pretty standard for this Mac Cunningham, representative for applicant: (Showing pictures) Basically this is what Joe's house looks like in its current condition--unaltered and unadulterated as they say. Basically what we did is spend 4 months working with staff and HPC to get to the point of what you see here and in the model. Without taking exception to staff's comments the fact of the matter is this was designed by HPC as much as it was by us. We worked very hard. We spent a significant amount of time talking about mass and scale. The height of the roofline here as a reflection of that. The nature of the various gables, material uses, everything were reviewed in detail. The City Attorney did take a position that it was advisory in nature. But from a practical standpoint we couldn't do anything unless we worked through the process. We went through 2 meetings of what was supposed to be a 1-step process. Our intent from the beginning was to take the original No Problem historic structure without the addition of the back pieces, which was added on, and make this into an accessory dwelling unit. I felt that it was very appropriate relative to the way it was on the property because we haven't significantly moved it from its original location. Right now it sits out here and the dormer sheds in the back. What HPC approved was moving it back to get back to the setback line and to remove the back which was not originally historically accurate. The reason for the breezeway--if you read the guidelines for ADUs- -related to the interconnect between the main house. It is clearly in the guidelines that they should be connected. The other thing is I don't even believe--in zoning is it legal to separate them in the City? Mary: Yes. Leslie: The ADU program allows you to separate. 3 PZM10.4.94 Cunningham: (reading) "The accessory dwelling unit shall contain not less than 300 sqft. We have 444. And not m9re than B50 sqft of liveable area and be located within or attached to the principal residence. That is section 6 of Ord 1". The purpose for attaching these is to maintain integrity on the property. To separate them means you would have all this hodgepodge of buildings. I don't think it is appropriate from a design standpoint. We did go through the whole design criteria on all of the property with HPC. The City Attorney was the one that stepped in and said "You do not have a right for final say". So we took it as advisory basis for this structure. Basically what we have provided is a 1-bedroom with a kitchen, bath, living room, bedroom and this porch--all of which look right at Aspen Mountain. It is really pretty spectacular. One of the things we did from a zoning standpoint is we pulled it forward of the main mass of the other structure. The roof pitches on this house reflect this which was specific to the design criteria. We felt it was very important. We also did a stepping so that it steps from here to here and then back up to here which was a real consideration when HPC reviewed this. So we received approval from HPC to make these changes. We are in front of you today in order to create this as an historic--to take the historic structure and make in into an accessory dwelling unit. I think it is a great location. I think it fits exactly into what we are all looking for in terms of the neighborhood and the ability for people who live in town. Similar use of materials. One of the 2 monitors, Don Erdman, wants to see this in different colors. There are some HPC things. But we did go through very significant amount of review with HPC over this. There are various comments that staff had made. There is a comment in here about driveway. This reflects the changes that were as a result of--originally we had proposed potentially to bring a driveway around like this. And HPC felt that they wanted to keep this front yard integrity. So the existing driveway as you see here is the one that remains. When Chuck wrote in his comments to you relative to Engineering, he didn't have this revised plan. To put sidewalks in, we would be taking down some very old trees in here in order to do that. Chuck Roth in the Engineering Dept interest is to clear up the other side of the street because this street is not a conforming width. That is one of the reasons that we put this little pull- 4 PZM10.4.94 off here to get cars off the street because it is very narrow right in here on King Street. It is a substandard street. I believe if you look at the overall planning map you will find that this side of the street is the side of the street that is allocated to be expanded. And in fact King Street--the legal edge of King Street is right here. And if you remember there is a berm that is here and technically King Street goes quite a bit further over this way toward what is now the Trenton ___?___ that they redid. We have a 1-bedroom with a nice little porch out front, yard space and pretty little area in memory of Joe here. We have a plaque that is actually over in my office that Peggy Joe did for her Father that goes on the front of the house. We are saving the smoke house and the outhouse. We are putting those out in the back. We thought it added some character. There are actually 2 curb cuts now. We would like to be able to pull a car off of the main street because it is so narrow there. I did talk to Chuck about that. There are actually 2 curb cuts now. There actually used to be 2 houses on this site. It says something to the effect about consulting City Engineer for design consideration, development in the public ROW. I don't believe we are in any ROWs. We are happy to c'onsult with Engineering Dept. I don't think that is applicable. And we don't plan to put anything within the ROW. In fact this property did deed some property up here for the sidewalk which is reflected in the site plan. We feel it meets all the criteria on what the purpose of ADUs are. And we are doing it. We don't have to. But I think it is important for the community. I did it in my house. And we have got a great person living in it. I think it is important for the community. And that is why we are doing it. Bruce: You have got somebody living in a ADU? Cunningham: Absolutely! She works at the Main Street Bakery too. Bruce: That's one we need for the survey. Bruce: I am a little confused about your comments about Chuck and the curb cuts and driveway. Our memo specifically has a condition which refers to re-designing the driveway providing one driveway and one curb cut. Cunningham: The reason that you find that is that he was working off of our original submission to HPC rather that the amended submission which is what you see here. 5 PZM10.4.94 Mary: We can change this condition to read "Shall re-design proposed driveway plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer". Leslie: I am a little confused that Mac still mentions that he has 2 curb cuts and he has been talking to Chuck about maintaining 2 curb cuts. Cunningham: Here is the problem. This process takes a long time. When we submitted for this, we had--and I have been back to HPC with this amendment. And Chuck came over to my office about a week and a half ago. And I gave him copies of the original survey and a copy of this. And he said "OK, I will take care of it from there". And obviously within the comments that is not reflected. In the plan that was shown the driveway went through the front and then around. And we eliminated that based upon working with HPC. Leslie: But you are still planning to eliminate that even though you have 2 historical curb cuts. What we see up there is what we are getting. Cunningham: Right. Leslie: OK. Cunningham: Which is a pulloff rather than a true curb cut. And then this curb cut to get back in. Right now you drive into the property right here and you drive in right there. Roth arrived. Leslie: My point is you will eliminate that second curb cut. Cunningham: If a pulloff is not considered a curb cut, absolutely. I don't know the definition of a curb cut. My assumption is anything that crosses the property line is a curb cut. Mary: I would just say that I think we can change the language and say this will be resolved. Specifically--"The applicant shall re- design the proposed driveway plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer" . Cunningham: Provided that we do have the driveway on the east end of the property. Roth: I don't think we can do a pulloff, Mac. talk about a pulloff. We didn't really Cunningham: There are 2 curb cuts now. 6 PZM10.4.94 Roth: But when Engineering Dept reviews needs to come up to current standards. curb cuts also. a re-development plan it And that would apply to Cunningham: The only concern we have is--if you guys want to eliminate that, you are going to have a car sitting right out in the middle of the street. Sara: There is no parking on King Street. Cunningham: Well then you better about 40 cars parked along there. somebody will park in the back. go up there because there are Then if somebody comes to visit It is not a big deal. It is just not reality. People up on King Street you are going to find people parked all the way along both sides of the street. I am just trying to deal with reality. That is why we proposed to do that--just to get a vehicle that somebody stops to come to somebody's house then they are going to park on the street. I have got the same problem in front of my house. Sara: It is a one-way street. I walk it 4 times a day. And it is rare that people are there for more than an hour parked. Cunningham: It is a sub-standard street in terms of width. We were concerned about it. That is why we did this. Roth: We have identified King STreet. We have looked at improvements throughout the area and King Street is one that needs widening. I am not sure we have contemplated adding parking on King Street. That is one of the reasons why the Engineering Dept suggested requiring a parking space for the ADU. Cunningham: Well, we have got it. Bruce: We have got all kinds of language suggested by staff. The language is there for now until we get further on in our discussion. We need to talk about the breezeway, entryway and follow up on the concern expressed by staff for that. Cunningham: My comment about this is this was the area that was reviewed in excruciating detail by HPC. And P&Z wants to get into who is in charge of which piece of it, that is fine. But we literally spent months working through the process to the design that you see now. We have to go back to HPC to redo it because that is under their purview. It is clear glass on both sides basically. The purpose of it is effectively to create a visual separation between the 2 structures while giving the practical aspect of being able to walk from the 7 PZM10.4.94 ADU to the garage or to the main house and that they are connected by a practical, clear story effectively. In fact it was even discussion with HPC about making it a greenhouse. We felt that was impractical and they agreed with us. The purpose is to see through there and you would be looking back out to the outhouse and the smoke house. I can give you the HPC's findings that there is a separation of 3 feet from the roof peak of the breezeway to the top of the ADU. The ADU is 3 feet higher. Bruce: How wide is that? Cunningham: 9 feet. Again that was clearly under HPC's auspices and HPC reviewed it in detail and I have all the findings from HPC and the discussion relative to that and what occurred. Amy Amidon, Historical Planner: I came here as an observer. But given some of the comments I would just like to make clear that I personally am the staff member to HPC. And HPC members do not take responsibility for the design ____?___ We review partial demolition and relocation of the historic buildings. And then through some long discussions we are able to make some general comments on the rest of the design. The breezeway is not something HPC proposed although they did discuss alterations to it. I just want it to be clear to you that HPC's review over this is limited and, yes, they did make some comments on its design. But it is not their proposal. Jasmine: Did the HPC want or not want the breezeway? Amy: The discussion went both ways. There are a couple of members who went on record after the motion saying they did not want the breezeway. It was not something that I guess they felt that they should recommend be removed. Bruce: Let me ask a question about procedure. If it were to occur at this hearing that our recommendation was to not have the breezeway, does that require it to go back to HPC? Amy: Well, I am not sure because like I said they review partial demolition. They have already in theory said this could be attached. If it were removed from it then that is demolition that they approved then it is not an issue. I guess. It may be something that needs to be inspected by the Planning Director. Cunningham: Can I read from the minutes from the HPC? Because we got blindsided with this. And that is why I am not happy with it. This is a problem. It is exactly the same problem with the monster home thing. The City Council gave very specific direction to HPC. HPC looked at this as basically this was the first project HPC was B PZM10.4.94 looking at when it came into this monster home thing that we didn't even fit it. This (showing copy of minutes) is only a small portion of 2 days worth of hearings totalling about 3 and 1/2 to 4 hours on this property reviewed by HPC. HPC very much wanted to review the whole property. We feel that they did review it though we asked that it only be advisory in nature to the main structure. As a result of that a motion was made and it was very clear that the breezeway was specifically reviewed by HPC and HPC had controlling interest on what it looked like. Reading from minutes} "The driveway is taking out the linkage from the historic structure to the main house be restructured and softened." In fact that was done in the subsequent meeting of September 13th. So this was the first meeting 2 weeks prior to the final meeting. "That the applicant deal with the ? of the new structure-- that is the big structurenshown to either break up the wall positioning etc, restudy of the dormers be done and massing to be left to the discretion of the applicant, the restudying of the massing of dormers being more consistent. The project will be reviewed with moniter and staff. The dormer on the south elevation" etc, etc. So it was a very detailed discussion over that. The subsequent meeting on the 13th--there was a discussion that was the issue between City Council's instructions to HPC. However at the end of that there was a long discussion over doors, windows, size and details of the existing door so and so forth. Elevations, use of materials, porches on the north elevation, removal of various elements between the 2 structures. You will note that in this which was an earlier design, a porch connected the breezeway all the way across. I am trying to point out there was a very significant discussion and review by HPC. Because the City Attorney said "You can provide adviserv to this but not final review". The answer- -and I can read right off the minutes and there are plenty of pages of this. This was specifically reviewed. These (dormers) were removed. This porch was removed. All because they connect to the historic structure. Sara: What are the conditions at the final meeting? Cunningham: Don Erdman felt very strongly about some of these elements and he is actually going to be the project moniter. This discussed 9 feet of the breezeway. Jake: "All the windows on both sides--there is no reason to have dormers." That is directly on 9 PZM10.4.94 that. "Remove the dormers, etc, etc, etc. Lower the height of the roof on the link which is part of what you see in this upper plan. Final motion: There were 3 motions. ?: It was amended 3 times. Cunningham: Right. All talking about glazing and heights of the breezeway and the connection of the breezeway to the historic structure which would be the ADU in question. "I think the roof at this level is good and would like to quantify it not to exceed such and such". That was then the final motion. Donnelley amended this motion so that "The difference in height between the ridges of the link--that is the breezeway in question- -and the cottage be at least 36 inches. And also that the south elevation of the link ie. breezeway inasmuch as is possible not contain any horizontal siding ie: glazing was preferred". Again reflected in what you see. Chairman Krabacher called the question. Meeting was adjourned. It carried 4 to 2. So the original motion--ridgeline roofline be lowered, changes to the approach of the historic element, the porch, the majority of the porch attached be eliminated which we have reflected in the model you see. The dormers be eliminated on the link which I just mentioned. The cottage be raised if possible which was amended by Don's motion to 36 inches higher. The roof color of the shingles of the link and the construction of such be differentiated from the wood shingles if possible. It was all seconded by Jake Vickery. "Do you want them to eliminate the dormer of the french door? Remove the upper dormers on the south elevation only." So you can see this entire motion has to do with the length to the historic structure. We complied with HPC' s requirements request. The motion carried and was adopted and we are in front of you to create the ADU. Revisiting this is unfair to us. HPC made its decision. The motion was amended 3 times to clarify the relationship of the link to the ADU. And nowhere in the motion does it at all talk about separating the 2 structures. Mary: As part of Conditional Use Review the applicant would be entitled to a floor area bonus for half the size of the accessory dwelling unit. So some time in the future after the temporary overlay is resolved or even perhaps during that is something the applicant would be entitled to. 10 PZM10.4.94 Also in your review of Condition Use we are looking at function of the accessory dwelling unit and what works on the property. If you have an option to do an ADU free standing I think that gives--the purpose of an ADU unit to give the occupant more privacy as opposed to being an attachment of a guest house type of use. Conditional Use also lets you look at to be consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel. This area has some larger rebuilt homes. It also has some older Aspen-style homes which are the smaller hodgepodge buildings on a lot. These comments were brought out because we are trying to make a fair review of what this neighborhood consists of and is not necessarily a structure of this--under the Conditional Use requirements a broken-up mass would be more consistent with the neighborhood. HPC has looked at it. They have approved it. That is something else we should take into consideration. But you do have a purview to look at some of these design issues in a Conditional Use review. Bruce then asked for comments from the public. Marlene Mickey: I live kitty-corner at the back of this new home. And this structure looks great. It looks very nice. But when you go to the lot and look at the size of the lot, all that building takes up the entire lot. We live in a family neighborhood. There are children. There are old people. Everybody works over there. My husband and I are very concerned about this new entry into our neighborhood. It is not consistent with what is there. So all of those pictures of houses that you have got up there? They don't take up the whole lot. There are yards around them. This takes up the whole lot. It is not a very big lot. Sara: Marlene, the letter from your Brother regarding fill-- Marlene: We haven't heard anything about that. But there was a considerable amount of fill down on that lot by Joe. Where the new portion of the house is going to be is built up at least 3 feet. And we would be very happy to have the house be in at the old grade, not at the grade that Joe dumped a lot of dirt in. Cunningham: Marlene, to kind of address some of your concerns: We are aware of that fill being added. And in fact the new portion of the house is lower than the actual flat grade across the site. This actually steps down. It is one of the things that we did. We actually dropped that main house down about 3 feet off of where it legally could be from the grade--not from what Joe added in. So it is being dropped quite a bit. 11 PZM10.4.94 Mary: There is also a condition that natural grade will be established. Sara: I find this does not meet condition B. That is that the ADU is consistent and compatible with he character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development of the surrounding land uses. I feel it is more in keeping with the neighborhood if these were 2 separate structures. You yourself admitted that there were 2 separate structures on there at one point. We did this in Oklahoma Flats for the Hamiltons. To be a whole separate structure for the ADD which is much more in keeping for the Oklahoma Flats neighborhood. I think it would also conserve the integrity of the historic structure to have it separated from the house. So I would like to see that breezeway removed. Cunningham: My comment to that is this is a classic problem. You have got City Council giving direction. You have got P&Z and you have got HPC. Now who is the poor buggern I closed on this property last week based upon what the HPC agreement was. We can remove our request for the ADU. We are way under the FAR. So if you want me to do that and if your motion is to remove the breezeway, I can't comply with HPC. And I am not going to spend 4 more months with HPC. Sara: Mac, we are an advisory board. Cunningham: I understand that. But please understand--this is the problem that everybody has as a property owner in the City of Aspen. Because we were sitting here with the City Attorney and HPC having a war. And it is in the minutes. Right in front of our face. I said "Guys, you can't put us in the middle of this". Now what you are telling me is if this is the way you guys are going to vote, then P&Z is going to override what HPC says to do. What is the poor person to do that owns a piece of property in this town? We don't know who in the Hell to talk to! If you all would sit down in the same room and we hash it out and we all walk and there with an agreement, fine. Sara: Mac, I believe the motion by HPC was made when some of the recommendation of the City Attorney only what they could. They had limited purview. We have more on whether it fits in with the character of the neighborhood. Cunningham: Well, then you have a third committee that is going to review it that is part HPC and part P&Z. So what is their purview? And this is the problem that we have today, guys. We can get into philosophical discussion about-- 12 PZM10.4.94 We responded to what HPC wanted. Their review was historic structures. We voluntarily came in providing an ADU. If we separate these 2 properties, it is only going to make the main house bigger which I don't want to do. And what I was trying to do is make the entry to this softer, trying to define the difference between the properties architecturally. They will be very different in terms of the way they are perceived from the streetscape. I think everybody obviously needs to be heard. I am not here to be contentious. But it is really frustrating. We started this in June. And if it means every day you are on pins and needles from day one to day, in this case 125, I just don't think it is right. Everybody has a different opinion in this town. That is what makes it unique. But HPC is the one that reviewed the linkage and HPC reviewed this in great detail. Excruciating detail. Bruce: I am not going to debate you on the nature of HPC approval that you have at this point. But I don't think their approval is related to the linkage between the two. Their approval is related to the historic structure. Our approval is related to the ADU and how it fits into the character of the neighborhood and whether that linkage is required or not required is part of HPC is sort of irrelevant. Our decision is going to be based on the standards for Conditional Use Review for this accessory dwelling unit. I do have a question for staff as to the square breezeway/linkage. What is the square footage? count? Where does it apply? footage of this Where does it Mary: The area is about 320 square feet. Bruce: So it is part of the main residence, I assume. Mary: Right. Bruce: And not only serves as a linkage between the main house and the ADU. It also serves as a linkage between the garage and the main house. Correct? Mary: Yes. Bruce: So the people that park their cars in the garage won't have to get out in the weather and walk from the garage to the main house. In my mind frankly, Mac, that is the purpose of this linkage and this connection. It has nothing to do with the ADU. The purpose is to connect the garage with the main house. Cunningham: The purpose is to connect all of the structures. 13 PZM10.4.94 Bruce: It just so happens that the ADU--the historic structure, is also attached to that linkage. Jasmine: Under Ord #1 an ADU has mandatory occupancy or not? Mary: No. Jasmine: Even under Ord #1 replacement? Mary: No. Jasmine: I didn't understand what you were saying if you took out the breezeway it would just increase the size of the house. Cunningham: With our FAR we can build a bigger house and with no review. Jasmine: In other words you could take that whatever 300 feet-- whatever the square footage of the breezeway and put it elsewhere on the property-obviously in the main house. Cunningham: We are not under the purview of the Overlay District. If you read the ordinance it was for properties 9,000sf or smaller or properties on land of 9, OOOsf or less. That is number 1. Number 2 is properties over B5% of FAR. When they are under 9,000sf FAR or over 2,000-- Leslie: No. Every residential piece of property that exceeds your allowable FAR by B5% is required to go through the special review. If your property there is 9,000sf or less it must comply with the special review. If you are greater than 9,000sf compliance with special review is voluntary. But you still have to go through. Our understanding is is that your floor area that you are proposing on this site absent your bonus for your ADU which is 222sqft and absent your bonus that you get for your garage is B5% or less. Cunningham: There are a number of things. But the reality is it is advisory. It is not mandatory. And the fact of the matter is you can build to 100% FAR on a site over 9, OOOsf. It can be advisory. That is not our intent. That is not my interest. I voluntarily complied with everything that was requested. If that is what your question was, Jasmine. Jasmine: I was just curious about the FAR. Cunningham: Our FAR was counted in that number. So we could increase the size of the main structure. that it was appropriate. And we didn't do it. theoretically I didn't feel Bob: Staff, where you talk about removing the breezeway are you 14 PZM10.4.94 talking about partially removing it or completely removing it? In looking at the plans this area here- -if that were removed the original house would stand separate. Would that be acceptable to staff or are you saying that you want to see that separated totally from the house so you wouldn't have any front entry? The entry would have to be put into the house in some other location. Mary: That is the intent. Bob: To take all of that out. Mary: Yes. Cunningham: Then what you would end up with is you would be looking at a garage. If you remember our discussion earlier is where is the curb cut. So we are using the historic curb cut-- you can get two things. We can remove the breezeway and put the driveway right through the middle of the property. Or we can keep it over in the side in which case you are going to not get a nice breezeway with glass looking out into an outside back area. You are going to be looking at the side of a garage. I don't think that is preferable. The other thing I think would be for you to realize is you are going to be stepping up into the ADU from the main structure. Bruce is absolutely right. We are trying to connect the things because I think it is a lot more practical. Somebody living in the ADU is walking over to the main house. Is he going to be walking outside? Is that more preferable than being inside? Bruce: Mac, don't misunderstand my comments and my questions. I am not necessarily saying that the breezeway has to go. What I am trying to do is place it in the context of this now interim overlay review that we have. The primary thing to look at is bulk and mass. And to a casual observer looking at the house, the project from the angle which I am looking at it it looks like one big house with the connection. And what we are trying to do is to figure out if there is a way that somehow the bulk and mass of this project can be less. Maybe it is as less as it is going to get with the breezeway. I don't know that. But don't misunderstand what we are trying to do here. We are trying to help you with this project and not re-design it or curtail it or stop it or anything like that. We want the accessory dwelling unit. We are just trying to figure out the best way to have it happen on this site. Cunningham: I am very concerned about it too. And I appreciate your comments. I just think it is unfair for staff to characterize that there was no discussion relative to the main structure because there was very significant discussion. The model you see was a direct result of a request by the HPC for us to re-visit the mass 15 PZM10.4.94 and scale of the main structure and the whole first meeting on the first of September went in qreat detail for 2 and 1/2 hours over mass and scale. We discussed all kinds of elements relative to the breezeway connection, relative to the linkage between the various pieces on the property as proposed. And the result of that was a number of things. The lowering of the top of the house, the changing in the windows, the change in the dormers on the main house, addition of more porches. Those are all things that we worked through with HPC. Though technically it was advisory only in nature, in the end I feel that we worked toward the same goal. I think that some of their recommendations were good. And frankly under the old rule we felt that we reflected a lot of what they wanted. Now I know that there are certain members of HPC that had other opinions. But HPC spoke and we responded accordingly. And it is unfair to characterize that there wasn't a lot of discussion over this whole site because there was an enormous amount. Bruce: Is it your position that mass and scale and bulk are reduced as a result of the breezeway? Cunningham: Yes. Bruce: As a result of the breezeway? Cunningham: Yes. Bruce: In other words your position is you take that 300sf, add it onto the main house plus connect the garage. And that by virtue of the breezeway actually we have less mass and scale and bulk than we would have otherwise? Cunningham: Obviously you have got to link the garage to the main house. The big complaint on historic properties in Aspen is everybody is taking the garage or the main house and stuck it behind the historic property. That is not appropriate. We all know you can go through the west end--the house I used to live in I don't even know where the house I lived in is anymore. This is a big massive house that sits behind it. What we wanted to do is we wanted to separate these elements to make them compatible. And we used the breezeway to do that. The breezeway steps down from these other elements so that it doesn't become this big massive thing. The other thing that we did as I is to put in the glass so that when you walk up to the house to the entry you look through it and you look back to these old structures back here. And this would be an open, airy connection. 16 PZM10.4.94 The other purpose of that was to spread the living areas on the property so that we didn't end up with one big clumpy house in the middle of the property which again is inappropriate. Chuck Maple came to us and said "Hey guys I like to watch the downhill". We set this house back much further from the edge of the property line than is required by code. But we did that purposely. Again, to set it back from the street. We also dropped the house which is reflected. Again to give you some mass and scale issues we also dropped the house as you can see here from the original discussion and we dropped it here. And actually you step down into a living room in this house so it is set lower on the site than is allowable. And then HPC came back and said "Please step this up--this ADU up to give it more prominence". It is set forward from the rest. This is a porch on to further soften it. And then this is set up from this so that we have this stepping effect. And all of those things are things that we worked with HPC on in order to reduce the sense of mass and scale, dormers, porches. This linkage being stepped down so that each element of this really stands on it's own. And again this big problem with the model is it is very hard to show glass and the fact that it is transparent. But we worked very hard to create the transparency and to get light into that breezeway to do it. Bruce: Where is the entry to the ADU? Cunningham: Showed on model. I think what we will do is a couple of steps coming up here so you will be able to enter from here. You will also be able to enter from the garage back here. But this steps up so from the breezeway you will actually step up a few steps to get in. So you have a real transition. The main purpose is of course to create this so somebody can walk right in here and walk right in to the ADU. Bruce: Where is the snow going to shed off of the tallest portion of that roof? Cunningham: Most of the snow sheds this way. There is a small bit this way. We are going back to shingles. Right now it is a steel roof. Underneath it is the original shingles. We are going back to shingle this. That will help hold the snow. We will be able to melt it and drain it off as opposed to shedding it with a tin roof which is the way it occurs now. Tim: I like this. And I knew No Problem for a long time and have lived here and done a lot of things with him. And I was very 17 PZM10.4.94 concerned what was going to happen to this corner and his house. I am not really one who tallies up the FAR and tries to make all the numbers work. I basically think about things artistically and what the intentions are. I think the intentions are good here. And artistically I think that it does work for me. When I first looked at the elevations I was concerned about the center window and the height. And I was concerned about Chuck Maples view in the back. And I think that this has been arranged and re-arranged to give as much break to the rest of the people in the neighborhood with the height. I think that the entranceway is an important feature. I like the breezeway. I like the fact that you don't have to have some kind of grand entrance or some kind of hallway into the house that is going to be more massive than this is. It is practical because it does connect the garage. I think it is practical because I think you need a mud room or entranceway. It is going to capture the air and is not going to create big cold spots entering into the center of the main living areas of the house. I can see the practical applications of having a breezeway connect the garage. And frankly I think it works for that site. The garage in the back works better for me. It is not on the street. I like No Problem's house on the street. The way it is set out I think it is the keystone to the property. And I am trying to be practical. It is going to be very expensive to build this house. It was very expensive to buy the property. And I think the elements that are in the living areas of the house are necessary to make the project work. I think, again, the intentions here are good and artistically it works for me. I would like to get this back in focus and look at the positive elements here and move forward. Bob: I heard the comment before about it not fitting the character of the neighborhood. I don't know what you do to fit the character of the neighborhood. Maybe leave it like it is. But No Problem's building is in such an eclectic neighborhood. I have gone over and taken the time to walk around there and I have tried to think of how you could overcome the objections of staff. I think you would have to essentially go back and start allover again to find some kind of link in the neighborhood. I like what Tim has said. I think he has expressed it very well. There is an awful lot of positive things about this house. I think you have worked hard in trying to meet a lot of the guidelines that are set. And yet there still is an objection. I studied it at home. I sat here trying to figure out how you could free-stand that house. And I got the answer that you would like to get rid 1B PZM10.4.94 of the total connection. And I think that is an impractical solution from the user's point of view. I am not trying to design a house for anybody. But I just did a little overlay myself. I figured if you were to remove this entryway and just move it back and extend it back here still maintaining the character with the fenestration, the light going through it so you would have a connection to the driveway, you would end up with this much space free so it would be a free- standing house. It wouldn't be as practical. You wouldn't have access to the garage or access to the other house. It is less desirable. It would free-stand it but in fact from most angles you wouldn't even see that because you have got this mass back here with the garage. So I think if you do away with this completely you are really going to have to re-study the whole thing and how to have access to the garage. If I were building a house I would certainly want to have access with the climate that we have here. I am very outspoken against monster homes and I think that this house has gone a long way in trying to overcome the kinds of complaints that we have for a lot of other houses. I would like to see the house free-standing if possible. But I sit here and try to figure out how to do that without going back to ground zero again and have to re-design the whole thing and I don't see an easy way to do that. Jasmine: One of the things that has concerned me about ADUs is the fact that many of them are either not occupied or are used for uses other than ADUs. And without making other comments because I know you do have an actual visibly ADU in your own place. I think that the design as it is currently presented really makes the ADU an extension of the main house. And I really think that it would be more appropriate as an ADU use to have a separation between the ADU and the main structure. Bob: I guess that is what I was trying to do and just figuring out how you could free that up. Jasmine: Although I think it is a much better design than many we have seen it still does give the appearance of being one large house and that does bother me. Marta: Does anybody in this ADD park in the garage? Or would they park in the garage? Cunningham: They might. I don't know until I live there. Marta: This applicant has been through a great deal of review. I know it would be nice to have a free-standing. To me, it is almost 19 PZM10.4.94 free-standing. Basically if you just cut a little piece off or put your breezeway further back, it doesn't really make any difference. My point is that so many people have already commented and given design suggestions and the applicant has tried to comply. Perhaps our system is flawed. And I believe that it is. But at this point I guess I don't see an objection. An ADU would be nice free- standing. But this is virtually free-standing. You may enter from a different entrance altogether. I like the design and I agree with Tim. I think he has made a great effort to try and break it up a little bit. And I would go for it. MOTION Tim: I move to approve the Conditional Use for 444 sf accessory dwelling unit for the No Problem Joe property at 930 King Street recommended in the Planning Office memo dated October 4, 1994. To Cunningham: conditions? Do you have any problems with any of the Bruce: One of them has been amended- -#6c. "To the satisfaction of the City Engineer" is what it now reads. Tim: Frankly I think the curb cut is a practical addition. Marta: I second the motion. Bruce then closed the public portion of the hearing. ROLL CALL VOTE: Steven, yes, Marta, yes, Robert, yes, Tim, yes, Sara, no, Jasmine, no, Bruce, yes. Motion carried 5 to 2. Meeting was adjourned. 20