Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19941122 reJ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 22, 1994 Chairman Bruce Kerr called meeting to order at 4:30 P.M. Answering roll call were Tim Mooney, Marta Chaikovska, Robert Blaich, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Bruce Kerr. Steven Buettow arrived later. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Roger: Over on Midland ROW when they apparently took a Caterpillar tractor and made that road, they piled a great big berm right adjacent to the Midland ROW. This is a fairly high obvious berm which I don't recall seeing in the plans which we made comments to the County P&Z. I would like the County P&Z to respond, Leslie, as to why we have a berm there when it wasn't on their original plans. There is an observation structure behind it as well. I think it is a temporary thing. They can take clients up and see what a pretty view it is. Then the light over the front door of City Hall is never on at night. And that is a dangerous situation. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie: Stan would like to have a discussion with P&Z about where we want to go with the feed-back that we got on the symposium and the direction that we want to take. We are also planning a joint work session with City Council before you actually see proposed code amendments in January and February. February 19 is when the interim overlay expires unless Council chooses to extend it. December 5th is the brown bag lunch meeting on small lodges for anyone who is interested. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES JULY 13, 1993 OCTOBER 18, 1994 Roger: I move to adopt minutes of July 13, 1993 and Oct. 18, 1994. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. PZM11.22.94 AJAX TAVERN/LITTLE NELL SPA AMENDMENT Bruce opened the public hearing. Kim: In a late breaking development 9 of the public notices were returned to the Planning Office because they were international mail and didn't have the appropriate postage. On the advice of the City Attorney we informed the applicant on what had happened. And at the advice of the City Attorney he has re-mailed these for another public hearing to take place on December 6th. The City attorney said it is OK to open this item, basically present the facts and just table to December 6 for the final roll call vote. Kim read from a letter from Brad Perron who expressed his support this application. Bruce: I respect the City Attorney's opinion on this. However my preference would be rather than discuss it tonight and have 2 weeks go by, I would rather discuss the whole thing at one time so if there is a potential that the notice is defective I would rather table to date certain of December 6, 1994. Roger: Presented the original SPA for the treatment of the stacks. And those stacks still have the exposed ventilators on top which you can hear from the mall area down below. They never did put the sound baffling around them. MOTION Jasmine: I move to continue the public hearing for the Ajax Tavern/Little Nell SPA amendment public hearing to date certain of December 6, 1994 because of possible insufficient public notice. Roger seconded the motion with all in favor. Bruce closed the public hearing to be re-opened December 6, 1994. 204 E. DURANT PUD REVIEW AND REZONING Leslie made presentation as attached in record. Sunny Vann, representative for applicant: We are looking for 2 approvals and 2 recommendations. We need a recommendation for the PUD designation and we need a recommendation for PUD approval for the side yard variance. In addition the P&Z approves affordable housing. We also allowed us stack parking when the parking requirement for the processed a code amendment that such units were configured in a 2 PZM11.22.94 single family type of configuration. That was approved by Council and you granted us Special Review approval under that new ordinance for our parking layout. Since this particular redesign changes that layout somewhat we also need a new Special Review Approval for the revised parking layout itself. In order to maintain the viability of the project what we have had to do is move the bulk of the free market unit that was in this area forward and out into the setback. This side is heavily vegetated. There is additional street plantings that are being proposed. I believe there is little or not impact on surrounding land uses if we vary this one area of the setback. We will still be able to maintain a parking space at the rear and we have also lost one space due to saving the tree and also the need for dumpsters, transformer locations etc. The basic change in the proj ect is one bedroom of affordable housing. We took a I-bedroom and changed it to a studio. We still comply with the requirements of Ord #1. There has been a 200sf reduction in FAR associated with change. We have gone from 4 spaces for the affordable housing to 3. We are asking that you establish the parking requirement as 3 spaces and we are proposing that the studio not have a space associated with the actual on- site housing. This went under considerable discussion with the City Council. The consensus was that they were willing to vary under PUD in order to maintain this particular tree. So this is in direct response to their request. Bruce opened the public hearing and asked for public comment. Sunny: The conditions as drafted by the Planning Office are acceptable so long as we note the additional approvals that are granted if you should so choose. The only one that is problematic is the Planning Office is asking that the restricted covenants or condominium declarations for the project require that a space be provided on the apron of the parking garage for the last unit. The only problem with that is that if it is mandatory--the owner of the unit loses control over his access to his garage. I don't think there is a problem with working out something between the owner of the free market unit, who is also going to own the employee unit, to address the parking issue if there is one. But I hate to see it as a mandatory requirement. We could agree to rent the studio unit to someone without a car. But the tradeoff which Council has asked has eliminated that 3 PZM11.22.94 parking space and there is simply no place to put it. But I think it is an unreasonable requirement to obligate the owner to block the garage for that space. Bruce: I would assume that you are within the requirements. My question is is there a change in the height. Doug: there ridge No. The addition of the wing going out towards the west is a new ridge line but it is the same height as the other line. There is no change. Sara: The one reason I would like to see the parking on the apron as a condition is that conversely an owner of the free market unit could just say "I am sorry, there is no parking here". As a condition it is an entitlement. It is legal and prescribed by the City so it just gives a little clout. Tim: Is the size of the west unit the same? Sunny: The total project FAR is the same. There has been a 200sf decrease in the amount of affordable housing required provided-- we were only required about 1800 and we are at 2450 so it went down by 200sf and there is probably some corresponding increase in that end free market unit. Tim: So the build-out for the whole project FAR is the same but the affordable housing went down 200 feet and the free market-- the west unit specifically went up 200 feet. Sunny: Yes, that is correct. Roger: I have a problem setting up this precedent of 0 line setback on the street to save a tree. There is no change of height in the building. You are looking at greater shadow in the street irrespective if the tree there. Also, yes, you are saving a tree but you are surrounding it by a building so you can't really see the thing very much except from the Aspen street side. I feel sympathy for the applicant. But this has gotten to be designed by a committee and we are ending up with a camel. So I can't support it unfortunately. I just have a real problem with o line setback on the street. Tim: How long is the piece of the west unit that is on the 0 line setback? Doug: About 28 feet. Sunny: Our thinking was that because of the width of the Public ROW with the installation of the sidewalk and the street trees and 4 PZM11.22.94 the fact that you are flanked by 2 substantial Evergreens that the perception of it--it is going to look like it has a setback from the street for the width of the sidewalk and the ROW there. So in terms of its impact it is not going to adversely affect the pedestrian. And in that particular location on South Aspen Street I don't think it is going to adversely affect the neighborhood. Tim: I am just curious to figure out if you were going to lose 200 feet on the affordable and you felt it necessary to put it into the free market unit knowing that you were going to have a 0 line setback, I am wondering why you felt like you had to put the rest of the square footage into that free market and the create the 0 line setback. Sunny: Well there would still be a setback variance required. It is not so much that we have got all this great net living space. It was because of the changes in the circulation and the layout of the units the end unit just expanded in size. Leslie: Originally the side yard setback required was 5 feet. Then when you look at where the tree is being saved and the gain of a whole little pocket of open space that you didn't have before. Sunny: The studio unit did not go down in size because we are trying to make up for it in the free market. What happened is the garage had to move over basically half a bay so that shrunk-- because we had to have access into the garage and we have to have 3 parking spaces for the free market unit so when it shifted over it basically ate up a portion of the prior I-bedroom affordable housing unit. Bruce: How far is it from the edge of the curb to the building on the west end? Sunny: 12 feet. Bruce: It may be very similar to the Prospector which as you walk along that sidewalk there by the Prospector there is about 3 or 4 feet of ground and then about a 6 foot sidewalk and then the curb. Marta: It seems to me we have gone about as far as we can massaging this project to make everybody happy. I would agree with the Planning Office that this is really a minor request. I actually like the way you have redesigned it to save the tree. It breaks up that wall along the side and so I would vote to recommend it. In terms of your request to take out Condition #1 I would agree with you to leave it up to the owners and not make that a condition of approval. 5 PZM11.22.94 MOTION Marta: I move to recommend to City Council approval of the 204 East Durant Subdivision PUD request to reduce the western side yard setback to 0 only to the extent shown on the plans. I further move to approve Special Review for the affordable housing parking plan to provide 3 parking spaces for the 4 affordable dwelling units. These approvals are subject to the conditions of approval in the Planning Office memorandum dated November 22, 1994 provided that Condition #1 shall now read "The applicant shall work with the Engineering and Parks Departments during installation of the sidewalk and pruning of the trees". That becomes new condition #1. same. Conditions #2 and #3 remain the Jasmine seconded this motion. Bruce closed the public hearing. Roll call vote: Marta, yes, Robert, yes, Tim, yes, Sara, yes, Roger, no, Jasmine, yes, Bruce, yes. ALLEN CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW AND REZONING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Leslie made presentation as attached in record. She read into record a letter from David Stapleton requesting the rejection of this application because of the property's covenants in the West Meadow Subdivision. Leslie: I just want to add one more point. When someone is required to comply with Ord #1, they have 3 options available to them. #1 is to propose an accessory dwelling unit that meets our standards and criteria. The second one is to pay cash-in-lieu fee. The third is to defer the accessory dwelling unit and payment. If this their primary residence and they are a working resident of Pitkin County and they intend to live there they can defer the cash-in-lieu or the accessory dwelling unit until such time as they sell to a second home owner. So Ord #1 has several options in it and accessory dwelling unit is not the only alternative for the applicant to choose. 6 PZM11.22.94 Bruce: I need clarification about Ord l's application to vacant land previously subdivided lots. Does Ord 1 apply to that? Leslie: Yes. Ord 1 applies to every piece of vacant land in town in which someone is going to propose to build a single family home or duplex residence. Or if someone has a single family home and they tear it down to build or if someone has one unit on a duplex lot and are going to build a second unit on the duplex lot. Then to comply with Ord 1 they have the 3 alternatives. There is a 4th alternative. home to RO. You can actually deed restrict the Marta: Exactly where is the ADU located in relation to the street? Allen: It is on the corner of Mountain View Drive and Cemetery Lane. The ADU is on the Cemetery Lane side near where the bus stop sign is. Marta: I have heard what the homeowners are saying but why exactly are they upset about this? Allen: There are 2 previously approved ADUs in the subdivision. Immediately behind my house is a duplex. Next door is a duplex. Across the street is a duplex. Across the street to the north is a duplex. It is surrounded by duplexes on the other side and there are 2 ADUs that were previously approved in this subdivision. I have heard that more traffic in the subdivision and higher density is the reason for the upset. There isn't going to be any higher density. This room will be in the house and if this room is used as a bedroom in the house, somebody will live in that bedroom. And if it is used as an ADU, somebody will live in the ADU. I have talked with Leslie because I was upset about her recommendation of denial because I had gotten very positive input from the staff prior to it being turned over to Leslie. I explained that I would be willing to restrict it to occupancy to 1 person who does not have a car on the site. There are 8 conditions of approval. I would be willing to add those 2 more conditions as conditions of approval. I want to have an ADU in that house. It helps me defray the cost of the house and it is compatible. It is not an intense use and it is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel. Most of the houses around me are true duplexes--2 large units in one house. This is a 350sf accessory dwelling unit just like the code provides to be an accessory to a 7 PZM11.22.94 single family residence. If you read condition b word for word, it complies with everything in there. Bruce opened the public hearing. Dave Amery: I am in a duplex across the street from Doug. And that duplex was grandfathered into the subdivision. It was probably illegally built. And it had to be grandfathered in because somebody sort of skammed their way in. But the general character of Mountain View Drive is single family residences. We are the exception to that rule. All around us are duplexes. That is true. But we have always had in our subdivision covenants a rule against duplexes and we are trying to desperately hold onto that. I have a letter from myself and my wife. A letter from Betty Cipriano who lives in a duplex across the street on Cemetery Lane. A Letter from Roy Vroom. A letter from will and Sherry Parry. These letters all stated their opposition to this application. (attached in record) Showing pictures (attached) This is the lot. And dirt is literally spilling out onto the access and out onto the main artery. It is very close. He basically doesn't have anyplace to put dirt at this point. Most of his stuff is parked in current access problems. An ADU will contribute to problems of parking and access. A developer of a 1 million dollar spec house should not be able to enhance his sale price by being able to advertise "with an attached caretaker unit" which I believe is one of the things that may happen. From past actions it is clear Mr. Allen will only be a resident until this house sells. Also there is no reason for a tenant to provide "offsetting" revenue while the house is on the market for him. In prior situations he developed the duplex on Cemetery Lane. Before that he developed houses on Silver King Drive. Each of those houses has radically changed the neighborhood look. Our subdivision covenants prohibit duplexes. If more ADUs are granted it may lead to more duplexes in the future. We are currently fighting a battle on that higher density and more traffic. ADU approval could lead to destruction to one of the few family neighborhoods left in this part of Aspen. We are concerned the ordinance will create a "caretaker community" rather than actual employee housing. I would like to question as to the statement that 2 ADUs are officially approved. Name me who those are. I know Ernie has asked to do one. 8 PZM11.22.94 Leslie: It was approved as conditional use review. Laura Blocker also. Both of those properties are within this subdivision. Elva Fitzpatrick: I have lived in this community for 32 years. We knew when we bought the property that we had covenants and that ADUs were not allowed. We have an architectural control group and every time plans are submitted they are submitted to this group. Doug's plans are not approved with an ADU. And I wonder too sitting here listening, do our covenants--how much bearing do they have? Do you go over our heads on that? We always thought that this is our neighborhood. We have our covenants. And that each person must abide by these covenants. Mr. Allen knew that when he bought. And at our last meeting--I have the minutes--I took the minutes and I have all the proxies. The minutes are not approved. But I would ask that you put off making your decision. Roy Vroom: I just wanted to put on record I originally subdivided that property back in 1958. The covenants except for one corner definitely prohibited more than a one-family dwelling of any kind. As far as I am concerned those covenants still stand. Anything that exists now I would look upon as bandit units because I never approved them. I never heard or was even asked to vote on any of the current so-called ADUs. I don't even know where they are. I still own a lot right next door to Mr. Allen so I am obviously concerned. In fact so concerned as much as I was back in 1958. I had to sue Pitkin County to remove a gravel crupher and an asphalt batch plant right across Cemetery Lane. And I won! They did remove it. I am vehemently against this. Mike Lux: I live at 1325 Mountain View for 7 years. I also have the privilege of being the president of the homeowner's association during the term where Laura Blocker and Ernie Behrwall got their ADUs approved. The covenants as I read them does restrict duplexes. At the meeting that Elva mentioned we had a vote and I don't know if you got the score there but I would say that the ADU unit in question was approved by the jury of the voters of our subdivision. And I think it should be approved. It is already been established that the units have been built. I am sure Mr. Allen wouldn't apply for an ADU unit if Ord #1 wasn't in place nor would Laura Blocker. This is something that is brought on by the Ord #1 being in place. Mrs. Stapleton: The minutes in question that Mike is talking about and Elva brought up--they have not been approved. There isn't a 2/3rds majority to pass the ADU. The proxies that were for the ADUs were all copies so I question their being legitimate. So we cannot use those minutes. They are not valid. 9 PZM11.22.94 We have been there in our house for 27 years and raised 5 children there. There is a whole new influx of young people raising their children now. There are 18 houses on that street and there are 21 children and it is just a great little family neighborhood. And we just do not want, even if you have a 300sf ADU that comes in, that is still an extra car. I don't care--it might be 2 cars. And we just do not want the added traffic or congestion on our nice Ii t tle family oriented street. Since we have covenants that specifically state that duplexes are not allowed--that is it! And David had filed that nothing can be done for a year. Bruce: Our decision tonight will not decide anything about your homeowner's association--the validity of your minutes- -even the validity of your restrictive covenants. That is not our purview. We are not a court of law. We are not going to decide the validity of those covenants. If you as a homeowner's association at some future time choose to pursue enjoining Mr. Allen or enjoining Mr. Fairwall or anybody else from using the ADUs that have apparently already been approved and built, that is between your homeowner's association and those individual property owners. It is not our position to decide on the legality or not of ADUs and whether that becomes a duplex defacto. So don't misunderstand the process tonight. We are not going to be making that decision. Our decision will merely be whether this ADU as proposed fits within the City of Aspen code guidelines for approval of an ADU. Our finding will be based on whether this ADU as proposed meets those criteria. Stan Clauson: Staff has taken this question up with the City Attorney. And has very clearly gotten instruction that it is not appropriate for the City staff to attempt to enforce covenants that exist in the various neighborhoods. In general current zoning theory and in the Ordinance specifically an accessory dwelling unit is really considered to be consistent with single family homes and not the creation of a duplex unit. The accessory apartment concept emerged some 10 or 12 years ago really in response to changing patterns of living, smaller family size and the need to alter the single family home concept to meet those needs. Amery: I know that is a legal opinion. I read the ordinance quite carefully and unless I miss the intent of the ordinance, the ordinance was developed at a time when ADUs were being destroyed and knocked down so that people could build huge houses on a lot and actually get rid of the accessory dwelling unit and that was the idea and the intent of that was to make sure that none of these were lost in the process of a developer coming along and building a large house on a lot and during that process that employee 10 PZM11.22.94 housing disappeared. So it was to keep the employee housing in those areas where it already existed. Whether it is to create more I think this board has to really sit down and consider--if you are going to start a policy--an ordinance and keep enforcing it, you want to also look at what is the impact of your decision. If I take and make this decision does it open the door for a possible proliferation and a whole change of a neighborhood character. Bruce: Leslie, you mention the 3 options. Is it the applicant's or the city's option? Whose option is it? Leslie: The reason we keep the accessory dwelling unit in review for public hearing which is in the Cemetery Lane area was one of those neighborhoods that was heavily discussed during the adoption of Ord 1 and it was to let the neighborhood know what was happening to them. That is why the accessory dwelling unit is a conditional use. It is not a permitted use. It must go through a review. But to answer your question it is up to the applicant to choose what they would like to do but if you choose an accessory dwelling unit you have to through a review process. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Marta: There are a few distinctions that I see in this that this gentleman pointed out. An ADU is not a duplex. And Mr. Allen has said that the would restrict it I think this person who has the ADU may not have a car. This house is on the corner of Cemetery Lane and Mountain View Drive. Cemetery Lane is a busy street no matter what. If a car was being used by your ADU it would certainly not go down what I would consider a rather quiet street. There are people who want ADUs who have nannies, caretakers, household help. This is a changing lifestyle type of an arrangement that people have wanted. And they will want more and more in the future. We are addressing whether this ADU really is compatible with the neighborhood and given that there are duplexes around I don't see that it would be incompatible. Although I sympathize with the homeowners I don't see that there is an overwhelming circumstance here that would say that it would impact on the neighborhood. Sara: I would like to recommend to the homeowner's association when this happened before, we suggested that they look hard at their covenants and there are things that you may feel you need to add to those covenants. You may feel those covenants are strong enough now but as Stan pointed out that isn't our purview or jurisdiction. 11 PZM11.22.94 Jasmine: My problem with ADUs is that most of the time they tend not to be occupied by anybody at all which I am sure the residents would really prefer. They tend to be used as guest bedrooms. I think that the applicants willingness to put a restriction on there that there will be only one person occupying it will have the effect of being basically a guest bedroom. Because the unit is so small and because of the applicant's willingness to limit the occupancy to 1 resident I think you are not going to have much more of a serious situation than you would have if it was just another family member living there. You already have 2 approved ADUs in your subdivision which makes me wonder why this particular one seems to be so upsetting. I think it is because of the trend. But your concern about the ADUs and the proliferation doesn't make any sense at this point because they already exist. I think this particular one is going to have a minimum impact with the additional restrictions on it. Vroom: Regarding approval of the other so-called ADUs when and how was that done? I never knew they existed. I don't recall ever having received any such notice on either one of those so-called ADUs. This is the first one. Bruce: away. You would not have been notified if you were far enough Leslie: I know that Ernest Behrwall and Laura Blocker went through the public notice process. Stapleton: What is happening here in our neighbor to our east is also planning an ADU. He is going to live in there, rent out his house and he also lives down in his house, rents it out. And you are saying about proliferation. If Mr. Allen is approved it is just going to be a chain reaction down the whole block. Right, he is just applying for a corner of our street and those people aren't going to be driving through the street but then what is going to happen to the rest of the neighborhood? Why would we have covenants? Bruce: Under the City of Aspen code ADUs are a conditional use in all single family areas. As I understand your covenants-your covenants prohibit duplexes. So there may be a problem with your covenants. But what we have to do is determine whether this use is consistent with these criteria. Allen: What you are hearing here tonight is NIMBYsm at it's worst. Almost half of the letters in opposition to this tonight--one comes from the guy that created a duplex--Roy Vroom who hasn't lived in the neighborhood in years. That is why he doesn't know what is 12 PZM11.22.94 going on. The other 2 letters come from the only people in the neighborhood that live in a duplex. My lot is close to half an acre in size. It is not a tiny lot. It is 15,000sf. This house covers less than 20% of the lot. There is 80% open space on this lot and contrary to what has been said, I haven't pushed any dirt off my lot or close to the edge of my lot. It is all entirely on my lot. And that dirt is going away as soon as the backfill of the foundation is done. This is still a single family residence. An ADU is not a unit of density. It doesn't create a second unit. I didn't ask to max the FAR. I didn't ask for an ADU bonus. Bruce then closed the public hearing. Bruce: I am going to abstain from voting. The reason for this is that nearly all of these folks are my neighbors. I live across the street from this lot. Bob: I am going to start with the recommended motion that staff has made. I move to deny the conditional use for 1357 Mountain View Drive finding that the application does not comply with review standards. Roger seconded the motion. Tim: I really don't think that I am happy with the presentation of the information here. I don't think that the intentions of the applicant are to really use it as the intended use and so I think therefore it doesn't comply with letter E. I am not a draftsman. It is very difficult for me to know whether or not this is a quality living unit. The spaces that are here are really being provided with the intention of giving a quality home to someone living in an ADU. I would like to see elevations. I would like to see plans that I can understand. I would like the applicant to provide us with the amount of information that shows that not only is there an ADU going to be provided here but it is a quality ADU and his intentions are not to use it as an office, not to use it as a guest unit but to have someone who is qualified to live in this and provide quality life in this unit. I am going to vote against it because I don't think it qualifies for E. I am hoping that it does come back to us. And I hope that we basically do have the intention of having a quality life for someone who needs an affordable dwelling unit in this community. Allen: I don't have any problem with that and I will comply with what the Housing Authority wants done. 13 PZM11.22.94 ROLL CALL VOTE Steven, yes, Marta, no, Robert, yes, Tim, yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Jasmine, no. Motion carried which was a recommendation for denial of the ADU. LANGLEY SUBDIVISION REZONING, SPECIAL REVIEW, GMQS EXEMPTION AND LANDMARK DESIGNATION Leslie made presentation as attached in record and presented affidavit of public notice also attached in record. Langley: What we are trying to do is give you an idea of what the proj ect will have. This process has been the most confusing convoluted thing I have ever seen in my life. We are trying to adhere to the Aspen Area Community Plan, The Neighborhood Guidelines, Historic Preservation Committee, Planning & Zoning, the State Highway Department. We have jumped through as many hoops as can be put in the way. On the one hand we are hearing "Listen, we want the private sector to get involved in affordable housing". We want this to happen. We don't want our families to have to move down valley. That is exactly what we are doing. And at every turn it is "Well, gee This is encroaching here. This competes with the historic house there". Medical school seems to be a breeze if we can get through this! What we have endeavored to do is create a neighborhood within the community. We had to send out 139 notices to people who live within the 300 foot area. Of those less than 23% of them had local addresses. We are not dealing with locals here. Right now our vision and what we are working towards is these will all be local families. We would occupy the back center house here. It will be free market. Can I afford a free market house--no. Can I afford a category 4 house--maybe, if I am lucky. The only way I am going to get an affordable house is to do something like this. We have responded to staff comments. We wanted to get rid of the barn initially. We didn't get rid of the barn. Now that is being preserved. We have taken the historic house, moved it over. This is probably going to strengthen it from what it is now. I don't know what you guys want. I don't know what HPC wants. I know what I can do and what I can put together. I know that we have put together a project that recognizes and adheres to the best of what the community wants. The community wants families here. You go through the west end. The west end neighborhood--what a void. How many tricycles or wagons do you see in the west end? 14 PZM11.22.94 None! The east end is heading in the same direction. Our vision- -this is where our children were born. This is where I work. This is where I make my living. I don't anticipate moving anywhere until my kids are out of college and that is going to be a long time down the road. We want to be responsive to P&Z. We want to be responsive to HPC. But the bottom line is we want to get a house in town that we can afford. If we didn't do this project--2 doors down from us where the Ritz Carlton has their employee housing--you could have 2 of those here. We could have 2 free-market homes here with nothing for the housing inventory. And you don't have to do anything to do that. You have got to make the historic house remain historic and you can do anything you want with the free market house. Bruce opened the public hearing. Sara: Your attitude, is that because of the comments that were at the HPC meeting? Because we were quite complementary at our work session. Langley: What happened is we go to HPC and we hear one thing and so we try and accommodate that. "No, no, no, this isn't what we want. We want something else." It has been a moving target. And so the frustration is almost what do we need to do in order to get something that the HPC is going to bless. Mrs. Langley?: The question about the tree--what we are trying to do is put all the parking on the front on the sides of the property to leave that a more open courtyard with green grass instead of having asphalt. And that tree is 11 feet from the side yard and 4 feet from the front. So it is pretty much right smack in the middle of that garage. And we addressed putting the garage in the center of the house and it just doesn't look right. And we didn't want to put it next to the courtyard. We are still working on it. Langley: We talked with the Highway Dept who has said that we can get another curb cut here. We got that information today. So we can provide 2 driveways. On the centering of the garage which is what we wanted to do initially to preserve the tree, HPC didn't want us to do that because it calls too much attention to the garage. So in order to move it over we have to deal with the tree. Leslie: HPC is recommending that the entire parcel be historically landmarked. That will give 500sf bonus for the parcel as a whole. The second step is subdivision. This is being proposed east/west across the property to create the 2 separate parcels. 15 PZM11.22.94 For the floor area on the AH parcel- -we have one AH parcel at 4,500sf. So what we have done is we have looked at what is the allowable floor area for a duplex on an AH parcel of 4,500sf and we have divided that floor area up amongst those 3 units. That is where the applicants have requested a floor area bonus from HPC. They requested 489sf floor area bonus for the AH parcel. Ms. Langley: If we attached them all in the back here, we could get an extra 2,000sf FAR just by attaching them. But that doesn't get that community plan. They want to see small detached more human-scale buildings. Leslie: If they were attached, it would be considered a triplex which would be considered multi-family. And the allowable floor area in the AH zone district for multi-family is 1.1 to 1. Because of our interim overlay which requires Special Review for projects that are greater than 85%, this project is subject to that Special Review. But because this project is on the inventory the HPC conducted that Special Review. Amy: HPC is very much in support of this project. Marsha Goshorn: With the zoning now the FAR is 10,500sf. With what they are proposing with the lot split it is almost a 35% reduction in the overall FAR. Leslie: The rezoning to AH allows the applicant to request a Special Review for parking. The AH zone district requires not more than 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit. The applicants are proposing 2 spaces per dwelling unit on the AH parcel. And it also establishes open space by Special Review. It is unclear if there is any percentage of open space that meets our definition of open space on the AH parcel. However, there is 565sf of land that is open on the AH parcel. That is also established by Special Review. My issues are the Special Review with parking that there may be a way to provide a little bit more room between cottage band historical barn. If you eliminate the parking spaces perpendicular to the alley for the barn we could pull the barn closer to the alley and open up this space between cottage b and the barn which would provide a little more relief for the resident to the west side of the project. Goshorn: On the open space the one thing with the courtyard in the center it will also be a reciprocal use agreement so that the courtyard area in the middle even though it is basically on the front parcel it is not something that the 2 houses in front will be able to fence in or do anything to cut off that open space. 16 PZM11.22.94 Leslie: The applicants are ultimately proposing condominiumization of parcel 1 and parcel 2 and within the condominiumization approval the courtyard would be defined as general common element and also in the subdivision agreement. They are subdividing the land and condominiumizing the buildings. Bruce then asked for public comment. Mark High: I am the owner of the property adjacent to the west. I commend them for what they are trying to do and it has not been easy. I have some concerns that they are aware of and they are these setbacks. Tom Fisher: As an aside I had the unfortunate opportunity of watching one of our valued members of our community having been shunted aside by an institution that has gone haywire. This particular individual not only was born and raised in the valley but taught school here for 47 years. She has been moved down to a nursing home in Carbondale because of a level of insensitivity to individual needs. So far what I have observed here is a group that is trying, while adhering to regulations, to be sensitive to the kinds of concerns and the kinds of issues that we have as a community. By nature it is going to be a messy process. And I know that is being a frustration to the applicant. But I value your willingness to work with them especially on a proposal like this because I think it is really what we as a community are really looking for--small imaginative creative developments that have a mix that really creates community here. John Humphrey: I live in the Villager. I came here as a ski bum 20 years ago. I was fortunate enough to be able to afford my own house a few hears ago. I have my own business here now. Conceptually the project I think is good. It is nice that we are able to save historic structures and we can have some employee housing. I am a little concerned that we are only getting 2 units out of the entire project which certainly is not very close to 70% of the project. My other concern as I live in the Villager is the setback variances. We have got buildings that are only 3 feet from the lot line taking away our light and air and view from our building. ?: There is a stair well that is possibly going to be going down on the right hand side. If there is an ADU--if this is bought by a non-Pitkin County resident the stairwell Mark is talking about is right here for an ADU. Leslie: If the stairwell is built on cottage b then it encroaches into the side yard setback. If the stairwell is not built then 17 PZM11.22.94 this cottage b, according to the plans submitted, meets the side yard set back requirement. There being no further comment, Bruce closed the public hearing. Sara: When you said this is going to be compacted a little. What did you mean? Langley: One of the things we tried to preserve is the play area for the kids. To move further into the courtyard compromises one of our primary goals. We were thinking about trying to compact this a bit and maintain the setback. On the side what we have done on the lower level where there is a 3 foot setback we step back 5 feet on the upper level so these upper windows have that required setback. And then we have tried to make sure that these 4 center windows here have a bit of a corridor there so it is not compromising the light. They are not going to get as much light as they do now because there is nothing on the property. Also this corridor right here between the Villager and the property is not used at all. There is no traffic there. It is just an open area that has been there since the place was built. We want to give them as much breathing room as possible but we can't give them all the breathing room they would like to have. Sara: I think it is appropriate that the whole parcel be designated historic. We try to discourage garage doors on the highway. I don't know what to do on that one. I like your village concept and the village green. I would rather see it the way it is than to get rid of the trees. Jasmine: I am very much in favor of this project conceptually. I think that we should encourage you to pursue this. I agree with Sara about the tree. It is important to me about this courtyard. I think it will actually be used. I have had a problem with a lot of open space which is just sort of dead. I think the mix is really good. I think infill small projects like this which is only 2 affordable units--1 RO and 1 category 4. But the more we can encourage little projects the better off we are as a community. I have no major problems with this project. Marta: Aside from the tree which to me is not as significant as other trees we have dealt with given other things that are happening with this project. My other comment was that I do like you plan and I recognize the problems you have with setbacks. But I think that you have come up with a reasonable compromise of trying to set back the top floor vs the bottom floor. To me what is more important is the space and the flow of the green space in- between the buildings. If you moved it together to me that is a much bigger problem than having the small setback. This at least 18 PZM11.22.94 allows light to go through and it is not all one on top of another. I like that concept and I would go for that vs to work more with trying to move things in closer together. The scale and mass to me is good here. Tim: I am OK on the rezoning. I think it should be rezoned. I am OK on the historical landmark. I don't know about the mix. I will wait to see what they say if it has to be a different category--whatever the Housing Authority needs. And I think the houses and the buildings are going to be here longer than the tree. So I am willing to build the project with integrity to the project and put another tree some place else even if they plant 2 small trees someplace. We have millions of trees around us. And I think that that is a point to consider. I think to focus on the life of the tree vs the life of the project is insignificant to me. So I am really interested in balancing the project. I am interested in creating an on-street presence that works for the size of the buildings that we are going to have on the street. So you can blow the tree away for me. My main problem here is with the setbacks. And for the HPC people if we had to vote on this I would not vote to eliminate the necessary setbacks. I think it is a responsibility of the applicant to live with his own density. I think it is the responsibility of the applicant to live with his own impacts and not put them onto the neighbors who are next door on either side. I understand that he wants a nice courtyard. But his kids are only going to play soccer and whiffle ball here for maybe another year. And then they are going to be on teams. They are going to be in parks. They are going to be in the recreation areas that the City provides. So to me that is a minor plea. I think that we ought to really create something that fits with the neighborhood and to eliminate the setbacks, it doesn't fit with the neighborhood. And the setbacks in the City are responsible application of the needs of emergency egress. What if there is a fire and someone has to be evacuated out of any one of these other buildings and we don't have the setbacks to get ladders or aid or anything in there because we have created this nice little courtyard for a couple of kids that basically are on the teams and in the parks. I think we are going to be negligent not to have the required setbacks for emergency access to the major size apartment that is on the east side. I am in favor of the project. I like the mlX. I like the style. I think that basically what they are trying to achieve, I want to achieve. But to do it at the expense of the neighbors I am not in favor of that. The setbacks are my biggest issue here. And if it comes down to making the buildings even smaller so that they have 19 PZM11.22.94 the tranquil little community courtyard-type feeling that they want then they have to do that themsel ves. They can't ask their neighbors to make that decision for them. And I think that is what is really happening here. We are in the City. We are in a dense area. We are aware that density has to be. If we are creating living areas here because we do have public transportation, because we do have emergency services, because you can walk to City Market, because they are in the same block as the skiing. That is where the density belongs. But to say "We need to build these buildings big enough that we can sell a project here and in that case we have to eliminate our setbacks and our neighbors are going to be responsible for living with these minor setbacks", that to me doesn't work. It is their responsibility to build their density on their lot--not ask their neighbors to live with encroachments into their setbacks. The parking space in the back I think the alley was always important to me. I think there are going to be more cars back there than we really anticipate. I think to eliminate that horizontal parking space just to, again, extend the living area inside the property lines isn't necessary. And I don't really agree with that philosophy. I think that the parking space should stay and I think that you are going to need all of the access and all of the extra space off the alley that you can get. I am OK with the parking reduction as it is. reduction that HPC has granted already. So I parking reduction. There is a parking think that is enough Bob: I have been in favor of this project since it was presented in June. I like a lot of the things that are going on. I think it could set a prototype for other things in the community hopefully. But I would listen very carefully to the points that Tim just made. I have to agree with him on those points. And I would give up a little bit of the courtyard space. I think you have to consider all of the points that Tim has made. Steve: I enjoy the small buildings rather than two very large buildings. I like your center courtyard. I like the historical character of each of the buildings. The placement of the building here is more important than the tree there particularly since it has only a SO/SO chance of surviving. You have worked really hard on the different setbacks. I would take Tim's comments and work on that a little bit more. And the P-6 in the back you could remove that and replace it with open space for me. Generally I like the creative work that you have done on the entire parcel. 20 KUHN & SONS. INC. Nlklaus G. Kuhn - Gertrud. Andre & Roget Kuhn ~ P.O. Box 8016 . Aspen. Colorado 81611 ~ (303) 925.3142 j. December 16, 1994 Pitkin County Planning and Zonir.g 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 \ , , To Whom It Concerns: The Hotel Jerome is in favor of the proposed plan submitted by Niklaus G. Kuhn for a residence addition. It does not appear to obstruct our view from the hotel. If there are any questions, please contact me at 920-1000. . Sincerely, " / Anthony M. DiLucia General Manager cc: Nicklaus G. Kuhn *,1 '..' ~ '*, PZM11.22.94 Bruce: I have 2 areas of major concern. One of them I will buy into whatever the Housing Authority comes up with and that is I am concerned about the 3 free market units and RO and one category 4. That mix bothers me a little bit especially when we are taking advantage of the AH zone district. The other concern is the one that Tim stated--the setbacks, especially the side yard setbacks. However, I do have some concern about internal setbacks for the same reasons that Tim stated as a matter of health, safety and welfare of the people internally. If they can't get an emergency vehicle between cottage d and historical barn c that is just as much of a concern to me as if you can't get vehicle between new barn e and property on the other side. I am concerned about the setbacks and if you can take care of the side yard setbacks and still keep some sort of minimal setback internally then I will be happy with it. MOTION Bob: I move to table review of Langley application to date certain of December 6, 1994 in order for the applicant to continue working with the Housing Authority with regard to the unit mix on parcel 2 and liveable requirements for the category 4 dwelling unit on parcel 2 plus taking into consideration the feedback he has gotten tonight. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. 303 EAST MAIN STREET GMOS EXEMPTION, SPECIAL REVIEW AND VIEWPLANE REVIEW Kim Johnson, Planning Dept made presentation as attached in record. Nicholas Kuhn: This is my 22nd year living in Aspen. The main purpose of this project is to provide a ground floor shop so he can have living here. And housing for both my sons. I feel we are in a unique situation because of the strict guidelines because of HPC. We have tried to the best of our ability to pursue the historical importance of the guides by employing the best historical architect available. We concentrate our square footage in the back corner of the property. There it won't be noticeable. We are only a measly 64% of our allowable FAR. And that is the most we will ever be able to develop on this site. This is our final masterplan for this property. We had four long stressful and difficult meetings with HPC. We have been put through a long stress and costly process. I want you all to know that I am not Harley Baldwin or Prince Bandar. I don't have the money to just send some architect and lawyer to 21 PZM11.22.94 hammer out this process for me. Roget Kuhn: I would first like to address the memo from Chuck Roth of the Engineering Dept. I have gone over this with Chuck Roth. #1 talks about site drainage. We understand this and we will comply with it. #2. There is no space adjacent to the parking space. There is hardly enough room for a car. So we might have to put some sort of snow stop on the roof of the shed. #3. We are aware of the encroachment and see this as a loss of 4 feet by 45 feet which is 180sf which will make the alley 4 feet wider. #4. We understand and comply with the handicap ramp. The sidewalk is being relocated off the property so the easement really doesn't apply here. #5. There is a revision on #5. From my knowledge the viewplane is primarily to protect the view of Aspen Mountain. (using photos he described viewplane) Actually the trees are blocking the viewplane. We are at the extreme edge of the viewplane. Given the strict guidelines imposed upon us by HPC, Amy Amidon has stated that unless the roof becomes very shallow pitch it is unlikely to be approved by HPC. Remember we are only at 64% of our allowable FAR. And I am asking you for some fairness on this issue. On #6--the trash and utility area. We have changed our minds and will provide the required 10 by 20 by 10 space except the height is only 8 feet because of the influence on the height of the tower. We do agree to fireproof the lower level of the tower for this purpose. #7. We intend to provide the 1 space between the shed and the tower. The additional .38 space has been waived by the HPC. I would like to remind everyone that all of Katy Reid's parking was waived. And I have been told we are close to 100% of the FAR. I believe 99%. If you look at all the large projects in town we have 1 more parking space than all of them. We are close to the parking garage. Now I would like to discuss the memo from Cindy Christensen of the Housing Office. This unit is acceptable. There is outside egress through the large lightwell. And there is adequate lighting and air to this unit. It all conforms to the building code. I agree it isn't the greatest unit. But it is in the commercial core of town. It is category 1 which means it is a 2-bedroom, I-bath, 850sf and will rent at $461.00. We also are willing to move the restroom and utility room out of the path of the unit. Under employee housing mitigation we need to house 2.11 employees. This proposed unit houses 2.25. We feel this unit is adequate. Why does it have to have an Aspen Mountain View? We also said that we are willing to pay the Housing Dept 2.1 employees times $69,000 22 PZM11.22.94 per employee for a total of $145,590 payment-in-lieu. We feel we have given them 2 very adequate offers. We would like to bring to everyone's attention staff's recommendation of denial of the entire application is unfair. It is one thing for staff to prefer something. But it is something else to flat out deny everything. For example--staff has concluded they think the proposed development is too much. As you are well aware by now, we are only at 64% of our allowable FAR. So I feel their statement is completely unprofessional and unfair to us. Secondly on many of the issues the staff is recommending to override the jurisdiction of the HPC. Now how can you expect us to go back for final approval by the HPC with approvals by you that override their long flat-out decisions? We refuse to be put in that position. Lastly we have been working on this project close to 2 and 1/2 years now. My Father is a ski instructor--not some rich developer from out of town with unlimited funds. We had planned to build next Spring. But this past recommendation to prolong this meeting to December 20th only prolongs this long costly strict process. We need to get going on this. We do not want it to cost us another building season. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Bob: I share some of your frustration. It seems to me that we keep running into this problem of HPC making these recommendations that come to us. They have approved something. We have to look at it and we approve something. They have a different point of view. I think it should be considered as a separate issue that we ought to take up. But this is a good example of the kind of problem they face. We have got our own staff people sitting in the same building here. I don't know if they are talking to each other or communicating. But we get this information in front of us and we have to be chopping the baby up in a lot of different pieces. I have a fair amount of sympathy for your problem. I also see some problems in here that have to be solved. Sara: We can't accept any kind of a unit that is detrimental to quality of life or safety or health. And I really find the staff's concern and Cindy's concern of the Housing Office of there not being their own access, light and air. That you might work in the shop and live there, that is one thing. But it might not happen down the line. It is just not an acceptable dwelling unit for all the things that we have been working so hard. We can't have substandard dwelling units for anybody. 23 PZM11.22.94 Kuhn: We are willing to give it it's own entrance. That is what we are trying to do by moving the restroom in the utility area. I understand that. It does provide adequate air and light. That statement is actually false because we are abiding by all the building code's requirements. It is the largest we could get approved by the HPC. I think it is a great location. I know there is plenty of people who would love to rent a 2-bedroom, 1 bath for that kind of price. Sara: Also the viewplane: The building itself is so important to the town of Aspen. But it also is setting--that view down Monarch toward those mountains is probably the best view in town. I, at this point, can't accept that tower. It loses the whole integrity of that building and the whole reason that it is one of our historic landmarks. I want it lowered. I don't want it at all actually. Nicholas: If that house would be not there I could have a 7,000sf building there. Like Bergman. I have 63%. He has 100%. His was historical. He was the President of the Historical Society. He knew that you people never would OK it. So he bulldozed it. He didn't get punished. I get punished. Roget: We fixed up that shed. We knew how important it was. What do we get? You see what we get. Bruce: When did you buy this property? Nicholas: I bought in 1979. I didn't even know at that time that it was historical. Amy: In 1979 we didn't even have a historical program yet. It was put on the inventory in 1980. It was put on the national register probably in 1986 and the Kuhns were in support of it. The national register is really just an honorary thing. Leslie: There are a lot of incentives that go with a commercial property that is landmarked. Parking can be waived without cash- in-lieu. A second free-market unit can be put on the parcel exempt from growth management. All of the net leasable that goes into the basement is free and clear of any employee housing mitigation or growth management. There are a lot of incentives that are being applied for. Roget: You have to understand though that since we went to HPC all we have been doing is compromise, compromise, compromise. You have to understand we are maxed out right now at 64% on this project. Now if you make us compromise again it is not feasible to build. 24 PZM11.22.94 Amy: Was the cash-in-lieu offered to the Housing Dept and they rejected it? Kim: This is the first I have heard of it. Amy: It just seems to me that if that is a possibility the cash- in-lieu is appropriate for this site. It is true. The HPC was severely restricting the number of lightwells that they wanted on the site. They wanted open space preserved as well. And that is a constraint. Leslie: Kim has had discussions with Jake regarding ideas. We haven't had a chance to review these ideas. We haven't had a chance to talk over things with the Housing Office of the potential cash-in-lieu vs a dwelling unit on site which would help reduce the overall impact on this site. One of our options is that we continue discussion to our December 20th meeting so we can take into account the changes that they are proposing, come up with plans for you to look at and what those changes mean instead of verbally discussing these changes. Bruce: In fairness to the applicant after this meeting of 4 hours I don't think you are going to get the full benefit of our best mental stuff we have got. I think we are at the end of it. I don't think you are going to get a fair conclusion tonight. There are a number of things that you have agreed to that were concerns raised in previous memos. I really think it would be to your benefit to work with Jake and staff and try to get some of these issues resolved. MOTION Marta: I make a motion to table this to meeting of Dec. 20, 1994. Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. Meeting was adjourned. Time was 8:17 P.M. 25