Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.bocc.gmc.min.110999GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1999 Commissioners present: Peter Martin, Steve Whipple, Shari Sanzone, charlie Tarver, Peter Thomas, Gayle Embry, Roger Haneman, Steven Buettow, Ron Erickson, Tim Mooney, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Bob Blaich. Staff present: Lance Clarke, jOyce Ohlson, Community Development; JaCkie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. The meeting was held in Plaza I. Peter Martin opened the Growth Management Commission Meeting at 5:10 p.m. and declared that there was a quorum. MINUTES MOTION: Roger Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of 12 October 1999. APPROVED'. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Shari Sanzone stepped down for fhe Chateau Chaumont public hearing. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (10/12/99): CHATEAU CHAUMONT -CHANGE IN USE Joyce Ohlson explained that there were referral comments along with the staff memo and site plan. She noted this application was for a change in use for a unit that was currently office use to change it to a residential unit. This was not in competition but rather a request for an exemption from GMQS allocations. The current office space was 1600 square feet accessed from the garage; in order for it to be converted to residential, the unit would have to meet the Uniform Building Code requirements for proper access, egress and lighting. The proposed access was an above grade to sub-grade stairway from the outside courtyard. Ohlson noted that the Chateau Chaumont currently exceeded the residential density allowed in the LTR Zone District. On May 13, 1999 the City Board of Adjustment approved a variance for the conversion of this unit to residential but it still required the GMC change in use approval. Ohlson said that the change in use provision allowed for one free-market residence; the application met the standards with one unit deducted from the allotment pool for growth management. Ohlson noted the conditions for this change in use approval were to primarily meet the Uniform Building Code and the Growth Management change in use (Section 26.100.050 (B)(3) the Municipal Land Use Code. She said that the existing office space required 6.4 parking spaces but with the change in use to residential use, it would require only 2 parking spaces, 1 per bedroom. The Chateau Chaumont did not meet the current parking requirements; the conversion to residential use would 1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1999 better meet the parking requirements and staff felt that parking standard has been met because it was improved upon. Ron Erickson asked the number of units in the building and how many parking spaces were required by current code. Ohlson replied that there were 20 off-street spaces used in common by all residents. Erickson asked if that also included alley spaces. Charlie Tarver responded that there were 48 bedrooms and room from 11 cars. Erickson stated that there would still not be enough parking spaces. Bob Blaich asked if the office parking space allocation was being utilized. Martin noted that the office was currently unoccupied. Michael Hoffrnan, representative for the applicant, stated the background of the property with Dale Eubank as the owner since 1978 to July, 1999. He said that about a year ago Eubank moved his accounting office down valley and rented the space to another entity which was a more intensive use than the accounting firm. Hoffman stated that the Chateau Chaumont Homeowners Association would prefer a less intensive use of the space. He said the deed-restrictions on the parking spaces would be for the owners of this unit only. Hoffman said Eubank wanted to use this property as every other owner of Chateau Chaumont had to the right to use it as residential unit. He said the key to this request was to bring the unit up to the UBC and the Aspen City Code through physical changes. Hoffman provided the background of the development and requested that the side yard setbacks be allowed to remain as non-conformities with the physical changes that need to be done to this unit. No public comments. Erickson asked if there was employee housing mitigation to be applied to this change in use. Tarver responded that there would have to be some kind of employee generation to mitigate. Hoffrnan asked what were the impacts in the change of use to residential from a business. Jasmine Tygre stated the use of this space in the 1970s was a conference room for the residences of the building. She asked when it changed from a common area to a privately owned unit. Hoffman replied that in 1968 the condominium declaration stated that 2 of the units could be separated into separate units and used for both commerCial and residential purposes. Hoffrnan said that Nick Coates and his family lived in the combined Units 7A & B from 1968 to 1971 or so; at that time the units were separated. He said he had not been aware that the unit was used as place to play bridge. Hoffman stated that Dale Eubank bought the unit in 1978 and removed the kitchen, which was how staff considered this unit to be commercial. 2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1999 Martin said that Unit 7A had access to the common parking area but the homeowners letter and deed-restriction dated May 13, 1999 requested that the entrance be move to the outside of the building. Peter Thomas said that the new owner wanted to use the property as it was being used as commercial but the request was for a residential change in use. Martin noted that once the conversion was made to residential, the unit could not go back to commercial. Tim Mooney said that a unit of residential growth was being created therefore some kind of mitigation should be sought after just as there would be with any new free-market residential unit. Ohlson reiterated that at the staff level of discussion, there were no additional impacts that required mitigation for employee housing. Erickson asked if there were different employee generation rates for a short-term rental unit rather than a single-family residence. Ohlson replied that there were not any hard numbers on single units in a multi-family complex for employee generation rates and did not feel that the office rate of 6.5 employees seemed high to apply to residential. Hoffman asked for the commission to review the criteria as set forth from the code and policy issues such as consistency with the AACP. Blaich stated that there was a clause in the deed-restriction regarding mitigation from the condo association, Erickson stated that condominium associations did not want employee deed-restricted units in their association, but he said that it probably was unenforceable. Tarver stated that the change in use review did not provide for base line or minimal number of employees generated. Tygre asked if those figures were available. Ohlson stated those statistics could be found but were not in the land use code. Roger Haneman replied that it was probably a ½ employee; 1600 square feet for 2 housekeepers to clean for ½ hour. Tarver asked if this could be moved forward with a condition that the employee generation figures for a short-term unit would be less than those generated for the previous office use. Martin requested a decision for a motion or to continue. Hoffman stated that he did not understand the board because this change would be residential and the comments were not consistent with the staff findings. Hunt stated that he did not find the criteria were met and therefore not compatible with the AACP. Lance Clarke stated that the Growth Management Commission had an equal number of city and county voting members on metro issues. Since there were 5 county people present, there would also be 5 city people voting. The city voting members were chosen by seniority. MOTION: Charlie Tarver moved to approve the Change in Use from commercial to residential land use of Unit #TA of the Chateau 3 GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 1999 Chaumont Condominiums, 731 East Durant Avenue, is hereby approved with the following conditions of approval: 1. The Building Permit Plans shah demonstrate the unit's compliance with all applicable requirements of the Uniform Building Code including, but not limited to, natural light, ventilation, automobile exhaust, and egress. The unit shall contain an entrance from the exterior 0fthe building and the entrance from the underground garage may not be the primary entrance to the residence. 2. This change-in-use approval shall not be considered an approval or variance of any other requirement of the Land Use Code or of the Uniform Building Code. The building permit plans shall demonstrate compliance with all zoning requirements not granted a variance including, but not limited to, setbacks and Floor Area. 3. Before a building permit application may be accepted by the Building Department, the applicant shah record this Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who wffi record the resolution. 4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Growth Management Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 5. That the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority review the application regarding employment generation and provide a written response to the Community Development Department. Should the Housing Authority find that a greater number of employees are generated by virtue of the proposed change in use, this approval will be null and void. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Hunt, no; Whipple, yes; Thomas, yes; Mooney, yes; Embry, yes; Tygre, no; Tarver, yes; Blaich, no; Martin, yes. APPROVED 7-3. Adjourned at 6:0~5 p.~m. . t~ckie Lothian'Deputy City Clerk 4