Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends legalizing four unpermitted units at 263 Park Ave with conditions on safety, parking and housing category
Summary
Planning staff and the applicant told commissioners the Aspen Marble & Tile building had four additional residential units added without approvals; the commission recommended legalization to council contingent on building and fire-code upgrades, a parking license for some right-of-way spaces, a 90‑day implementation window after council approval and a preference for category 1 or a mixed category assignment to limit tenant displacement.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that town council legalize four previously unpermitted dwelling units at 263 Park Avenue (Aspen Marble & Tile building) and approve a PUD amendment to formalize the office space in three shipping containers, subject to site improvements, building and fire-code work, a parking license for spaces partially in the town right-of-way and other conditions.
Staff (James) described the property’s history: two deed‑restricted apartments were approved in 1997 and constructed on the second floor; the applicant later added four more units (two 2‑bedroom, one 1‑bedroom and one studio) without prior development approvals or building permits. Staff recommended approval with conditions addressing consistency with the master plan, waivers to livability requirements, parking reductions, fire‑ and building‑code upgrades, and a requirement to enter a license agreement for parking that encroaches on the town right‑of‑way.
Mark Chaney, representing owner Tim Fortier, reviewed site dimensions (lot ~18,734 sq ft; building footprint ~5,938 sq ft; containers ~1,600 sq ft) and said the applicant will make required improvements if council approves. Fortier said rents are low (he cited about $825 per bedroom including utilities), said he’s already invested in electrical and alarm upgrades and expressed concern about the operational burden and enforcement of category 0 tenancy restrictions. Housing reviewer Bach recommended categorizing most units as category 0 based on size and amenities, while staff included conditions that would permit some grandfathering of existing tenants.
Commissioners pressed the applicant and staff about fire‑suppression capacity and waterline upgrades, the need for improved egress because containers affected the north‑side egress path, availability of parking (13 on‑site spaces versus 17 required), and the desirability of an accessible public pedestrian easement up to the bus stop. The commission favored allowing category 1 rents or a hybrid category to reduce risk of displacing existing tenants, requested at least one additional washer/dryer unit, and asked that the storage containers be brought up to fire‑separation standards or removed.
Following deliberation the commission moved to recommend approval to council with staff conditions amended to reflect the commission’s direction: permit a category 1 or mixed category assignment (with staff/council to finalize language), require fire and building‑code upgrades to the satisfaction of the building official and fire marshal, add a washer/dryer, require a 90‑day timeline after council approval for completion of certain upgrades (applicant had requested longer for some items), require a license agreement for parking in the right‑of‑way and specify an adequate safety barrier at the container/property line subject to planning director approval. The motion carried unanimously and will be forwarded to town council for final action.
Commissioners and staff noted that fees, penalties and water/sewer obligations from prior enforcement must be addressed in conjunction with council review before final permits and any recording or licensing agreements are completed.
