HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20110301 City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 01, 2011
Comments 2
Minutes 2
Conflicts of Interest 2
131 Midland Ave — Residential Design Standard Variance 2
Code Amendment — Affordable Housing percentage above grade
1
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 01, 2011
Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting March 01, 2011 to order at 4:35 in Sister
Cities meeting Room. P &Z member excused was Jasmine Tygre. P &Z
Commissioners in attendance were Michael Wampler, Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin,
Jim DeFrancia, LJ Erspamer and Stan Gibbs. Staff in attendance Jim True,
Special City Counsel; Claude Salter, Sara Adams, Community Development ;
Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director; Jackie Lothian,
Deputy City Clerk.
COMMENTS
Bert Myrin asked on the future agenda for March 22 and March 29 if there was
something on the agendas. Jennifer Phelan said the regular AACP meetings were
cancelled on those dates. Jim DeFrancia asked if there was an AACP Meeting next
week. Jennifer Phelan stated no; that it was a special meeting. Jackie Lothian
noted that the meeting on the 8 was in Council Chambers. Bert Myrin said that
code amendments that have come up in the past year or so; is there a time that we
can discuss those, maybe in one of those 2 meetings. Jennifer Phelan replied that
we don't want to put the cart before the horse depending on the code amendment.
Cliff Weiss said that Bert has been keeping a list of things that P &Z wanted to
tweak. Jennifer Phelan said there was a capacity issue; having a meeting doesn't
necessarily mean that you will have staff to be able to do what you were interested
in seeing what you want to happen in the time line that you want to see it happen.
Stan Gibbs asked if we need a notice for those meetings. Jennifer Phelan replied
yes it should be a meeting noticed for 24 hours with a quorum to attend.
Jennifer Phelan introduced Claude Salter, the Zoning Officer for the City of Aspen.
MINUTES
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve the minutes of February 8 and
February 15 with change on February 15 ` h on page 8 to "re- graded" seconded by
Jim DeFrancia. All in favor APPROVED.
Declarations of Conflicts of Interest
LJ Erspamer stated that his wife worked for Stewart Title and he knew the people
on the title but did not have a conflict.
PUBLIC HEARING:
131 Midland Ave. — Residential Design Standards
Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing on 131 Midland Ave, residential design
standards. Notice was provided. Claude Salter represented the city and introduced
2
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 01, 2011
Joseph Spears and Scott Lindenau from Studio B Architects representing the
applicants, Jennifer and Brian Hermelin.
Claude Slater gave 3 reasons for the residential design standards criteria that were
to preserve and establish the neighborhood scale and character, to ensure the
neighborhoods are conducive to walking and require that each home contribute to
the streetscape. The applicants were requesting variances from 2 of the residential
design standards: parking, garages and carport standard and the first story element
standard. Slater said if the project proposes appropriate design or pattern of
development consistent with the neighborhood with adjacent structures as well as
structures in the immediate neighborhood or the second standard is the variance
may be granted for reasons of fairness related to site specific constraints of the lot.
The garages have to be setback from the front most facade of the house at least 10
feet; the intent of this requirement is to minimize the presence of garages and
carports as a relatively lifeless streetscape. Slater said the applicant was proposing
a garage that was flat with the front most wall of the house. Staff feels that the lot
does not have site specific constraints and the owner is trying to take the best
advantage of the views provided from the lot and are asking for their garage to be
in a certain space.
Slater stated the first story element requires that all residential building shall have a
first story street facing element and not have living space above this element. An
example of it would be a porch which doesn't have living space above it. The
intent of the standard is to provide a human scale to the facade and enhance the
walking experience and reinforce the local building traditions of the neighborhood.
Slater said the applicant was proposing a first story element that in some ways
meets the standards however it does have living space above it; they don't meet it
in that they have living space above their first story element.
Staff recommends with regards to parking and the garage element that some
setback is achieved and for the first story element staff recommends that P &Z deny
the first story variance request.
Cliff Weiss asked if there were inconsistencies we don't want it to get any worse.
Jennifer Phelan said the intent with new development was to create buildings that
meet these standards so they have more typical design characteristics. Phelan said
there is an array of architecture and design in this neighborhood and they recognize
it; they do think that it is not a site constraint issue but something that they could
play with this design and become in more conformance with the intent of setting
back the garage element.
3
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 01, 2011
LJ Erspamer asked if this was in the subdivision with covenants and how do the
covenants relate to P &Z judgment tonight. Jim True replied that he didn't know if
there were covenants or not but covenants don't relate to your judgment; covenants
are a private issue.
LJ Erspamer asked if the trees play a role in this. Jennifer Phelan replied that some
trees may or may not be able to be cut down but you look at the site the location of
the garage is furthest away from the views of Aspen Mountain. Erspamer said
since there are no alleys and there are criteria for this type of garage. Erspamer
said you had mentioned immediate neighborhood and a lot of the code talks about
neighborhood so the immediate neighborhood means just the homes on that side of
the street. Phelan replied typically what we say is the neighborhood, you get to
decide what the neighborhood context is; it doesn't say immediate adjacent
buildings it could be a block away; whatever you feel a neighborhood context is
reasonable to determine. Erspamer said that you talked about walking, there is no
sidewalk; what is your concept of a pedestrian there. Salter replied there is a
sidewalk across the street and if you don't try to meet some of these standards you
preclude ever having a sidewalk.
Bert Myrin asked if the garage area were uncovered could that same area be used
as a driveway without a design variance. Jennifer Phelan replied if it was
uncovered but if it was a carport it would still have the same standards. Myrin
asked if a garage was required for all residences. Phelan replied no. Myrin asked
if the garage could be shifted to where the kitchen area was; from the zoning
perspective if the garage was living area could it still look like it looks. Phelan
said the point of the setback for the garage is to have it setback and not be as
prominent as the main structure of the house.
Scott Lindenau said that contextually this area was a transition and this subdivision
has a lot of very peculiar complexities to the site. In the existing package the
garage faces the street and they are essentially putting the garage in the same place;
what doesn't show are the numerous trees that overhang into the setback and the
only view is right there. Lindenau said there was a utility box that couldn't be
moved and a Large boulder and 2 large trees and the property drops and there is a
utility pole so there are a lot of site constraints and the lot is oddly shaped.
Lindenau said this was a one car garage and it can't be moved because of the tree
and the lot is too narrow; if they move the garage back 10 feet the car doesn't fit.
Lindenau said the height was 2 feet under the current height limit; so they are at 23
feet. Lindenau said the entrance was a kind of a portal recessed 5 1/2 feet with a
4
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 01, 2011
small canopy that defines entry. As far as livable space above the front entrance;
there were 4 or 5 examples on the same street that are indeed the same case.
Lindenau said they could take a look at setting the garage back a couple of feet that
was a dilemma because of the setback. Joseph Spears said on the diagram if the
garage was located in the center it would be more prominent; not as visually
pleasant as to tucking it off to the side. Spears said the one story element was
summarized in their packet they delineated the first story from the second with a
break down scale; they could get a 12 inch canopy on the front but not a 6 foot
because they would have to push the house way back into the trees. Lindenau said
the footprint of the floor plan was just under 1500 square feet and a lot was below
grade.
Jim DeFrancia asked the nature of the variance. Lindenau responded that to get the
setback for the garage of 10 feet from the front of the house without putting the
garage in the middle of the building. DeFrancia asked as it is now designed what
is the setback of the garage. Jennifer Phelan replied that it was flush with the
building. Spears said it was 18 inches back from the second story. DeFrancia
asked if the issue is the setback from the front of the house, not from the property
line or building envelope. Phelan answered that was correct so that the main house
has more prominence. Spears said that if we didn't have that utility pole and these
2 trees we could probably easily do a garage in this section but removing the trees
would be costly and removing the utilities would be costly. DeFrancia asked if the
garage door was glass. Spears replied that it was proposed. DeFrancia said that
seems to mitigate its appearance as a garage. DeFrancia asked if there was any
opinion from the neighbors. Spears said that they mailed everyone and there was
no response.
Cliff Weiss said that that you are 2 feet under the height allowable and attachment
3 says 1 foot; which is correct. Weiss said there was 2855 feet proposed, how
much of that was above grade. Spears replied that was all above grade. Weiss
asked how much was below grade. Lindenau replied 4000 square feet total. Stan
Gibbs asked if there were windows in the sub -grade space. Spears answered there
was a light well. Weiss asked staff to elaborate that if the applicant says they can't
set it back and he gets the garage in the middle but not on the other end, where
does staff think that they are going to put it. Phelan replied that actually the
combined yard setback is 12 feet so they could do 7 feet one side yard and 5 on the
other side yard; they could put this as a 5 yard setback closer to the property line
and tweak it on the other side. Weiss asked how far it protrudes beyond this
entryway and it is flush, how deep is the entryway. Lindenau replied it was 6 feet.
Phelan stated the biggest issue with the entryway was the livable space above it.
5
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 01, 2011
Myrin asked if there was an estimated cost on removing the trees and the utilities,
other than right in the middle. Spears replied no; these trees were 8 inch caliper so
they were probably $15,000.00 to remove them. Lindenau said this part of the site
was flat and it steps down to the large rock and utility pole. Spears said they could
look into burying the utility line but that doesn't just go to their house it goes to the
neighborhood. DeFrancia said in his mind the entryway was the door; there were
existing properties with living space above the doors. Phelan replied correct, there
are existing examples and that was something that you will need to determine; does
this neighborhood context create the basis for creating a variance or do you feel
that the design standards are there for a reason or do you feel that they are tearing
down the existing house and are starting with a clean slate so they can comply with
the standards. Lindenau said that virtually every house on the street and in the
neighborhood all have that same element. Phelan said you don't have to build a
porch it could be a one story livable space but that is not how this was designed.
Weiss asked when this design code was put into place and when were all these
houses built. Phelan said she thought it was 2000 with changes in 2003 and 2005.
Lindenau said one of the challenges of this property was that this wasn't a
rectangular lot like in the west end. Weiss said that you made that point but you
also said that because of the neighborhood you should be allowed to do what you
want to do and I am trying to determine when was the code written and why didn't
those other houses comply or were they built before the code was written.
Erspamer asked if there were any ADUs on site. Phelan replied there were none
proposed. Erspamer asked if there was any mitigation. Phelan responded that
there will be and it is handled at building. Erspamer asked if there were any plan
in the neighborhood to bury those utilities. Spears replied they will look into that
and there must be an easement to that pole. Erspamer asked if that created a
hardship with setbacks. Lindenau replied that he assumed that it would. Erspamer
asked what the living quarters above the garage were. Spears replied it was a
bedroom.
Michael Wampler asked how the footprint of the new house fit on the lot with the
house that is already there. Spears responded the proposed house front is about
where the house is; the proposed house is a little longer.
Stan Gibbs said it looked like the power pole was in the right -of -way not on the
front property line. Spears said the utility pole, yes. Gibbs asked if balconies
could go into the setback. Salter replied it was a specific of balcony and it can't be
living space above the first story element.
6
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 01, 2011
Weiss asked what is the intent of no living space above an entry. Phelan replied
that it was only if you have a porch element that is going to meet your first story
element requirement so for example you could do a first story element that had
been added onto the building that has no second story; the intent is to break up the
mass and encourage porch elements that are prominent features.
Public Comments:
1. Colleen Grosse said that she lived at 211 Midland and she came to learn
what the variances requested were; so this is the first time that she was
hearing about it. Colleen Grosse said that she also represented the adjacent
neighbor at 201 Midland who is quite impacted by the development.
Commission Comments:
DeFrancia said it was an attractive design that commensurate with other properties
in the neighborhood and the design was done with recognition of the constraints
that exist on the lot, the grades and the utility structures. DeFrancia said it seems
that the variances are appropriate given that the finished product isn't built yet and
he looked at it in its totality.
Myrin said he would agree with Jim if it was a PUD application but the criteria in
the memo is clear that both have to have site constraints; he doesn't see it as
completely necessary. Myrin said that staff mentioned the human scale element to
the facade and the intent of the code to break up that mass and scale is not at all
done when you have a full wall facing the street. Myrin said the combination of
these impact the mass and scale significantly. Myrin supported the staff
recommendation.
Erspamer asked if any parts of this application stop here or is there a final review.
Phelan replied that you are the final review. Erspamer said that if the garage
moved back a few feet that would help some. Erspamer asked if staff was looking
for more dimension in this structure. Myrin replied that was what the code was
looking for.
Weiss said he asked about intent for a reason and brought up Homestake Drive for
a reason; as soon as you allow a variance from design code that is the precedent;
why have design guidelines. Weiss said without the information about when the
homes were built and if they received variances he looks at this to throw out the
code because it becomes meaningless; he didn't like varying from design
guidelines so he was not in favor of this as it stands. Weiss said it was all about
the code for him.
7
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 01, 2011
DeFrancia said staff said that some setback of the garage some distance. Phelan
replied correct; not necessarily the full 10 feet but P &Z would need to create an
appropriate amount. DeFrancia asked looking at this design what would make the
first story acceptable. Phelan replied if they didn't have living space above the
entry; they would meet the porch.
Gibbs said what we are presented with is a design that is clearly not what the code
intended to produce; the architects need to read the code and end up with a design
that does meet the code. Gibbs said making the garage go back is not going to be a
productive exercise; what is the distance, the depth, between the front door and the
garage. Lindenau replied the entry is 12 feet wide by 6 feet deep. Gibbs said if
you could get 6 feet you would still be flush with the front door, that doesn't
accomplish anything. Gibbs said that he thinks that it is important and agrees with
Cliff in this regard that there are other places where we have applied this code and
we just looked at Aspen Walk and asked for them to come back because he
couldn't tell where the door was because it didn't meet that same criterion; we
were talking major design but there were elements of that entryway that could be
improved. Gibbs said to put an eve to break up the mass would be a potential way
of going about it.
MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to support the staff direction to request that the
applicant of 131 Midland Ave return with changes in line with the input from this
meeting and continue to March 8th seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor,
APPROVED.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Code Amendment for Affordable Housing percentage of livable area above
grade
Stan Gibbs opened the continued Public Hearing on the Affordable Housing
percentage of livable space above grade. Public notice was provided. Sara Adams
said she was here to discuss proposed language for the growth management section
of the code that deals with the development of affordable housing.
Adams said projects that are required to develop affordable housing are reviewed
by the Planning & Zoning Commission for Growth Management. They will
discuss the criterion that 50% or more of the unit's net livable area is at or above
finished grade; so that is the focus of the discussion. The Planning & Zoning
Commission is asked to make a recommendation to City Council.
8
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 01, 2011
Adams said that when Aspen Walk first came to P &Z for conceptual there were
units 2 or 3 feet below grade and she did not bring it up for this particular project
but remind you of the intent of this criterion; this 50% net livable area is above or
at grade. Staff wanted to prevent sub -grade dungeons; putting all the affordable
housing in the basement level. And staff was looking for a little more flexibility to
varying that requirement; they have had a lot of discussions about the creative
application of design and how partially sub -grade units could be livable so they are
proposing language to allow through Special Review the Planning & Zoning
Commission to vary the dimensional requirement that 50% of the net livable space
has to be above grade.
Adams said page 2 of her memo had a list of criteria for P &Z to apply to the
specific application and all would be based on the housing board's
recommendation. Part 1 looked at specific units which have to meet at least 2 of
the standards a through e; and these standards are what the housing board already
uses to vary the minimum unit size for each category; they don't want to sacrifice
the livability of the unit and there can be creative project where this is appropriate.
Part 2 was more of a macro -view and really steps back from the usual unit and
looks at the neighborhood, the topography and do we think what is proposed is
positively impacting the neighborhood and neighborhood character. Is it
responding to the natural and built landscapes and the livability of the units. Aspen
Walk applicants proposed language that staff is not providing in this memo (to
change to a volumetric measurement); staff felt that Special Review by P &Z with a
recommendation from the housing board seemed more appropriate.
Adams said they wish to encourage creativity that results in design solutions that
are fresh and innovative and contextually harmoniously with what already exists.
Staff recommends P &Z recommend approval to City Council.
Cliff Weiss asked why this code amendment was going through GMQS and how
will affect general land use code; what he was concerned about was a number of
applications that were drilling their way into mountain sides and having 10,000
square foot houses buried into the sides of hills. Weiss asked if that was why this
was going through GMQS. Adams replied the reason that is referred to Growth
Management under the Growth Management umbrella. When a multi - family
project is required to mitigate on site for affordable housing the project has to
come before the Planning & Zoning Commission for approval for the development
of affordable housing; we don't have any limit on the amount of affordable
housing that is developed in any given year however there are specific criteria that
a project is required to meet in the code. Jennifer Phelan said that no matter what
9
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 01, 2011
you do it goes through Growth Management; an example would be when you
develop a single family home on a new site that is an administrative growth
management approval and it says there are certain forms of affordable housing
mitigation that you can do; you can build an accessory dwelling unit on site; you
can do a cash in lieu; there are a couple of options through the building permit
process administratively.
Erspamer said on page 2 "lb" to encourage more windows for light; are you
discouraging windows on the north side of the building because of heat loss.
Adams replied that was not what this was addressing. Adams said energy efficient
units increase the livability of the units and decrease the cost and impacts on the
environment. Erspamer asked how do you determine above average light. Adams
answered adding more windows and get a referral based upon the building code.
Weiss asked if someone wanted to put in a unit that was more than 50%
underground but came in with more of the requirements like putting in more
windows and storage does it still come back to P &Z. Adams replied yes, it was
still up to the Planning & Zoning Commission to agree with that.
Public Comments:
1. Patrick Berley with Stan Clauson said that the sub -grade at Aspen Walk
Affordable was identical to the sub -grade as the Free - market units.
2. Tom McCabe, APCHA director, said that he was on City Council and fought
hard for this change not to have dungeons for affordable housing. McCabe
said that he was happy with what staff came up with.
Commissioner Comments:
Weiss said one key requirement was the car share and letter "e" and he wasn't
willing to trade for the bunker therefore he wanted the developer to make this not
look like a bunker.
Erspamer said if free - market can live in these units why can't employees live in
them. Weiss commented that we are dealing with something that will be applied to
all employee housing units in the future; we are dealing with a general code
amendment. Erspamer asked what kind of verbiage can we use to protect that
street and that block. Weiss said this is germane to what developers can do to
affordable housing that have some sub -grade component.
Bert Myrin changed his mind about Section 1 and he did not like changing
permanent below grade for temporary things like a dishwasher or a car so he
10
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 01, 2011
suggested exceeding the net livable space. Myrin said above average light needed
to be permanent. Adams said it is important to step away from the neighborhood
to look at the site and what formula makes a livable unit for that specific site; it is a
good idea to have specific criteria so people know what is expected of them but she
said she worried about the unintended consequences.
Weiss reiterated it has to not be a bunker and "b" and "d" were the only 2
guidelines. Gibbs said he understood where Cliff was coming from on the bunker
issue but the real issue was livability; anything that increases the livability of the
unit. Gibbs said that car share memberships are not part of that and do not have a
relationship to livability. Gibbs said windows should say window area not number
of windows. Gibbs said it should say unit amenities and the list of amenities
should be focused on what would improve the livability of the unit. Gibbs said
how do you get a balcony in that equation. Adams answered you can have a
garden level terrace that are sometimes nice areas. Weiss asked if Stan included
storage. Gibbs replied that storage was significant because getting stuff out of
your unit will make it more livable otherwise you will get the syndrome that
everybody puts stuff on their balcony and fill up half their unit with all their
recreational equipment. Gibbs said that size does make a difference and if a
developer is willing to put money into it; they are doing something to make the
affordable housing more attractive. Gibbs said that a permanent feature should be
required for mitigation.
Erspamer said the storage was number 2 on the affordable housing survey; number
1 was quality construction. Weiss reiterated he was changing the dungeon with
more flexibility. Adams said you could have the discussion at the time of the
project coming before P &Z. Gibbs said what if we just said promotes general
livability by including as many of the following aspects as possible.
MOTION: LJErspamer moved to continue the meeting by 15 minutes; seconded
by Bert Myrin. All in favor, APPROVED.
Weiss said to roll in the parameters a bit if you make something dark give me
something light; nothing else can be traded. Phelan stated there was a general
standard that the applicant can meet or they can go through a special review; it is
not a determined outcome; it is a permissive request that may be approved or not
be approved. Adams said it was discretionary with the Special Review.
Tom McCabe said that if you had a unit that was partially sub - grade, requiring the
developer to think carefully about how he plans that unit; put the laundry room,
11
City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — March 01, 2011
some closets because you don't live in those spaces you visit those space from time
to time; to make those spaces (the living room, the dining room and the kitchen as
nice as you can) that you live in and put the utility stuff back in the closet. Weiss
asked Tom where would he place them. McCabe said that was a lifestyle question
and employees always come back with storage being important. Erspamer said he
never intended to trade off light for storage.
Gibbs asked if there was consensus on page 13 of the Resolution a, b, c, d, e on
and Section 1 Affordable Housing. Phelan replied that on a, b, c, d and e keep the
significant storage such as additional storage outside the unit, above natural light
such as above window area then the building code requires, net livable units sizes
exceed the minimal requirement and delete "e" energy efficient unit amenities and
car share memberships. Adams stated that they wanted extra insulation in the units
for livability with better construction standards. Gibbs stated that they can forward
onto Council and say that Section "1 a" was not a consensus. Gibbs said to
implement the following to the maximum. Weiss withdrew his objections because
everything comes to P &Z discretion.
MOTION: LJ Erspamer moved to recommend P &Z adopt Resolution #005 -11 to
recommend City Council approve the proposed code amendment to 26.430.030,
26.430.040 and 26.470.070.4; seconded by Cliff Weiss. Roll call: Wampler, yes;
Myrin, no; DeFrancia, yes; Weiss, yes; Erspamer, yes; Gibbs, yes.
APPROVED 5 -1.
Adjourned at 7:15 pm.
ackie Lothi n Cit Clerk
p Y Y
12