Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20230103Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2023 Page 1 of 12 Chairperson McGovern called the regular Planning and Zoning (P&Z) meeting for January 3rd , 2023 to order at 4:32 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Brittanie Rockhill, Christine Benedetti, Jason Suazo, Sam Rose, Tom Gorman, and Teraissa McGovern. Staff in Attendance: Amy Simon, Community Development Planning Director Kevin Rayes, Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Simon thank everyone for their service this year. PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Rockhill motioned to approve the minutes for November 17th, 2022 and December 6th, 2022. Mr. Gorman seconded the motion. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Mr. Suazo, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; and Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of six (6) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None PUBLIC HEARINGS Lot 1 Vandemoer Hill Lot Split | Variations from Certain Residential Design Standards | Special Review to Develop Accessory Dwelling Units | Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits | Growth Management Review Ms. McGovern asked if notice had been provided. Ms. Johnson responded legal notice had been sufficiently provided within the code requirements for the hearing. Ms. McGovern then opened the hearing and turned to floor over to staff. Mr. Kevin Rayes provided a brief an overview of the application including multiple requests for variations of the Residential Design Standards (RDS) for the development of two free market homes as well as a special review, growth management and affordable housing credit reviews associated with two proposed accessory dwelling units (ADU). The floor was then turned over to the applicant. Mr. Chris Bendon, BendonAdams, introduced himself as representing the applicant. He introduced Mr. Bob Bowden, Bowden Homes, as the applicant for the proposed development. He also introduced Mark Janian, B2 Builders, and John Galambos, Galambos Architect, with the applicant team. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2023 Page 2 of 12 Mr. Bendon then displayed the location of the applicant’s lot on a map of Aspen. He then provided details on the lot which lies partially in the original townsite and part of it is on the other side of Power Plant Rd. He displayed a picture of the proposed dwellings on the flat portion of the lot explaining where the ADUs would be located and the two free market homes. He noted the ADUs require approval from P&Z for their size and affordable housing credits. The two free market homes require approvals for RDS variations requested. Mr. Bendon provided a brief history of Mr. Bowden’s previous development projects which don’t typically require board hearings. He reviewed the development options Mr. Bowden considered for the lot including deed restricted units with the free market units, utilize the code based floor area and affordable housing credit incentives to develop deed restricted units, sell the affordable housing units to a local employer. He added Mr. Bowden has a long standing passion and support of the Aspen School District. In discussions with the school district, Mr. Bowden heard there is a need to attract and keep school district employees across the spectrum, not just teachers. Mr. Bendon noted the applicant intends to sell the units to a local employer, hopefully the school district, but at this time there is no contract. Whoever purchases the affordable housing units will need to be reviewed by the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA). Mr. Bowden purchased the property and began designing back in 2021. Mr. Bendon then displayed a map of the original lot (Lots 1 and 2) and then described the history of the lot split. He also described the steep slope of the lot existing on the western side of the lot on the other side of Power Plant Rd which is unbuildable. He also identified the flat portion of the lot. Part of the eastern side was part of the original town site. He displayed a map of Lot 1 and noted Power Plant Rd had not been dedicated until October 2020. A small portion of the road is still on the downhill side is still on private property. He pointed to a red line representing the street frontage of the lot. He stated the dedication of Power Plant Rd is 30 FT wide allowing for the road and a 16 FT easement on the downhill side of the road for a sidewalk and trail. He pointed out where the city might build a sidewalk if they pursued it. He then pointed to an area on Smuggler St the applicant considers to be the pedestrian area and the front of the lot. Mr. Bendon reviewed the code allowing one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) per free market residence. The ADU may be rented to a local working resident and not short termed rented. The property owner may decide to use it at their discretion. There has been a low utilization rate of the program. An ADU may be fully deed restricted and comes along with incentives for floor area and affordable housing credits. Mr. Bendon stated the proposed ADUs are 1,366 SF in size. One is designed as a 3 bedroom unit and the other would be a 4 bedroom unit. This would generate 6.5 Full Time Equivalent (FTEs) of credit. He believes the application meets the special review criteria for the affordable housing credits. He displayed a plan of the 4 bedroom unit and pointed out the flex space that could be used as a bedroom. He noted the city has had a possible issue with the income maximum reached by individual tenants of a 4 bedroom unit, but he believes this is a city issue and not an applicant issue. Ideally, the applicant would like the purchaser of the units to decide the number of bedrooms. Mr. Bendon then displayed a map showing the proposed structures on the lot and discussed how they decided on the frontage of the homes oriented toward an open area near Smuggler St. He stated the south house has no street presence. Staff is concerned of the one story element. He noted the garage doors were designed as one door and they are willing to change the design to garage door. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2023 Page 3 of 12 Mr. Bendon then discussed the free market north house. The applicant team feels the house is oriented as it should be toward the pedestrian pathway. He stated placing the front door on the side would not work because there is not a sidewalk there and no room for parking. He also stated the design has clear massing of the structure. The design of the garage door has the same issue as the south house. He noted there is a window well along the side that sticks out beyond the front façade. He stated that could be changed if necessary. Mr. Bendon pointed out two locations on a map of the property and displayed vignettes from a car view perspective and a pedestrian view. He also displayed a vignette showing the entry way of the north house directly facing Smuggler St. He stated the sidewalk would be located in the paved area of the road. The team does not feel this is an elegant scenario. Mr. John Galambos, representing the applicant team, discussed the design process regarding the placement of the homes in relation to Smuggler St. Mr. Galambos believes the corner is dangerous and not a good location to place an entry on a downward facing street. Mr. Bob Bowden thanked the board and discussed the process for determining to build affordable housing and where to place the structures. He noted setbacks for the lot had been defined, but staff could not provide an opinion regarding the frontage of the structures. He agreed the road is not safe and he would not want the entrance on that side. Ms. McGovern asked if there were questions for the applicant. Ms. Rockhill asked if there was a cap on the asking price or rent for the ADUs. Mr. Bendon stated they will be category restricted and believes they will be a Category 4. The rental rate will be capped but the sale price is not. Ms. Benedetti asked if the walkways depicted on the sketches are public or not. Mr. Bendon responded it is in the public right of way. Ms. Benedetti asked if there is a sidewalk on the adjacent lot and Mr. Bendon stated there is not one at this time, but the lot just went through an approval process, and he would expect the city to require a sidewalk as part of the approval. Mr. Gorman asked if his assumption that the requested SF increase in the ADU will increase the sales price of the units was accurate. Mr. Bendon responded they would expect an employer to look at the units to see if they line up with their needs. He reiterated employers have a wide range of needs for all their employees. These units are geared more for families and the SF designed isn’t necessarily luxurious. Mr. Bowden added the costs go up to build units with more bedrooms and he wanted to build something that has enough livable space. Mr. Gorman asked if the applicant had projected any value on the proposed affordable housing credits. Mr. Bendon stated the team has but cautioned about talking about financial pro forma of the project. In the past, the credits have been valued similar to the city’s cash in lieu rates. Mr. Bowden stated from an economic standpoint it would be easier to pay cash and not build the units at all. He feels building the units is the right thing to do. He is not sure what the exact price for a credit is and is considering using them himself. Mr. Gorman asked the applicant to confirm if there is a commitment to sell the units to a local employer. Mr. Bendon confirmed that was accurate. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2023 Page 4 of 12 Mr. Rose asked them to explain to explain the proposed ADU SF proposed, and minimum required in the table on page 11 of the agenda packet. Mr. Bendon initially they proposed two six bedroom units, but city staff asked them to calibrate them closer to a three or four bedroom unit and get them closer to the 1,200 SF minimum. Ms. McGovern added the minimum SF required is an APCHA guideline. Ms. McGovern then turned the floor over to staff. Mr. Kevin Rayes, Planner, then reviewed the application. He noted it is unique in that it is divided by Power Plant Rd. The west side is zoned R-30 lower-density residential, and the east side is zoned R-6 medium-density residential. The application is for the east side of the lot. He displayed the proposed site plan and described the location of the structures and noted engineering has not approved a location for a sidewalk. He stated he had not referred this to engineering because he was not aware it was proposed as a public walkway. He described the location of the vehicular access via the alley which terminates at the lot. Mr. Rayes then reviewed the size of the proposed ADUs. He stated net livable area of 1,365 SF exceeds the maximum allowable under the land use code which triggers the special review. Mr. Rayes then reviewed the purpose of the RDS, the criteria for granting a variation and the requested variations to the RDS on the two free market homes. He stated staff acknowledged the building orientation standard has been met by the application and oriented towards Smugger St. He displayed a survey map showing the change in grade on the property and pointed out an approximate 10 FT drop between the property and Power Plant Rd so there is essentially no relationship on that portion of the property with the street. He then reviewed the standards related to the articulation of building mass on the north home. Staff does not find this criterion met and does not support a variation from the standard. Staff believes the applicant could meet the standard with the offset with one-story ground level connector standard option by pulling in the walls 5 FT on the front and back of the connector portion of the structure. He then reviewed the standards related to the build-to requirement on the south home. He displayed a map showing the setback line on the property. Staff finds this criterion met and is supportive of a variation for the south home. Next, he reviewed the standards related to the one-story element requirement for both the north and south homes. Staff does not believe there is a hardship to meet this standard because they are new builds and there is plenty of space on the property for the structures. Staff finds the criterion to be not met and recommends denial for a variation for both homes. Mr. Rayes then reviewed the standards for the design of the garage doors for both homes. Staff finds the criterion to be not met and recommends denial for a variation for both homes. He then reviewed the standards for the entry connection for both homes. Staff agrees with the applicant regarding the safety issues of placing a door on the façade closest to Smuggler St. Staff agrees with the applicant regarding the entry on the south house because the entry is directly behind the north home and is not visible from the street. Staff does not find the criterion met for the north home and met for the south home. Staff supports a variation from the standard for the south home. Mr. Rayes then reviewed the standards for the lightwell/stairwell location for the north house. Staff feels the lightwell could be moved or reduced in size to meet the standard. Staff finds the criterion to be not met and recommends denial for a variation for the north home. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2023 Page 5 of 12 He then reviewed the standards for the door height on the south house. Staff finds the criterion to be not met and recommends denial for a variation for the south home. Mr. Rayes then discussed the standards for the special review, growth management and certificates of affordable housing credits relating to the ADUs . The special review is necessary because the applicant wants to build the units slightly larger than code allows. The maximum amount allowed is 1,200 of net livable SF with ten percent (10%) of which must be closet or storage area. This maximum amount was part of some amendments made to the earlier version of the program because homeowners were building the units, but never renting them to working locals. Mr. Rayes noted the proposal to deed restrict these units with mandatory occupancy is quite unique and very beneficial to the community. Staff is generally supportive of allowing the additional SF for these units. He then reviewed the number of bedrooms to be 3 or 4 in one units with 3 or 3.5 FTEs housed and 3 bedrooms in the second unit with 3 FTEs housed. He responded to Mr. Rose’s question regarding the minimum unit sizes required by APCHA standards by stating a 4 bed unit minimum is 1,500 SF and a 3 bed unit minimum is 1,200 SF. He noted APCHA’s comments are included in Exhibit G in the agenda packet. He added the APCHA standards say if a unit provides alternative amenities that increased livability, the unit size can be reduced by up to 20% of the size required. He stated the 1,365 SF proposed is well within the threshold of this 20% reduction. APCHA’s comments stated the proposed units include alternative amenities such as private outdoor space, private porches, significant storage, fenestration, and the location. He then reviewed the special review standards as detailed in Exhibits A-G of the agenda packet. He cautioned the board members to make a decision based on the applicant stating the units will be sold to a particular entity since there is no way of guaranteeing or enforcing this. He stated staff believes the application promotes the ADU program, the purpose of the zone district and the unit’s general livability. He noted the location is very walkable and close to bus routes. He pointed out staff is concerned about the proposed four bedroom unit because of the way the APCHA income levels are structured. He provided a hypothetical example with four unrelated tenants. Based on the cumulative household income limits, which is currently $226,550 per year for a category 4 unit. If one of those individuals makes more than the average, it impacts the others and, in some cases, one of the tenant leaves the units. The remaining tenants make close to the maximum allowed so it is challenging for a new tenant to qualify. He stated credits are issued on each bedroom. Staff is recommending three bedroom units. If the applicant wants to pursue the four bedroom unit, staff is recommending it be prioritized for a family over unrelated individuals. Staff wants to encourage families to live in these units if possible. Mr. Rayes supports the request for special review, growth management review and certificates of affordable housing credits to develop the two deed restricted ADUs with the condition the bedroom count be reduced to three bedrooms per ADU. Alternatively, staff supports approving one three bedroom unit and one four bedroom unit with the four bedroom unit rented to a family with at least two dependents to ensure full occupancy of the larger unit. He stated the applicant has requested flexibility in defining the number of bedrooms per unit and he cautioned the board members to leave it open as to how many credits could be issued. Their approval should qualify the exact number of credits to be issued to eliminate ambiguity moving forward. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2023 Page 6 of 12 Mr. Rayes stated he would answer any questions. Ms. McGovern asked the commissioners for questions to staff. Ms. Rockhill asked if these units are not sold for some time, are they allowed to sit or do they need to be rented per APCHA criteria to be occupied. Her second question is it within APCHA’s purview to require the larger bedroom unit be rented to a family. Mr. Rayes responded he would need check with APCHA regarding any rules regarding occupancy. Mr. Bendon stated typically a developer will need to satisfy all of their obligations prior to the issuance of the certificates of occupancy (CO). He also believes the ADUs would have to be sold to an employer because the free market structures will have bonus area provided by the development of the ADUs. He added the employer that purchases the ADUs may keep them empty, but that would probably be a violation of the deed restriction. Mr. Rayes then responded to her second question. He stated staff believes the language provided regarding this application is sufficient to avoid any challenges with the Fair Housing Act. He noted it is challenging for APCHA to enforce the example scenario he discussed regarding unrelated individuals renting the ADU when it is owned by a third party. Mr. Rose asked why the ADU is at a category four and not be higher to accommodate more workers Mr. Rayes noted the code requires category four or lower. The ADU program encourages developers to provide units that are affordable. Mr. Gorman referenced a design on figure 13 on page 16 of the agenda packet that the city likes. He asked there is a functional or aesthetic reason why the city is requesting the articulation. Mr. Rayes stated it is not related to function, but the aesthetic and the historic context of development in Aspen. He feels it is important to maintain the articulation in this area to reduce massing. Mr. Gorman asked if in order for the application to proceed, the architect will need to redesign the street facing door. Mr. Rayes stated staff will not tell them how to design the house, but believe this standard is important. He also believes there may have been a misunderstanding regarding the requirement to have a door on the street facing façade. He stated as long as a door is directly facing the street, they will meet the standard. Mr. Gorman asked if the lightwell concerns are safety related or aesthetic. Mr. Rayes responded it is not a safety hazard. He stated the applicant would need to comply with the building code. He stated it is more aesthetic. Ms. McGovern feels staff’s suggested solutions to the articulation of building mass and the one story element seemed to contradict each other. The solution for the articulation was to pull it back 5 ft on either side to reduce the 80 FT sidewall. The solution for the one story element needs to project from the structure. Mr. Rayes believes they could still meet the standard for the one story element because they are already projecting six FT from the façade on one side and the design just needs to meet it on the other side as well. He doesn’t want to get into the nuances of designing the structure. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2023 Page 7 of 12 Ms. McGovern wanted to clarify an image displayed in the packet of the south house when the discussion was actually about the north house. The discussion was about the projection near the fireplace. Mr. Rayes responded he would take a closer look at it. He stated the variation is regarding the light well despite what image may have been displayed. Ms. McGovern questioned why they had be listed as for sale units. She asked if selling the unit to an employer and then having the employer rent the unit qualify under APCHA guidelines. Mr. Rayes stated the for sale provision is referring to the condominization of the units and then selling them to an APCHA qualified purchaser which could be an employer or a family. Ms. McGovern asked if the ADU is sold to an APCHA qualified employer, there is no limit on the price. But if they sale to a family, it has to be set to the sale standards of a category 4 unit. Mr. Rayes responded they could sell for any price and the categorization is defined for the unit if it is rented. Ms. McGovern doesn’t feel it makes sense to her for a developer to get FTE credits and then sell it for whatever price and not actually housing employees. Mr. Bendon stated if the ADU is sold, it must be sold to a qualified user as defined by APCHA which is either the end user or a local employer. He stated it does not happen very often. He added if the unit is sold directly to the end user, the price is the deed restricted price as defined by APCHA and subsequent sales would go through the lottery system. If sold to an employer, APCHA controls the rental rate between the employer and the employee. The value of the real estate is not controlled. Ms. Johnson added the occupant would have to qualify with APCHA. Ms. McGovern opened public comment. Mr. Tom Waldeck, North St, can view the lot. He feels the design presented is attractive. He is concerned about the density of the neighborhood with the recent development and there are a lot of cars in the vicinity of 8th St close to Main St (W Hallam St). He asked how many people can be in one unit. Mr. Rayes responded the cap on salaries of those living in the unit limits the number of people living in each unit. Mr. Waldeck replied he is concerned with the number of cars parked in the area and the increased traffic in the area. Mr. Rayes enter a public comment (Exhibit Meeting 1) into the record from Tom and Betsy Starodoj, Sneaky Lane, in which they listed their concerns regarding the unstable embankment bordering the lot on Power Plant Rd and that it needs to be stabilized as part of the Lot Split approval. Mr. Rayes stated he spoke with them earlier in the day and stated this would be handled during the building permit process and is not a concern of the commission. Ms. McGovern then closed public comment. Ms. McGovern then requested a motion to extend the meeting. Mr. Gorman motioned to extend the meeting for 30 minutes and was seconded by Mr. Rose. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Mr. Suazo, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; Mr. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2023 Page 8 of 12 Gorman, yes; and Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of six (6) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Ms. McGovern then requested a short break. Ms. McGovern then opened for commissioner deliberation. She reminded the members to evaluate the application based on the merits of the code to either approve or deny it. She referred to the list on page 20 of the packet. First, the commissioners discussed the ADUs. Mr. Rose agrees with staff regarding the request for a four bedroom unit. He would approve three bedrooms for each unit. Ms. Benedetti feels this is an interesting project with the creative design combining affordable housing with luxury home building and hope other builders approach projects similar to this one. She supports the two three bedroom units. Mr. Gorman would support one three bedroom unit and one four bedroom unit but would go with two three bedroom units if that is what the other members support. Mr. Suazo supports two three bedroom units at 1,200 SF each. Ms. Rockhill appreciates the applicant trying to build as many bedrooms as possible and is okay with the increased sizes of the units. She believes it up to APCHA to enforce who is living in the units and understands the complexities of satisfying the deed restriction requirements. She is leaning towards two three bedroom units. Ms. McGovern agrees with Ms. Rockhill’s comments and thinks it is a great project. She feels a three bedroom unit with the flex space will be an easier use. She would support two three bedroom units at the proposed size. The commissioners then discussed the residential design standards. In regards to staff’s recommendation of approving the variation for the build to requirement of the south house, Ms. McGovern supports it because the house will not be seen from the street. She asked the other members if they felt differently, and the other members did not voice any concerns. Ms. McGovern asked if any members are concerned with staff’s recommendation regarding the entry connection for the south house regarding a door on the front façade. The other members did not voice any concerns. Ms. McGovern then asked the members to discuss the articulation of building mass. Ms. Benedetti would like to see the applicant meet the requirement because this will be a prominent home on a well-traveled corner and does not see a hardship. Mr. Rose would like to understand why the extra five FT as pointed out by staff is necessary since they are close to meeting the standard. Ms. McGovern stated there are several options to meet the standard. One is a sidewall max of approximately 50 FT, or you break it into two masses and step in both sides. Staff stated one side steps in, but the other side does not. Mr. Rose feels it is tough because it is so close, but he supports staff. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2023 Page 9 of 12 Mr. Suazo supports staff denial. Mr. Gorman does not have strong feelings about this because one of the walls will not be visible from the street. He will support what the other members Ms. Rockhill does not see a hardship. She is not sure how the height of the structure is lost as you drive down the road and how it interacts. At this time, she supports staff’s recommendation. Ms. McGovern agrees with staff that there was no hardship shown and with some minor design considerations, she feels it could be met. The commissioners then discussed the one story element for both houses. Ms. Rockhill supports staff’s denial of the variation for both houses. All other agreed with Ms. Rockhill. Ms. McGovern did not see that a hardship was proven, and the requirements could be met. Next, the commissioners discussed the garage door design on both houses. Staff recommended denial on both homes. Ms. Benedetti supports denial of both requests because a hardship was not proven. Mr. Rose agrees with Ms. Benedetti. Mr. Gorman stated he would approve the variation request because staff’s recommendation is based on aesthetics and not functionality. Mr. Gorman does not know why the RDS has this requirement and will choose to not vote on this request. Mr. Suazo is confused about this one. He feels a two car garage is appropriate. He stated he would deny it based on what was presented because they did not show any separation. Ms. Rockhill agrees with staff. Ms. McGovern agrees with staff and her biggest concern is the north house because you will see this from the street. She does not care as much about the south house because it will face the alley but feels the code prevents this as well. Next, the commission discussed the entry connection. Staff recommended denial on the north house and approval on the south house. Mr. Rose doesn’t agree with staff’s recommendation of denial for the north house. He supports the location as designed and does not agree with staff’s proposed locations. He feels because of the angle of the street the home is facing the street. Mr. Gorman agrees with Mr. Rose and feels the orientation of the lot allows for the entrance to be as proposed. He also feels there would be safety issues if directly facing the street as proposed by staff. Ms. Benedetti feels the orientation of the structure faces the street and supports the request. Ms. Rockhill and Mr. Suazo agrees with the others. Ms. McGovern says she struggles with this one because design-wise it is oriented in the correct place, but she cannot recommend it based on the code. She is leaning towards approving it. Ms. McGovern then requested a motion to extend the meeting to 8 PM. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2023 Page 10 of 12 Ms. Benedetti motioned to extend the meeting for 30 minutes and was seconded by Mr. Gorman. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Mr. Suazo, no; Mr. Rose, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; and Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of five (5) in favor – one (1) not in favor. The motion passed. Next, the commission discussed door height on the south north house. Mr. Suazo supports staff’s recommendation to deny the variation. Mr. Gorman agrees with staff and should take care of itself with the one story element request. The other members also agreed with Mr. Suazo and Mr. Gorman. Next, the commission discussed lightwell/stairwell location on the north house. Ms. Rockhill is not sure of the greater impacts. Ms. McGovern confirmed the vignette in the packet does not identify the correct lightwell. The lightwell recommend for denial by staff is located between the fireplace and front façade and it is an egress. Ms. Benedetti referred to figure 8 on page 14 of the agenda packet. Mr. Gorman will leave it to the others or support staff. Mr. Suazo does not see a hardship and wonders if there was a safety issue. He supports staff’s denial. Mr. Rose, Ms. Benedetti and Ms. Rockhill agreed with staff. Ms. McGovern does not see a reason why it needs to be there, so she also supports staff’s recommendation. Mr. Bendon stated the applicant would like to have an actual vote on the project as presented and if it the motion is denied, he would like to request a continuation for the project team to decide if they want to just build one free market home or a combination of a home and ADU. Mr. Bendon stated if there is a motion that is not adopted, then there is no action on the proposal. Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Bendon to clarify he is asking the commission to vote on a motion to approve the project as presented with the variations and it fails, per the code the applicant may request one continuation. She added if the motion is to deny the project, there is no option to continue the hearing. Mr. Bendon stated they would prefer a motion including the following. • The approval the ADUs at the size presented with one three bedroom ADU and one four bedroom ADU • Regarding the RDS requirements the applicant can meet the following requirements: o Build-to o Garage door design o Door height o Lightwell/Stairwell location • Variations on the following: o Articulation of building mass o Entry connection o One Story Element Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2023 Page 11 of 12 Ms. Johnson noted there was no approval for the articulation of the building mass and one story element. Ms. Johnson stated the commissioners may chose to make this motion or the applicant may request one continuance. Ms. McGovern stated she appreciates Mr. Bendon’s suggested path and personally would be very sad if this project was pulled and feels with minor adjustments would be an amazing project for the lot. She feels his hybrid request is challenging. Mr. Bendon stated he is trying to rescue a project that may be already in the trash can. He would like to give the team a chance to discuss how to move forward. Ms. Simon requested to make a comment and Ms. McGovern granted her time for her comment. Ms. Simon discouraged the commission from getting into a bargaining situation. She suggested it may be best to continue the hearing to allow time for everyone to rethink their position. She stated this project was permitted in during the moratorium because of the strong affordable housing component so they will be benefitting from some of the pre-moratorium code such as potentially less mitigation owed and not counting the basement SF. She does not want the commission to feel pressured to accept something because they are afraid the project will go away. She stated it is a good project and everyone has motivation for it to move forward. She added the next available date for a continued hearing would be in February. Mr. Bendon replied February would be acceptable. Ms. McGovern thanked Ms. Simon. She suggested continuing the hearing. Mr. Gorman stated he does not feel the parties are that far apart and motioned to continue the hearing until February 7, 2023. Mr. Rose seconded the motion. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Mr. Suazo, no; Mr. Rose, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; and Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of five (5) in favor – one (1) not in favor. The motion passed. Mr. Bendon thanked everyone. Ms. McGovern thanked the applicant team. OTHER BUSINESS Discussion to continue chair and vice chair elections Ms. McGovern asked for a motion to continue the commission chair and vice-chair elections to the next meeting. Mr. Rose motioned to continue the commission chair and vice-chair elections to the next meeting. Mr. Gorman seconded the motion. Ms. McGovern requested a roll call: Mr. Suazo, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes; Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; and Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of six (6) in favor zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 3, 2023 Page 12 of 12 Discussion to begin meeting in person Ms. McGovern stated she believes the commission should return to in person meetings. She understands the concerns regarding illnesses but feels the commission would have better meetings in person. She would like to start meeting in person at the next meeting. Mr. Rose stated in person would be fine but would like to start in April because of the health concerns and give members time to adjust. Ms. Rockhill stated at this time she will not be able to go back to in person meetings. She stated she could potentially start meeting in person in April. Virtual meetings is the best way for her to meet at this time. Mr. Suazo stated he has relentlessly pestered staff about this, and they defer to the chair to make the decision. He supports Ms. McGovern. He stated he signed up for in person meetings, not virtual. Ms. Benedetti supports in person as well. Mr. Gorman stated the virtual format is easier for him but understands there is additional information to be gained by meeting in person. Ms. McGovern stated virtual meetings are easier for her but feels everyone signed up for in person meeting. She appreciates everyone’s comments and then stated the commission will go back to in person meetings starting in February. Ms. Johnson stated they will begin noticing in person meetings and do what they can to address health concerns. Ms. Simon stated staff will work through where to meet and communicate that to the commission. ADJOURN Mr. Gorman motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Mr. Rose. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned. Cindy Klob, Records Manager