Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19871207Special Meeting Aspen City Council _ December 7. 1987 Mayor Stirling called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Councilmembers Isaac, Tuite, and Fallin present. Councilman Tuite moved to reconsider the motion regarding the certificate of occupancy and Ellis; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Councilwoman Fallin said she does not want to vote on this issue because Council was going to get information from the city attorney. Councilman Tuite reminded Council they had discussed their concerns of the process and of Elli's building. Councilman Tuite said since then he has had the opportunity to go over the HPC minutes. It was made very clear what the city was getting in these minutes. All in favor, with the exception of Councilwoman Fallin. Motion carried. Mayo r Stir 1 i ng sa i d th i s wi 11 be discussed at the end of the meeting. ORDINANCE #54, SERIES OF 1987 - Floor Area Ratios R-6 Zone Mayor Stirling said the issues raised by Council at the last meeting were proceeding with these amendments in the RMF, R-15, R-15A zones, addressing the issue of lowering the sliding scale on lots that are smaller than 6,000 square feet, and the size of garages that should be exempted, below grade construction and how that is calculated. (Councilman Gassman came into the Council meeting) . Alan Richman, planning director, reminded Council P & Z recommen- dations are (1) this is limited to the R-6 zone only; (2) the FAR changes begin for lots 6,000 square feet and larger; (3) the reductions recommended are about 10 percent below the present sliding scale; (4) the setback changes recommended by P & Z begin with lots of 4500 square feet and increase; these are in a sliding scale format; (5) P & Z also came up with the concept of a total front and sideyard, which allows usable yards, solar exposure, and flexibility. This concept sets minimums for sideyards from 5 to 15 feet; (6) P & Z came up with the concept of site coverage, a requirement in addition to setbacks. This concept starts to make a difference in the larger lots and allows flexibility in design; (7) the calculation methodology has been revised in numerous ways. Richman pointed out in these changes there are areas for advantages to the builder as well as some that take away. Richman stated this regulation is clear, simpler and addresses bulk in a more straightforward way. The last part 1 Special Meeting Aspen City Council December 7. 1987 of P & Z's recommendation has to do with the non-conforming section of the Code. Richman pointed out any time there are changes in setbacks or floor area ratios that make stricter requirements, some structures will be made non-conforming. Richman said staff recommended Council adopt the non-conforming changes to the Code to make them simpler and less onerous. Richman pointed out the dollar limitation on repairs and main- tenance has been eliminated. Richman told Council the calcula- tion methodology and the non-conforming sections are not R-6 specific. Richman presented a slide show to demonstrate floor area ratios, setback and houses in the west end. Richman said FAR alone is not the answer; different designs look different. Richman pointed out a large setback goes a long way to returning the community to its prior image. A large setback lets people look through to the mountains when they are walking along the street and eliminate the feeling of crowdedness, and of snow falling from the neighbor. Richman reminded Council they requested staff to look at changes in the floor area ratio beginning with the 4500 square foot lot. Richman said he used the 1981 floor area figures for smaller lots. Richman told Council he went back to P & Z with the concern for subgrade areas. There is a concern for houses that are excavated around the bottom. P & Z's recommendation is that excavation results in more than 10 percent of wall area of that subgrade story being exposed, begins to count as floor area. P & Z recommends this count at the rate of 1/2 square foot for each square foot of floor area. Richman presented language for this change. Richman said there has been no decision made on the garage exemption. P & Z has recommended 500 square feet, the Code is 600, the staff recommendation is 400 square feet exemp- tion for garages. Richman noted in his definition for subgrade, finished grade and natural grade are defined in the Code, which is why version 1 is more technical and precise. Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. Peter Van Domelen, representing Victoria Square, noted their PUD was approved by Council July 1, 1987. When Council passed the moratorium earlier, they exempted the Victoria Square from that moratorium. P & Z also exempted the Victoria Square subdivision from application of the proposed changes; however, that portion of the P & Z resolution did not appeal in Ordinance #54. Van Domelen presented the last page of the P & Z resolution, which deal with Victoria Square. Council agreed there is no intention not to continue to exempt the Victoria Square from Ordinance #54. 2 Special Meeting Aspen City Council _ December 7. 1987 Councilman Isaac asked if this project will later become a non- conforming structure. Richman said the city attorney has made a determination that the extent to which issues of FAR and setbacks are addressed in the PUD documents, that PUD should be exempt. Richman said there is no question that the Agate is exempt. Van Domelen said if this project is not specifically exempted by the ordinance, then it should be inserted in the ordinance to exempt the Victoria Square PUD from sections 1, 2, 3 and 5. Council asked that staf f include thi s before f final adoption if they f eel it is necessary. Welton Anderson, chairman of P & Z, told Council P & Z spent a lot of time working with numbers and with lot coverage and to make sure the numbers are workable. Anderson said he hopes Council adopts this scale rather than taking it further down. Anderson sa i d he f ee 1 s th e a r ea of the wal l that needs to be counted is the area above 10 percent. Richman said it has been a common procedure of the building department that when a require- ment sets a minimum amount, it is a manner of interpretation where to start counting. Anderson said he does not feel one can build a garage of 400 square f eet and get out of the car when it is parked in there. Don told Council he attended all P & Z meetings and recommended that Council adopt the P & Z recommendations verbatim. Don Erdman pointed out one of the issues brought up in the slide presentation is the great aspect of old Aspen, verticality. Erdman said he approves of the proposed changes in the floor area calculations; however, there are times when a portion of a house might have a third story to allow the designer the flexibility to make the house smaller in footprint. Erdman requested Council consider changing the height to 28 feet. Councilwoman Fallin said the houses in the slide presentation that were set back with a lot of vegetation were not perceived as tall. Councilwoman Fallin asked if there is a possibility of exchanging greater setbacks for more height. Richman said the number of stories one can get into a house relates directly to site coverage more than setbacks. Richman said with the proposed changes, one could fit the maximum FAR allowable within the two story configuration and have enough additional flexibility to not build square upon square. Richman said if Council is interested in changing the height limit to 28 feet, the site coverage requirements should become more stringent. Joe Wells said there are sections in Ordinance #54 which apply to other zones district. Wells said the area he is concerned about is the dramatic increase in non-conforming structure. Wells said 3 Special Meeting Aspen City Council December 7,___1987 the language in this section is becoming more restrictive. Wells pointed out that the rules of calculation are becoming more complicated. Wells said the rules regarding calculation of floor area ratio, open space and volume will increase the work load of the building department. Wells brought up the calculation of decks, balconies and stairways and said it can be cleaned up. Gideon Kaufman said this amendment started with concern over large houses on large lots. Kaufman said that is where the amendments should be directed. Kaufman said changes with smaller lots create more problems than are solved. Kaufman said there should not be any changes to lots of 6,000 square feet or less. This would make many wonderful houses that create the character of the west end non-conforming. Kaufman said a lot of families in the west end own a 6,000 square foot lot and making the FAR smaller would mean they could not build a house for their families. Kaufman said he does not feel changes are needed for smaller lots. Kaufman told Council if they adopt this ordinance, they will be placing a large burden on houses in the west end with the non-conforming section. Kaufman said this will make it difficult for people to get loans for these houses. Kaufman said adopting this section would also be making a major change in the city's policy as well as making many houses non-conforming. Kaufman said under the new language if people voluntarily make changes to their structures, they have to meet the conforming situation. Richman told Council there has never been any question if there are recommendations for changes, the greater the degree of changes, the greater the degree of non-conformities created. Richman said section 6 does not have to be part of this ordi- nance. It was going to be part of the code simplification. Richman said he included it because the existing non-conforming section of the code is the toughest one to deal with, it internally inconsistent, and very confusing. Richman said this proposal is one of the simplest articles of the entire code. Richman said there is a strong policy change in this section. This has been a strong recommendation made by the consultant. When a non-conforming structure is willfully demolished by its owner and is to be rebuilt, then it ought to be rebuilt in conformity. Richman said this is the only time to have neighbor- hoods become that which they should be. Richman said staff has recognized that historic landmarks have a problem in term of meeting this provision. Richman said P & Z acknowledged another incentive for designation of landmarks. Richman pointed out that landmarks do not have to be restored within the code requirements but can be restored within their existing limitations. Richman told Council he spoke with an appraiser and with local lenders 4 Special Meeting Aspen City Council December 7, 1987 and was assured that as long as the provision is there for replacement, the structure will continue to be loanable. Richman told Council the non-conforming provision say that one cannot increase the degree of non-conformity. The section does not say that a structure cannot be expanded. Richman said these provisions state that people have to build within these regula- tions, which is a reason these regulations are being adopted. Kaufman said the present regulations allow a person to increase a structure as long as the non-conformity is not increased. With this regulations, a house would have to be cut out of a setback in order to expand the house. Kaufman said this is a burden to impose upon property owners. Richman said this is standard operating procedure in non-conforming provisions across the country. Richman said if Council takes that limitation out of the non-conforming provisions, they do not have non-conforming provisions. Richman pointed out that the ordinance is removing the 10 percent per year limitation of remodeling houses. Richman agreed there is a significant change in the non-conforming provisions proposed. This change came through the code simplifi- cation process and staff feels it is important. Jim Colombo, P & Z member, said what he thought was the mandate from Council was that there were problems with larger than 6,000 square foot lots. Colombo said he does not feel any changes should be made for lots below 6,000 square feet. Colombo said the garage exemption should be larger than 400 square feet. Colombo said if the theory is to get cars off the street, people should be given a large enough exemption to work with. Colombo told Council P & Z put a lot of time in to reach these FAR numbers and he does not feel they should be reduced any farther. Bill Martin told Council he has a survey of the West Side Improvement Association in which 75 percent of the 120 respondees support a reduction in the FAR. Martin said the WSIA is very supportive of the efforts of the planning department to tackle the oversize structures being built in Aspen. Martin recommended Council adopt the proposals made in Richman's latest memorandum, reduce size for sliding scales, new subgrade calculations, and reduce the two car garages to 400 square feet. Martin said the WSIA feels the setbacks should be 20 feet, as in Richman' s original recommendation. Martin said garages are responsible for increasing size of structures and filling lots. Martin recom- mended for lots of 3,000 to 7500 square feet be permitted only a one car 250 square foot garage. Martin said their investigation discovered that allowable overhangs and decks of 15 percent of the FAR is an arbitrary figure. Martin recommended this be changed to 10 percent to further reduce the lot coverage. Martin 5 Special Meeting Aspen City Council December 7, 1987 encouraged Council to expedite these type amendments to RMF, R-15 and R-15A districts. Martin said he is concerned about the statement that the new calculation methodology may not result in reductions in building size. Martin said if that is true, he endorses Richman's recommendation of further reductions in the FAR. Wells pointed out that the methodology for calculations applies to all zone districts. Wells said these rules affect all the other zone districts, not just R-6. Dale Potvin said he is concerned about the non-conforming aspect of this ordinance Potvin said limiting the garages to anything less than 600 square feet will mean that not everything will be able to be stored in garages and will be stored outside. Councilman Isaac pointed out that people are allowed to build any size garage they want. This ordinance will merely exempt a certain square footage. Bob Ritchie said in the new method of measuring square footage, space f or mechanical storage will not count. Richman said some of the areas will be eliminated from exemption and there are some areas of increased exemptions which more than make up for the energy areas. Richman told Council the building department feels the calculation methodology will be somewhat of a wash. Richman said in the calculation methodology they did not intend to make major reductions in the floor area but to come up with something that is simpler and more workable. Jack Frishman said Council has a responsibility to decrease the possibility of houses being torn down in the west end and replaced with large new structures. Frishman encouraged Council to proceed with what they started out to do, to stop what has happened in the west end. Frishman said the height limit should not be raised. Eloise Ilgen asked about the possibility of building a fourplex on Main street. Mayor Stirling said this is the office zone, not the R-6 zone, and suggested Ms. Ilgen talk to the planning office about this property. Charles Knight said he feels the process that has taken place has been very complementary to the community. There has been input from professional people and from residents. Knight said the P & Z recommendation is strong and Council should adopt it. Knight said to start whittling at the P & Z recommendation is to start moving backward. Terry, architect, said he would like Council to consider raising the height to 28 feet or to eliminate the average height and go to 30 feet maximum ridge height. Don Erdman told Council there are some R-6 lots which have nothing to do with the rectilinear city grid and are much greater than 15,000 square feet. Erdman said these lots are much more like 6 Special Meeting Aspen City Council D__ecember 7, 1987 R-15 lots and asked if these would be rezoned to R-15. Richman pointed out that Section 8 of the ordinance discusses non-aligned lots. Richman said for these lots the traditional way of looking at front versus side won't work. Richman said if these lots are in excess of 15,000 square feet, the owner ha s the ability to petition for rezoning. Richman told Council no zoning map changes were noticed or discussed at P & Z level. Steve Barnett said this process has been educational and applauded the process. Graeme Means said he supports the P & Z recommendation. Means said anything more restrictive reduces the flexibility of designers. Sally Roach said the slide presenta- tion demonstrated how subjective looking at FAR is. Council should keep that in mind in this discussion. Ms. Roach said the current FAR for 6,000 square foot lots is minimal for a family. Ms. Roach said 500 square feet for a garage is acceptable and 600 square feet is better. Ms. Roach said the city cannot ask people to get their cars off the street and not give them a good place to put them. Ms. Roach said Council should pass the P & Z recommendations. Councilman Isaac said he would like to leav e the FARs the way the P & Z recommended them. Councilman Isaac moved as far as FARs to go with the P & Z recommendation for ratios; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. Councilwoman Fallin said she would like to take section 4 out of the ordinance as it takes the ratios to all the zone. Council- woman Fallin said the other zones should be dealt with like the R-6 was. Richman said section 4 does not change the FAR. Richman explained that the existing area and bulk table in the Code 1 i st s the R-6 zone and f or all the other zones, it says "same as R-6". Richman said section 4 keeps the FAR the same in all the other zones but changes the table in the Code. Mayor Stirling said he originally asked f or a reduction in the 6,000 square feet and less. Mayor Stirling said Council will be remiss if they do not address these lots. Mayor Stirling said this reduction is about 120 square feet. Councilman Tuite said he feels the setbacks will help address the problem of overcrowd- ing. Mayor Stirling said he feels the goal is to retain the village scale and feel of the neighborhood in the west end, and it is incumbent upon Council to preserve the character and scale of the west end. Councilman Isaac said the west end has a lot of already developed lots of 6,000 square feet and less. This would be creating a lot of non-conforming structures. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Gassman and Mayor Stirling. Motion carried. 7 Special Meeting Aspen City Council December 7, 1987. Mayor Stirling moved to have a 20 feet front yard setback. Motion DIES for lack of a second. Councilman Isaac moved that Council adopt the P & Z recommenda- tions for setbacks; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. Mayor Stirling said he feels this is a very good recommendation. Mayor Stirling said he would like to see it stronger but it is very inventive. All in favor, motion carried. Council accepted the site coverage as presented in the ordinance. Council retained the height at 25 feet. Mayor Stirling moved to reduce the exemption for garages to 400 square feet. Motion DIES for lack of a second. Councilwoman Fallin moved to adopt the garage exemption of 500 square feet; seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, wit h the exception of Mayor Stirling. Motion carried. Richman explained if a property has the opportunity to be accessed from the alley to gain that exemption for a garage, it must by be the alley. Richman told Council the maximum FAR on site is increased by 15 percent for all the outside of the four walls of the structure that are in someway covered, like a deck under an overhang. Richman said these projections create an interesting building as well as reduce the perceived bulk. Richman encouraged Council to retain this provision; however, there is nothing magical about the 15 percent. Richman said the calculation method is increas- ing the kinds of areas that can fall into this provision. Mayor Stirling moved to accept version 1 of subgrade areas for the issue of calculation; seconded by Councilman Gassman. Council asked staff to address the issue of 0 to 10 and over l0. All in favor, motion carried. Richman explained in height, "plate" height is the measurement of the uppermost measurement of the wall height. If the room meets the roof and the roof is in an A frame, the roof volume is not calculated. Councilman Isaac said he has misgivings about the entire section 6 addressing non-conformities. Councilman Isaac suggested 8 Special Meeting Aspen City Council December 7, 1987 eliminating this entire section and deal with it separately in a separate ordinance. Councilwoman Fallin said she has misgiving about the non-conformities being in this ordinance as opposed to Council addressing the entire issue of non-conformities in code simplification. Richman said because Ordinance #54 is going to create non- conformities to apply the existing regulations to all these structures will create a significant level of hardship. Richman pointed out the existing non-conforming section of the code requires the staff to do more interpretations than any other section. Richman said the policy changes in this section are the removal of the limitation on repairs and maintenance, and the issue of whether the intention is to have non-conforming struc- tu r e s at some point become conforming structures if the owner willfully destroys the structure. P & Z came to the conclusion that the answer is yes. Richman said he feels now is the time to address this issue. When Council does the code simplification, there are 13 articles and about 1300 issues. Richman said this section 6 does make structures non-conforming. Mayor Stirling said he feels it is appropriate to address this issue now. Councilman Gassman said he feels this section is a big improvement. Joe Wells noted this section could effect every structure in town, not just R-6. Councilwoman Fallin said that is why she would prefer this to be a separate ordinance. Richman told Council he struggled with that issue and felt it was a positive step for structure that would become non-conforming. Eloise Ilgen asked the Council if there is some way to give special treatment to people who have lived here for 65 years. Ms. Ilgen suggested a special group to help these people work out their retirement and what they can do with their property. Ms. Ilgen said these people may be penalized because they kept their property for all these years. Wells said this section is making the language more restrictive. Councilman Isaac said citizens know this issue before Council is dealing with the R-6 zone but may not be aware the non-conformity will be affecting them. Councilman Isaac moved to delete section 6 and deal with it as a separate ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Gassman and Mayor Stirling. Motion carried. Councilman Isaac moved to make section 6 into a separate ordinance and bring it back to Council for first reading December 21; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. 9 Special Meeting Aspen City Council December 7, 1987 Mayor Stirling moved to continue the public hearing on Ordinance #54 to December 14; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. ELLI'S RECONSIDERATION City Attorney Taddune said at the last meeting Council asked the city staff to negotiate with the developer for some contribution to mitigate against the effect of development in exchange for a certificate of occupancy. Council requested some input from Taddune on whether there was any irregularity in the process. Taddune told Council he has a memorandum f rom Steve Bur stein planning office, indicating that all of Phil Holstein's comments are accurate. Holstein was encouraged in the process to con- figure the Elli's structure the way it developed; the developer was assured he would receive growth management exemption by participating in that process. There is a letter from Gideon Kaufman requesting that the planning off ice confirm there would be an exemption from the growth management process if his client went through the process. Taddune told Council the approved plan is for 12,069 square feet; the maximum FAR at 1.5:1 would have been 13,570 square feet and the maximum FAR of 2:1 would have resulted in 18,000 square feet. The 2:1 FAR would have applied only with a bonus for on-site employee housing. Taddune told Council he reviewed the HPC minutes. The minutes of the June 23, 1987, meeting are very inf ormative regarding the representations made by the developer and the impression of the HPC. Taddune quoted from the minutes, Bill Poss "Elli's will be pulled apart and almost leveled to the ground and put back together". Taddune told Council initially, the plan was for Elli's to be retained and the new building to envelop it. As the review process proceeded, it became apparent that Elli's could not be retained but that it would hav e to be demolished and reconstructed. Taddune told Council there was concern on another HPC's member that the public should be made aware of what actually would be happening. Taddune said the HPC minutes made it clear that this is a replica of Elli's not a restoration. Taddune said the Code addresses the expansion of a historic structure, not the expansion of a replica. Taddune pointed out there was concern of the HPC that this project was going to be granted an exemption from GMP. The problems with Elli's evolved over time, were brought to the HPC, the planning office was made aware of these problems. Taddune said this project probably does not fall within the city's ordinance. However, the HPC was 10 Special Meeting Aspen City Council December 7. 1987 granted the power to exercise discretion and that discretion was not challenged. Taddune said the applicants feel they have done, throughout the process, what the planning office and HPC wanted them to do. Richman pointed out that the HPC accepted the restoration plan of a designated historic landmark and was subject to the exemption. Councilwoman Fallin said she is opposed to granting exemption for a project to replicate. Councilwoman Fallin said she does not feel this project is restoration, and there is a question if they should have been granted exemptions for what they did. Phil Holstein said it is very difficult to restore a wooden building. Councilman Tuite said he talked to two members of HPC who f elt they were duped. Councilman Tuite said from the HPC minutes it is clear the committee was told what they were going to get. Mayor Stirling said Council has made a change in the historic guidelines to remand a project to Council if there is a question at all. Councilman Tuite moved to rescind the action taken by Council November 23, 1987; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Richman said staff can make it clear that replication is not eligible for GMP exemption. Bill Poss, HPC member, told Council there is a fine line between replication and restoration; replication is a f orm of restoration. Poss said the city will have to judge each case as it comes up. Taddune said Council has to take into account that they may not get a historic result. If this building went through GMP, there could have been an entirely new building. Council will have to decide whether they want to encourage the type of development that resulted from this. Councilman Isaac said this developer created a lot of commercial space without having to deal with the impacts of that develop- ment. Richman said allowing a project not to be subject to competition but be subject to impact mitigation may be an incentive to projects. All in favor, motion carried. Gideon Kaufman asked for clarification that the building depart- ment will be told they can issue the temporary certificate of occupancy. Richman said he will work with the building depart- ment on the certificate of occupancy as with any other building. Kaufman said he feels when the building is done, people will be pleased with the fact that Elli's looks very similar. Kaufman said he feels that the community did get something in this process and there is benefit from having this corner look the way it did. Phil Holstein said he feels the building will be an 11 Special Meeting Aspen City Council December 7, 1987 asset to the community. Holstein suggested in the future the city might have a scoring system for historic projects, and the highest score gets the most exemptions. This would separate the very important restoration projects. City Manager Bob Anderson said the county has budgeted for an additional one-half of a zoning enforcement person. Anderson said the city does not have this budgeted. Anderson asked if Council wants to add 518,000 to the budget for the other half of this person. Mayor Stirling suggested staff bring this up at the budget hearing December 9th. Mayor Stirling said he would like to hear if there is a need f or this. Mayor Stirling said he is interested in greater efficiency. Mayor Stirling moved to adjourn at 8:00 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Kathryn S Koch, City Clerk 12